[Peace-discuss] A better war

[C. G. Estabrook]

[This call for the impeachment of Bush comes from the Right,
i.e., from the position that the US should continue its
Middle Eastern foreign policy -- centered on US control of
energy resources -- that produced such murderous results so
far.  We should just do it more cleverly...  --CGE]

  Guardian (London) - November 29, 2005
  Nowhere to run

After what has been described as the most foolish war in over
2,000 years, is there a way out of Iraq for President Bush,
asks Brian Whitaker

There is a remarkable article in the latest issue of the
American Jewish weekly, Forward
<http://www.forward.com/articles/6936>. It calls for President
Bush to be impeached and put on trial "for misleading the
American people, and launching the most foolish war since
Emperor Augustus in 9 BC sent his legions into Germany and
lost them".

To describe Iraq as the most foolish war of the last 2,014
years is a sweeping statement, but the writer is well
qualified to know.

He is Martin van Creveld, a professor at the Hebrew University
in Jerusalem and one of the world's foremost military
historians. Several of his books have influenced modern
military theory and he is the only non-American author on the
US Army's list of required reading for officers.

[rest of the article at
<http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1653454,00.html>; 
original follows]

----

  Forward (New York) - November 25, 2005
  Costly Withdrawal Is the Price To Be Paid for a Foolish War
  By MARTIN VAN CREVELD

The number of American casualties in Iraq is now well more
than 2,000, and there is no end in sight. Some two-thirds of
Americans, according to the polls, believe the war to have
been a mistake. And congressional elections are just around
the corner.

What had to come, has come. The question is no longer if
American forces will be withdrawn, but how soon - and at what
cost. In this respect, as in so many others, the obvious
parallel to Iraq is Vietnam.

Confronted by a demoralized army on the battlefield and by
growing opposition at home, in 1969 the Nixon administration
started withdrawing most of its troops in order to facilitate
what it called the "Vietnamization" of the country. The rest
of America's forces were pulled out after Secretary of State
Henry Kissinger negotiated a "peace settlement" with Hanoi. As
the troops withdrew, they left most of their equipment to the
Army of the Republic of South Vietnam - which just two years
later, after the fall of Saigon, lost all of it to the communists.

Clearly this is not a pleasant model to follow, but no other 
alternative appears in sight.

Whereas North Vietnam at least had a government with which it
was possible to arrange a cease-fire, in Iraq the opponent
consists of shadowy groups of terrorists with no central
organization or command authority. And whereas in the early
1970s equipment was still relatively plentiful, today's armed
forces are the products of a technology-driven revolution in
military affairs. Whether that revolution has contributed to
anything besides America's national debt is open to debate.
What is beyond question, though, is that the new weapons are
so few and so expensive that even the world's largest and
richest power can afford only to field a relative handful of them.

Therefore, simply abandoning equipment or handing it over to
the Iraqis, as was done in Vietnam, is simply not an option.
And even if it were, the new Iraqi army is by all accounts
much weaker, less skilled, less cohesive and less loyal to its
government than even the South Vietnamese army was. For all
intents and purposes, Washington might just as well hand over
its weapons directly to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

Clearly, then, the thing to do is to forget about face-saving
and conduct a classic withdrawal.

Handing over their bases or demolishing them if necessary,
American forces will have to fall back on Baghdad. From
Baghdad they will have to make their way to the southern port
city of Basra, and from there back to Kuwait, where the whole
misguided adventure began. When Prime Minister Ehud Barak
pulled Israel out of Lebanon in 2000, the military was able to
carry out the operation in a single night without incurring
any casualties. That, however, is not how things will happen
in Iraq.

Not only are American forces perhaps 30 times larger, but so
is the country they have to traverse. A withdrawal probably
will require several months and incur a sizable number of
casualties. As the pullout proceeds, Iraq almost certainly
will sink into an all-out civil war from which it will take
the country a long time to emerge - if, indeed, it can do so
at all. All this is inevitable and will take place whether
George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Condoleezza
Rice like it or not.

Having been thoroughly devastated by two wars with the United
States and a decade of economic sanctions, decades will pass
before Iraq can endanger its neighbors again. Yet a complete
American withdrawal is not an option; the region, with its
vast oil reserves, is simply too important for that. A
continued military presence, made up of air, sea and a
moderate number of ground forces, will be needed.

First and foremost, such a presence will be needed to counter
Iran, which for two decades now has seen the United States as
"the Great Satan." Tehran is certain to emerge as the biggest
winner from the war - a winner that in the not too distant
future is likely to add nuclear warheads to the missiles it
already has. In the past, Tehran has often threatened the Gulf
States. Now that Iraq is gone, it is hard to see how anybody
except the United States can keep the Gulf States, and their
oil, out of the mullahs' clutches.

A continued American military presence will be needed also,
because a divided, chaotic, government-less Iraq is very
likely to become a hornets' nest. From it, a hundred
mini-Zarqawis will spread all over the Middle East, conducting
acts of sabotage and seeking to overthrow governments in
Allah's name.

The Gulf States apart, the most vulnerable country is Jordan,
as evidenced by the recent attacks in Amman. However, Turkey,
Egypt and, to a lesser extent, Israel are also likely to feel
the impact. Some of these countries, Jordan in particular, are
going to require American assistance.

Maintaining an American security presence in the region, not
to mention withdrawing forces from Iraq, will involve many
complicated problems, military as well as political. Such an
endeavor, one would hope, will be handled by a team different
from - and more competent than - the one presently in charge
of the White House and Pentagon.

For misleading the American people, and launching the most
foolish war since Emperor Augustus in 9 B.C sent his legions
into Germany and lost them, Bush deserves to be impeached and,
once he has been removed from office, put on trial along with
the rest of the president's men. If convicted, they'll have
plenty of time to mull over their sins.

---

Martin van Creveld, a professor of military history at the
Hebrew University, is author of "Transformation of War" (Free
Press, 1991). He is the only non-American author on the U.S.
Army's required reading list for officers.
___________________________________