John Brady Kiesling thinks we're all doomed! DOOMED!!!
His suggestion to improve American Security: Intentionally lose in Iraq. Leave. Pray that the guy we lose to is nice.
Did I mention that Mr. K was a former Foreign Service Officer? And that he resigned to protest the Iraq war? (Was it REALLY that hard to tell?)
Stability at all costs in action... the highlights:
The deadliest illusion about warfare is that the aim of war is military victory. The true aim of war is to accomplish the political, economic or security goals for which it was fought.
Which can't happen if you LOSE. But nevermind that.
I'd like to go over the entire article, but I've got other stuff to do.
But, I will leave you with Kiesling's conclusion, and an appropriate rebuttal.
Who would you trust?
To achieve its vital war aims, in other words, America must abandon its dream of victory and accept the appearance of defeat. What does this mean in practice? Quite simply, the United States must take a cold, analytical look at the forces arrayed against us in Iraq and decide which leader should be allowed the glorious destiny of redeeming his country from foreign occupation. Once the United States has fixed on a credible resistance leader, our goal should be to cede him tactical, positional victories while denying them to his competitors. The U.S. military might be able to find and disable any resistance large enough to be a military threat, but this leader's movement we should allow to grow. We should open a communications channel, and enforce a set of rules to limit the battlefield and minimize casualties.
Rebuttal:
We can still lose this war. If nation building in Iraq fails, we won't succeed in demonstrating that reform can work for Arabs and make them happier and more successful. We will fail to show them that reform is a better choice for them than jihad. If we permit low level resistance in Iraq to drive us out, the Arab street will once again conclude that we are ultimately cowardly, and will again feel contempt for us. And no nation or group in the region will ever again take the risk of helping us in any future operation there.If other nations in the region don't implement reforms, their people will continue to be angry and will continue to support terrorism and extremism. If the other nations in the region don't cut off support for terrorist groups, those groups will continue to have the wherewithal to operate, and may eventually target us. If we do not bring about general reform before one or another nation in the region successfully develops nuclear weapons, the political situation will become vastly more complicated and we will be in extreme peril. It will become extremely difficult for us to continue to foster reform in the region, and there will be an unacceptably high likelihood that one of our cities will eventually be nuked. It is therefore critical that we continue to be engaged in the region and continue to work for reform there, doing whatever we must to prevent development of nukes by hostile nations in the region and continuing to work to weaken existing terrorist organizations. We are winning the war but we have not won it. It will take decades to win, just as the Cold War took decades to win. The greatest danger facing us now is that we'll lose heart and give up before we finish the job.
Mr. Kiesling: FAILURE IS NOT AN OPTION. And if I may say, the fact that you aren't one of the people setting foreign policy is a good thing.
Posted by Thief at May 9, 2004 09:53 PM