|
I don't believe that most Americans are as unhappy about the war as they are with the lack of "success" in the war. I have the appalling feeling that if Bush were to bomb Baghdad as tactic, most Americans would welcome it as an indication of "accomplishment" and "doing something" and hope for the "silver bullet" effect of whatever course is proffered as an alternative to the frustrating and fruitless current policy that only increases the carnage.
This is an important point, and it's necessary to think about this to understand the political reality in the US, which will determine how and when we leave. It is my belief that most Americans are unhappy with the war for reasons that are quite different than the reasons most DUers dislike the war.
Most of us here disliked it from the beginning, on general principle. It was illegal,
and unjustified. It had a high chance of failure. It made no sense and would kill thousands of innocent pepople. Most Americans, in my experience, are not angry about the war because of these reasons. I doubt many Americans could tell you how many civilians have been killed in Iraq, but I suspect that most of them think the number is far, far lower than it actually appears to be if the Lancet report is to be believed.
In my view, Americans are fundamentally unhappy with the war because we are losing. At a very basic level, I think that most Americans believe that it is wrong, morally wrong, for the US to lose a war. Again, this is a very different way of viewing the situation, but that is the political reality in the US as I see it.
Now, to address your question. What happens when the surge fails? The surge will fail. That much seemse certain. Even the AEI in their idiotic powerpoint dog & pony admits that it has the potential to cause huge problems. We are screwed no matter what we do. Let's say we go in with the idea of getting rid of Sadr's personal army. That seems to be the course being advocated by the various morons who think we can still influence the political reality of Iraq. What happens then? What about the Badr Corps? If they see the Mahdi Army being cut down, it will be an opportunity to become the dominant Shiite militia in the country. They will act accordingly, probably by slaughtering Sadr's people alongside us. And what of the Sunni insurgents while this is going on? If there is a power struggle on the Shia side, precipitated by our decision to go after one particular Shiite militia, they will probably see it as an opportunity to divide and conquer, and will do whatever they can to undermine the Mahdi Army, the Badr Corps, and the central government even further. If we decide to go after the Sunni insurgents, they will react violently, probably against both us and the central government. And the Shiite militias will see it as an opportunity to get rid of the Sunni troublemakers once and for all. If we go in and attack both sides, the result will likely be utter chaos, as we will be seen as being against all Iraqis.
There seems to be no way of resolving this. Regardless of who we attack, the other side will take advantage of it knowing that sooner or later we will leave. And there's no way for us to attack all of the belligerents without turning Iraqi public opinion against us and the government, even more than it is now.
So, the surge will fail. When and how are the questions. Let's think about a probable timeline for the surge. Nothing is getting done until the Democrats are seated in Congress in january, that much is for certain. Bush cannot simply implement this on his own. He will need the backing of congress. So that puts us into late January before we even think about doing it. Now let's say it gets approved immediately. It will take what - one or two months to prepare? Now we're into March or April before it even begins. Who knows what's happened in Iraq between then and now. Likely, things will just get that much worse. So let's be generous and say that the surge starts in early March. Let's be even more generous and say that at a basic level it does improve the security situation in Baghdad rapidly, so that by May or June the city is no longer playing host to hundreds of civilian deaths every day. Or maybe other areas of the country stabilize because the militias are too busy dealing with Baghdad to wreak havoc elsewhere. This is an unlikely outcome, but not impossible. At this point, Bush will be able to claim that the surge has worked. This could mean real trouble, because of course the surge did not work at all - all it did was temporarily suppress violence or move it elsewhere. But there is the possibility that it could give Bush the leg room to say that we should stay for longer, or with more troops.
Anyway, all of that it somewhat of a digression from the main point I wish to make, which is this: Bush and Cheney are trying to run out the clock. They are trying their damndest not to have to pull out before their term
ends. This buys them another 4-7 months, depending on how things go. And God only knows what might happen in Iraq by June or July of next year. It's very difficult to say with any certainty.
An alternate scenario is that the surge fails miserably - violence continues or worsens in Baghdad, US casualties increase (this seems inevitable) and the government spirals even further into the abyss. At that point I think it would be nearly impossible for Bush to continue the war. He might try, as always, by manipulating reality - saying things are better when they aren't, for example. Given enough effective bullshit, they might be able to stall for a few more months, citing bogus statistics about progress that has occured, is occuring, or is about to occur. But if the surge fails in this way, then it will be the end of the war. Bush will not be able to run out the clock for two years. It is simply impossible. And when Congress has to force Bush to withdraw, all hell will break loose in American politics.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
