When you "rout" an enemy army, you don't just defeat them you cause them
to run away in mass confusion and panic. The key is to cause mindless dispersal, leaving you in complete command
of the battlefield. A "route" is just the opposite. It is a safe path to follow towards a final destination.
In Washington during the coming weeks, the nation, indeed the Western world, will be facing decisions that will
determine whether or not the global attacks from Islamo fascists will result in a rout or a route.
There are four upcoming assessments about the battle for Iraq that will greatly influence the debate. Two are in
private. National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley is conducting an internal assessment for the White House and
an equivalent study is being done by the Iraqi government. The two public assessments will be the report of the
Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group and the Pentagon assessment directed by three colonels - H.R. McMaster and Peter
Mansoor of the Army and T.C. Greenwood of the Marine Corps.
For the in-coming Democrats as well as the left-over Republicans, these reports represent the best chance to find
a consensus on how to combat global terror..
What we gather from the aggregate national vote is that the electorate does not at the moment accept defeat in
Iraq. Their mandate rejects either a precipitous withdrawal or the gradualist strategy of a lengthy occupation
of a country unwilling or unable to take care of itself. The citizens are looking for a route to peace supported
by a majority agreement within the nation.
Can such a mandate be realized? We are going to look at the question in two parts -
- ROUT - The case that the defeatists will prevail
ROUTE - The case that victory can be achieved.
Now that the 2006 bait and switch campaign of the Democrats has returned them to power, it is time for them
to shed the radical Left and get back to the middle before the 2008 Presidential elections. In the House, the restoration
of the middle has already begun as quick withdrawal champion John Murtha was soundly defeated in his bid for a
leadership role.
The next step in shaping the battlefield will be the transfer of 2008 pre-election cash from Republican hands to
Democrat pockets. The MSM will suddenly discover that corruption has been cured because the Democrats are in charge
and the Dems themselves will do everything they can to keep earmarks in and accountability out. Threats of hearings
have a marvelous effect on increasing the heart-felt generosity of the industry being investigated.
But most of all, both parties will look to the warm and cozy blanket of the independent, bi-partisan Iraq Study
Group to protect them over the next few months.
That means a consensus, including the MSM, that avoiding defeat in Iraq is of critical national interest. A controlled
collapse into three separate and autonomous regions is not a realistic alternative, says Jeremy Greenstock.
Michael Ledeen, a noted student of Iran, says that the study group can perform an important service if it can correctly
ask the questions. The question is not just Iraq. It is how do we win the war for the Middle East? Winning, as
every Iraqi knows, means defeating Iran and Syria. As originally stated by neocon intellectuals providing Bush
intellectual support, the goal of getting the Muslim Middle East to adopt consensual, constitutional government
is a colossal failure.
Leaking rumors is all we have to go on at the moment but it would seem that the ISG will generally suggest a plan
that does not recommend a rapid withdrawal because it would cause chaos. It will reject a timetable as nothing
more than a schedule for defeat. It will look for improved training of Iraqi forces and infrastructure investment,
especially supplying and protecting adequate electric power to support a growing economy.
Above all, the ISG will champion the idea of a regional conference to talk about the future of Iraq. Attendees
would be Iraq, Iran, Syria, Jordan, the Gulf States, Turkey and perhaps others. This group, they suggest, would
in short order reach a settlement that
would result in a "stable status quo." (That is to say, a steady flow of oil.)
Provided with this cover, they imply, the U.S. could "honorably withdraw."
What the haze obscures is the realistic question - Does the solution mean that Western civilization loses control
of the Persian Gulf?
It is James Baker, after all, who was Secretary of State for Bush 41. In 1991, his crowd protected Saddam from
the consequences of Desert Storm. When you deal with these folks, the question always is "Will you stick with
us long enough to win?"
Could a regional conference possibly help?
Reuel Marc Gerecht, a consistently accurate analyst, asks about negotiations: "When you're weak - when you're
seen to be weak and see yourself as weak - what do you have to offer?
For the Middle East, this perception is the fruit of the Democrat political campaign.
To negotiate successfully, Gerecht says, in the Middle East you have to convince them that you have and are willing
to use power.
For the reigning Iranian mullahs, the U.S. has taken down Saddam and radicalized their rival clergy in the Iraqi
Shiite community. There is now little chance that Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, with his moderate views on church
and state, will prevail. Can the young Iranian clergy upset the heretical theocratic training in Najaf? The odds
are better now than two years ago. That's a trend the mullahs want to see continue. The current violence results
in bleeding Americans and a weakened moderate clergy. The ruling mullahs in Iran will not compromise the radicalization
of the Shia in Iraq.
A promise to not interfere in Iranian nuclear development is devalued because the Iranians believe they have already
won. The Americans will do nothing to stop them.
They believe the MSM and Democrat politicians that America is alone and too enfeeble by the war in Iraq and too
fearful of possible Iranian proxy retaliation inside the U.S. to mount a serious challenge to their nuclear aspirations.
Syria has gained from the turmoil in Iraq. Attention is diverted from the tribunal investigating political assassinations
in Lebanon. They have not been punished for aiding the insurgency. Through their proxies, they are regaining control
of Lebanon. What does America have that they want more?
The key in Syria is that the minority Shiite-Alawite regime depends on their connection to Iran. Anti-Shiite Sunni
fundamentalists represent more of a threat to them than any Western powers. Even if America stood aside as they
reconquered Lebanon, the Syrians have little need, beyond inflicting humiliation, for anything the U.S. might want
to barter.
For a regional conference to amount to anything, the U.S. would have to send significant (50,000) more troops and
present a unified front for victory. We would have to start high-altitude surveillance flights over Iran. We would
have to increase naval activity in the Persian Gulf and publicize the conventional military weaknesses of Iran
in the world press.
Without a demonstration of the willingness to use strength, talks are so useless that the principal players might
not even show up.
People who have strength and don't use it are, by definition, weak. As in Europe, hope dims for them. A conference
has only one use in these circumstances - to mask defeat.
Next week: The route to victory.
November 24, 2006
|
