Can Iraq be Won?
(Part 1)

Accepting that the United States is in Iraq (nothing will change history) the real question is whether it should "stay the course" or "cut and run." The answer to those questions, in turn, hinges on whether Iraq can be won. Of course, one has to ask exactly what the term "won" means in this context.

Before that, however --

First off, Iraq is not Vietnam (at least not yet). Unlike Vietnam or any other insurgency that succeeded in assuming and consolidating power over the entire country, there isn't a single organized group or leader for the Iraqi insrugents to rally behind. The Vietnamese had Ho Chi Minh, the Cubans had Castro, the Chinese had Mao and the Russians had Lenin, no such central figure exists in Iraq today. For so long as that remains true, I very much doubt that the Iraqi insurgency will ever go beyond roadside bombings and other acts of terrorism. However, if a central figure leading the insurgency does arise, well, God help the Iraqi Government and the United States.

Secondly, even if a central figure to lead the insurgency never comes out of the woodwork, there's still a very real possibility of civil war. In that scenario, Iraq becomes the new Somalia. A state with no central authority, only warlords claiming their own little piece of the country.

Lastly, let's be clear on one thing, the neo-cons image of a democratic flowering in the Middle East led by Iraq is as much a fantasy as reality in the short and medium terms.

So, what does "won" mean in this context?

I submit that it means a cental Iraqi government that, while not necessarily a full-fledged democracy, is at least legitimate in the eyes of the Iraqi people and is not hostile to the United States or the West. Note that I never said "peaceful". More likely than not, the best we can hope for is an Iraq somewhat like Israel or, for that matter, Russia (i.e. a functioning central government that continues to be beset by periodic terrorist attacks from within and without.)

So, can Iraq be "won"?

I think so. The question is "how?"

(Part 2 coming up)

A Safer World from Terrorists

In a post dated July 23, I posted a comment concerning the President's claim that his policies, notably the war in Iraq, have made the world a safer place. I then asked him to tell that to the people of Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Spain - countries that had suffered devastating terrorist attacks since the President's remarks.

It is with a heavy heart that I now also request him to tell that to the people of Jakarta, Indonesia.

Mr. President, repeating the refrain over and over - an adroit use of the big lie technique - may in fact get you re-elected in November, but it isn't going to change the fact that the assertion is nothing more than a bald faced lie. The truth of the matter being that your policies have in fact made the world a more dangerous, not a safer, place.

Re Jack & Bobby

What if the show were about President Bush and his brother Jeb - a la George & Jeb - what would an appropriate tagline or hook be, I wonder?

What about --

"The Idiot Son who became President!

See how George W. Bush, notwithstanding his illustrious lineage and the expectations of his family, seems to squander it all by living a misspent and aimless youth; but then confounds all expectations to become President of the United States!

Witness how his misspent youth shapes the deceit, arrogance, contempt, spite, idiocy and simple mindedness that are the hallmarks of his admininstration today!"

I wouldn't watch it btw.

Jack & Bobby

There's a new show on the WB called "Jack & Bobby" about two brothers living in the here and now - one of whom grows up to be President of the United States. It's an intriguing premise and, judging from the first two episodes, very well executed.

As stated by someone whose name I honestly cannot remember, quoted in a newspaper whose name escapes me at the moment, "The father of the man is the child."

So I will certainly keep watching and hoping that the famously fickle American tv audience gives this show a chance.

If pundits and pollsters are to be believed, the defining problem for Kerry is that he hasn't effectively communicated to the American people why he should be President.

Fair enough, I guess.

And yet, when Kerry tries to stay up-beat and on message concerning what he'll do if he gets elected, these same pundits and pollsters call him a wimp for not effectively responding to all the mud coming from the Republican side of the fence.

You can't win.

My $0.02....

Kerry should win because he isn't Bush.
Simple as that.

At this point, almost anyone will be better than Bush.

Both the President and Vice-President continually argue that Iraqis are better off now because Saddam's no longer in power. They also point to the fact that Iraqis are no longer dying in the hands of Saddam's brutal regime.

This they proclaim (very loudly, I might add) as a major achievement.

Over a 1,000 service men and women have died since the "end of major conflict." An untold number of Iraqi civillians have died in the cross-fire between American forces and Iraqi insurgents - not to mention the hundreds (thousands?) who have died as a result of car bombs that seem to be going off with impunity across Iraq. Just yesterday, 57 Iraqis died when a car bomb exploded near a Baghdad police station.

This is achievement?
This is progress?
That the hand of the executioner has changed?

If that's how they define success, I'd hate to see how they define failure.

Note to President and VP Chicken Hawks - it doesn't matter to the Iraqi people who's responsible for the killing. At the end of the day, the fact remains, too many of them continue to die for no reason and with appaling, gut-wrenching regularity.

Or is it that neither of you care, for as long as Halliburton and Co. continues to make money out of this whole sorry mess you've led the American people and the world to?