Brad said:
I was wondering yesterday whether what we're seeing in Iraq is glass half-full or glas half-empty, i.e., is it a "basically" stabilized situation with "pockets" of trouble, or is it already another in the long line of places like "Vietnam" and "Chechnya", i.e., places where the colonial power is esentially on the defensive even if there are pockets of "stability"?
Good question, Brad. Iraq is going to get a LOT worse for the US presence there, and for our remaining standing internationally. The Iraqis are learning how to fight back, and their successes, minor to date, will build on each other. In a study of Palestinian violence and the Israeli actions, I concluded that the Israelis had inadvertently created the perfect learning environment for Palestinian resistance. The US presence in Iraq has not created an environment as perfect for the Iraqis, but is close enough.
The only thing the US can do to avoid what lies ahead is to withdraw fully, now, declaring victory for the deposition of Saddam Hussein and leaving behind a UN transition assistance role.
To further clarify my question: How much of "our" view of Iraq is being colored by the Bush administration? "Chechnya" sounds bad to us: a hopeless fight fo rthe Russians (irrespective of its "rightness" by any definition). Would Iraq look pretty much as hopeless if the "news" reaching us was coming thru the same filter?
Similarly, how much "better" is the U.S. position in Afghanistan today than the Russian position at some point before they decided to pull out? Are things "really bad" in AFghanistan but we are just not hearing them described that way or hearing about them at all?
--
I am not being fecetious or ironic when I think that the best hope for the U.S. at this point just might be a takeover by those elements in the military who realize that Rumsfeld et al. are as big a threat to the military as to civil society. If I was an n-star General, and I was sincerely committed to my country, I would be concerned about the day coming when the Bush regime told me to go do something that I not only believed was morally wrong (it might even be morally right, for that matter...), but which I would foresee as very likely leading to a defeat that would essentially destroy The United States -- or, alternatively, if I saw the slow accretion of "little things" the Bush regime is doing as leading to the same result only
Not with a bang but a whimper.
We can't count on the Democratic Party putting up a viable alterntaive in 2004. We may have a better chance of W$J Republicans telling Bush and his fellow travellers that they had become liabilities, if things get much worse than they are now.
But the generals and the admirals are, I think, much more immediately affected by the situation, and perhaps they are astute enough to see that $2.5 billion lean-and-mean submarines are not going to be able to get into shallow enough waters to protect America from rogue states and global terroism. Loyalty to country before self-destructive obedience to the currently "elected" POTUS and his Secretary of Defense when they seem to have gotten themselves into a delusional or just wilfully blind mental state???
\brad mccormick
--
Let your light so shine before men,
that they may see your good works.... (Matt 5:16)Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. (1 Thes 5:21)
<![%THINK;[SGML+APL]]> Brad McCormick, Ed.D. / [EMAIL PROTECTED] ----------------------------------------------------------------- Visit my website ==> http://www.users.cloud9.net/~bradmcc/
_______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
