snoqueen wrote:An interviewee on today's Democracy Now commented the US invasion of Iraq was going to go down as one of the most spectacular military defeats in history. It's a little too early for me to go THAT far, but if things keep going the way they are . . . yep.
The U.S. military may be ordered to back down because U.S. voters do not have the appetite for carnage and arbitrary sacrifice of life. That is not the same as a military defeat because we know we will be overcome by force. It may be a political defeat because we can never make ordinary Iraqis see us as the source of stability or prosperity.
blunt wrote:The only way America could win a war against anyone smaller than us right now would be TO LOSE IT. If you haven't noticed, the world seems to think we're big bad bullies and assholes etc. and are ready to kick our ass.
Two wars and sanctions in between have put Iraq in pretty bad shape. After the Second World War, we committed tremendous resources to rebuilding Germany, Japan and the bits of Europe we wanted to keep out of the USSR. Then, as now, people saw that quick withdrawal of forces would leave a power vacuum that would inevitably strengthen anti-U.S. movements. I have not heard a good reason for us to invade Iraq, but now that weÃƒÂ¢Ã¢?Â¬Ã¢?Â¢re there, leaving early clears the way for Saudi Arabia, Iran, Baathists and stateless terrorists to vie for influence and oil wealth. This would be grossly irresponsible in terms of domestic and international security.
ItÃƒÂ¢Ã¢?Â¬Ã¢?Â¢s no secret that groups like Hamas win hearts and minds by providing health care, education, social services and cash. We use lots of deadly weapons to show people the price of making our task difficult. What about some rewards for cooperating? Spending more on direct aid does not necessarily mean spending less on military security. (We still have bases in Japan and Germany.)