Stratfor starts out from the premise that "[Iraq] was the logical next step in the general war..." I think that's questionable at best. When the pirates challenged us at Tripoli we did not invade Portugal because it was a handier target. Any chance at using Iraq as a
secure base for future operations was seriously damaged the day we made the oil ministry the first place protected in Baghdad; it was destroyed when we failed to provide enough troops to provide even basic security. The damage, btw, was not just done to our efforts in Iraq - it will carry forward into whatever future operations we may actually NEED to undertake.
I also question whether the problem really is an inability to articulate the policies at play, whereas I personally think there is an absence of a real policy. I honestly believe that the Bush Administration was shocked to find that we were not greeted with palm leaves and cries of Hosanna, and has been scrambling to come up with a policy since.
One thing I do agree with:
Quote:
|
In truth, however, very little about this war is unprecedented
|
The methods we are employing in this war are identical to the methods used by the colonial powers as their empires crumbled. They failed. The methods we are employing have not succeeded anywhere in the region. I have seen little to suggest that they will succeed in Iraq, in spite of President Diem's nice little speech to the Congress today.