Monday, March 20, 2006

The shifting sands of Iraq War opposition

Wretchard at the Belmont Club detects the scent of a new meme as we breath the air of a third spring of the Iraq War, Act III.

As the Iraqi inurgancy has managed to alienate almost every Iraqi to the point of seeing it as a tiresome act, the specter of civil war hangs over the country. Or does it? The BC sees the civil war talk as the latest vigil around a smoking volcano. Will it erupt or will it not? Who knows? But it gives justification to vent doomsday fears:

Instead of insurgency the talking points have changed to how Sunnis might soon become victims of an ethnically hostile Iraqi army in a Civil War. Going from a boast of conquest to a portrayal of victim is usually an indicator of something. In my view, the shift of meme from the "insurgency" to a "civil war" is a backhanded way of admitting the military defeat of the insurgency without abandoning the characterization of Iraq is (sic) an American fiasco. It was Zarqawi and his cohorts themselves who changed the terms of reference from fighting US forces to sparking a 'civil war'. With any luck, they'll lose that campaign too.

We don't know if a civil war will or will not commence in Iraq. Our military delivered a solid and lethal whipping to the insurgency. The insurgents know it and so do the Iraqi people. We'll see if it makes any difference in the coming days and months.

6 Comments:

Blogger Roch101 said...

"the military defeat of the insurgency"

Perhaps. Add that to the list of no WMDs, a tyrant deposed, a new constitution and democratic elections and uh, remind me: why we are still there?

3/21/2006  
Anonymous glenn said...

The only thing predictable about Sadaam was his unpredictablity. It was past time for a new way of doing business in the Middle East. At least with Sadaam deposed, Iraqi Kurds can now unleash their talents, Marsh Arabs can begin trying to reverse the environmental devastation Sadaam used in an attmept to exterminate them and Iraqis don't have to fear the ascension of Uday and Qusay. That's a good start for me.

3/21/2006  
Blogger Roch101 said...

Thanks for the reply, Glenn. I'm glad we've met so that we understand that we are not being confrontational, just discussing. You seem to have answered more the "why we went" question. I was wondering, if the insurgency is defeated, why are we still there?

3/22/2006  
Anonymous glenn said...

The list above represents part of the reasons we still have troops in Iraq. Those long oppressed by Saddam still need our protection. However, they have to reach a point where they can protect themselves. For now, the Iraqi army is a work in progress and it would be unwise to start a massive drawdown now.


We've never immediately withdrawn troops following victory in any war. Militarily, we're still in Germany, Japan and South Korea. We only fully withdrew from Bosnia in late '04 after having a presence there for nearly 10 years. We still have 1,700 troops in Kosovo. We've been in Kuwait since the end of the Gulf War. I'm sure we'll have troops in Iraq for many years to come.

3/22/2006  
Blogger Roch101 said...

But, if the insurgancy has been defeated, which was where this thread started, who are we protecting the Iraqi people from?

3/25/2006  
Blogger Glenn said...

The insurgents cannot defeat the US militarily. However, they can still prey upon the Iraqi people. It sounds as though we're disagreeing over semantics. We could fly in the B-52s and carpet bomb the insurgents completely into dust, but I suspect we'd take out a lot of the people we're now protecting. It would be simplier if war were like a book. You have a first page and when you make it to the last page its over. I can't think of a war that's followed that pattern.

3/25/2006  

Post a Comment

<< Home