The End Game In Iraq- by Peter Galbraith

This is the most annoying look on the Iraq war yet. The title might better be "I have perfect hindsight." If you watch the news once a week you know the war has gone badly because there are three factions in Iraq that refuse to get along, and you don't need Mr. Galbraith to tell it to you over and over again, and at book length no less.

Here is the truth:

1) Dick Cheny wrote in his book after Gulf 1 that they didn't want to go to Baghdad to get Saddam because it would have created a bloody, unresolvable factional mess. Everyone in the administration was well of conditions on the ground in Baghdad, but Mr. Galbraith pretends it was a purely unanticipated surprise that dumb Republicans failed to consider.

2) When Bush famously said "Mission Accomplished" everyone believed him and most of the liberals who opposed the war apologized for supporting Saddam and standing in the way of a democratic Middle East that hopefully would not attack us again. For Mr. Galbraith to pretend he knew all along is just dishonest. Scott Ridder (former weapons inspector) is the only one who stood up and said he was sure that what seemed like a victory would not turn out to be a victory.

3) In our civil war we lost 500,000 soldiers when the population was 10% of what it is today. By that standard no one has even been killed in Iraq yet. Democracy often does not come cheap, but aren't all of us happy it did come to America?

4) We could have encouraged an interminable and permanent insurgency after any war by doing exactly what we're doing in Iraq, namely, letting the enemy soldiers take off their uniforms and hide among the women and children. In WW2 we bombed everyone so it didn't pay to be an insurgent. That we tolerate this insurgency is testimony to our civility and disinterest, and our small need to win.

5) Bush cares because his career and his party's future is on the line. He can't change course much without looking like he failed so he must stick it out lest national defense be turned over to the Democrats who for example, don't want a missile defense even against sworn enemy, Nazi-like , mad-dog countries such as North Korea and Iran.

6) The next president will have far more room to maneuver: he can move our troops to Kurdistan where they will be welcomed, let the Shia slaughter the Sunni insurgency, and then have the international community try to encourage unity and democracy in all of Iraq.

7) In the worst case Kurdistan and its oil would then be protected, and Saudi Oil, the mother lode, would remain protected too at least in the short term. Iranian and Shia oil would be at the greatest short term risk if an Islamo-fascist nationalism were to develop in the region but history indicates fairly clearly that their need to sell oil is as great as our need buy it. In fact, with the insurgency crushed, oil production from existing wells might increase and the possibility that new oil fields would be developed is very real.

So thanks Mr. Galbraith for your perfect hindsight but we all have perfect hindsight don't we, although yours is admittedly displayed with many interesting behind the scenes facts, anecdotes, stories, and an a general erudition that most of us don't have?

Comments: bje1000@aol.com
Ted Baiamonte
thu607