14 November 2006
America likely to run later, says one commentator
|In out last posting we argued that the USA faced two options in Iraq: walk out now or get thrown out later. William S. Lind has just argued that the latter option is the one the Americans will take:|
What, then, will keep us in Iraq? While both parties want to get out, neither has nor will be able to create a consensus on how to get out. Not only will they be unable to generate a consensus between the parties, or between the executive branch and the Congress, they will not be able to find consensus within either party on how the withdrawal is to be managed. The result will be paralysis and a continuation of the war.He goes on to write that neither political party wants to be tarred with the "you lost Iraq" label, but believes that the main reason for indecision is that the invaders really have "no good option" left. If they stay they will continue to be shagged by the resistence; if they leave, civil war may make Iraq an ungovernable wasteland. The best option would be for a Sunni strongman to emerge out of the chaos, says Lind, but he concludes that this is not very likely.
This is tough on Iraq, but good news for the rest of the planet. The fear has to be that the Americans will bite the bullet and call it a day over there. Then they will learn the wrong lessons from the defeat: instead of realising that imperialism's day is done, they will come to believe that the weapons and tactics used were all wrong. Thus, having assimilated all the wrong ideas, they could go off and attack yet another third world country.
The only way to avoid this is if the USA stays the course in Iraq until their army is so comprehensively broken that they can stay no more.