Some believe it was sheer revenge by the Shia while others believe Bush pushed it ahead knowing full well it would fan sectarian flames and keep warfare broiling in the region indefinitely. This last option, as grisly as it sounds, should not be completely ruled out. It's common knowledge the US deliberately backed Saddam in the 80s to help drain his forces/treasury while keeping the Ayatollahs out of the rest of Arabia, a plan hatched by figures involved in the current crisis.
With that in mind it's only fair to wonder whether the overt hanging of a Sunni leader at the beginning of Eid, someone they knew would make anti-Persian, anti-Shia remarks before dropping down the hatch, might represent the real Baker/Hamilton "new way forward". Does anyone actually believe the official ISG report, available at your local bookstore in paperback, was the real advice given to Bush? Such things aren't usually discussed in public unless there's a reason.
Iran is every bit as much a threat today as in the 80s and will be worse with nukes. They've committed several more acts of war since the Beirut truck bombing and we've not been able to respond to any of them. Our generals are saying the war machine is not in good shape, but short of the Coalition there's no force available to stop the Persians should they decide to branch out. We certainly can't invade, nor can we maintain 140K combat troops in Iraq very much longer without a politically disastrous draft that neither side wants.
Perhaps the rather sudden demise of Saddam signals the way forward, a partial redeployment or force restructuring to key areas. Here are some possible talking points in support of that: The dictator is gone (ding dong) and the populace will not fear his return. There were/are no WMDs, and his last minute heroics will keep the sectarian flames fanned, making it harder for al-Sadr and company to run amok. Our fallen comrades did not die in vain and will be remembered for the elimination of one of the most vile creatures to ever breath air. We gave peace a chance.
It's distasteful to think of such things, but the American public might forget about a low level civil war in Iraq after awhile as long as it doesn't spread--it could turn into another Gaza. Our repositioned forces would provide less a rationale for terrorist attacks but leaving a rapid strike force would alleviate homeland fears. Blossoming democracies still sound the best and ultimately may hold the only real hope of a permanent draining of the swamp, but you go to nation-building with the resources you've got. Such a plan might also be something the new Democrat Congress could get their arms around.
EPILOGUE 12/31/06
The AP reminds us about our past sins this morning with a piece called "US Tolerated, then Vilified Saddam". Instead of "US" it should have said "Republicans". While not questioning the basic facts of their portrayal (they started with the Rummy handshake in the 80s then moved to the Gulf War and the obligatory cautionary Colin Powell quote, then moved directly to Bush 43). Not one word about President number 42.But it's not a surprise. Ever since 9/11 when Bush first started talking about Saddam, and certainly since Operation Iraqi Freedom started leaking oil the Democrats and the MSM have tried to airbrush themselves out of Iraq's history.
LET'S GET IT STRAIGHT 1/1/07
Healing Iraq points out the discrepancy between the NY Times (and others) rendering of last minute statements versus "the cell phone guy". Saddam did not utter curses at America and Iran before going down the hatch, he was reciting Islamic verse. Imagine--some dude with a cell phone getting the story straighter than the world's most famous newspaper.
No comments:
Post a Comment