Iraq is destined to be a disaster

[NinetySix]

It occurs to me that regardless of who gets elected, there is no saving the situation in Iraq. The US Iraq policy over the next four years (and generally over the next 20) will be insufficient under either Bush or Kerry to salvage any kind of stability. The real and important difference between the two candidates in this regard comes down to the degree of the disaster.

Will Kerry take the lesson of Vietnam and apply it to the Iraq situation, doing what is necessary to bring to an end our active part in a mistake? That will be a disaster, because disaster is unavoidable in any case. Will Bush try to salvage the situation by force of arms, further inflaming the region and consequently further entangling us in it? That will also be a disaster, but as I say, disaster is unavoidable in any case.

The question really comes down to this: which of these two possible disasters can we suffer more easily? The one in which, quite likely, the muslim world becomes more radicalized and the threat of actual terrorist attacks within our borders becomes more commonplace, much as it has been in Europe for decades? Or the one in which the US must singlehandedly take on greater and greater violence in an ever-expanding sphere in the region?

The first quite possibly leaves us with at least a few allies in a relatively low-grade struggle with a web of terror organizations. The second leaves us with no allies to fight a multi-dimensional war, as old friends watch from the sidelines, and an ever-growing cauldron of resentment in the Middle East which causes the collapse of most or all of the secular governments in the region, along with a growing alliance of Iranian-style theocracies with only one target, namely us.

As much as I dread the idea of the first situation, it is even more frightening to think that it may already be the best possible situation. But in truth, the second situation is much more threatening, not only to our lives, but to US and even world democracy as a whole.

I remember thinking that Osama bin Laden's threat to bring down the United States was mere bravado and hyperbole. Bush has thus far spared no effort or expense to fulfill bin Laden's wish list by reacting to terror solely with brute force. If he should happen to be (re?)elected and continue his ham-fisted foreign policy, I fear that bin Laden might actually be able to put together the means, along with our self-destructive reactionary actions, to make good on that threat.

[knowbody0]

1. the situation in country there is not unlike

here in usa. they have been tribal and separated for centuries. we have become so separated in the last four years.will we be civil after the election? i anticipate much unrest.

[carpetbagger]

2. Kerry could turn the thing partly around.

Offers are on the table from the Arab governments for help. Some of our problems are the type that funding could solve. Many more are those that common sense could solve, at times just by not digging deeper. Either there will be a semi-legitimate election, or Kerry would come to power as those elections are cancelled, and that gives him latitude if he acts quickly to implicitly blame Bush and put out a real plan.

Also, the most powerful people in Iraq have shown themselves to be grownups. We might not like them, but they will deal with us for the most part. Sistani, in particular, has shown immense level-headedness and restraint.

[NinetySix]

5. I agree with you in part

But since we have essentially gone past a certain point of no return, what we will see is the chaos that a power vacuum creates prior to a new equilibrium being established. Granted, there will be some who are willing to cooperate in order to bring about some stability, but a stability on their terms, the kind that leaves them at the reins.

In the meantime, many factions are vying to be the group that finally takes control. Secularism is on the wane in the region, and whatever equilibrium is reached there will also indicate the nature of the new equilibrium WE reach, as well.

Remember the old truism that "everything changed after 9/11"? Well, I think in the longer term, we're going to find that everything changed after the invasion of Iraq, and that this is the event that history will consider the watershed at the beginning of the 21st century.

[Jacobin]

3. The very reason that Saddam was supported and encouraged for years

by the geopolitically savvy powerbrokers in the past, was that he was a secular military dictator who could keep the warring tribal factions at bay.

That, of course, is over with. The naivete of the neo-cons will be demonstrated in the deaths of hundreds of thousands, when an ayatollah takes over Iraq when our will to unsuccessfully repress Iraq is gone.

It is a disaster and will be a worse one as time goes on.

Was cheaper to buy the oil than to try to steal it.

Lesson: Crime does not pay.

[IdaBriggs]

4. Wow. Who would have thought it?

On Edit: I put a note in brackets, but didn't remember the HTML code would make it invisible: Sarcasm not at you! :)