What comes to mind "is that it was worse than a crime, it was a mistake". Iraq has turned out to be a massive strategic defeat, had it not turned out that way, the illegality of our invasion would be forgotten.
It is only right that the US try to make amends for it's crimes, but given that our defeat is so complete, that is very unlikely. We refused to do so after the Vietnam war and we will refuse to do so now. Losing a war unleashes unpredictable political reactions: sometimes very negative (Germany after WWI), sometimes positive (France after Algeria) and sometimes both (the US after Vietnam). But a desire to make amends to the wronged parties is not politically possible.
I have to back Juan in this argument. This is a significant development. One thing is that it is a partial withdrawal, but it is irreversible, or at least if it is reversed the President will pay a severe political price. The remaining US troops will be restricted to their fortified bases. As the Iraqi army becomes more independent (and more importantly, armed with ground to surface missiles, which the Iranians have in abundance) those US air bases will become less and less militarily relevant. Should the Iraqis decide to sanction those bases, the costs of resupply will become ruinous. Of course, complete withdrawal today would be preferable, but this is a step in that direction. Patience is required, this could go on for another 20 years.
Even today it remains unlikely that the US will attack Iran, Obama has decided he doesn't want to do that. However, being unlikely, just means that the odds of it happening are less than .5. I think any serious game theory player would have to estimate that the chances for war are uncomfortably high, at least at .1 or so. There is the very real danger that events will spin out of control and, irrespective of what Obama desires, war will break out. Every verbal threat and enhanced sanctions and especially bluffs by us to the Iranians that we really are ready to attack have the unfortunate outcome of creating a scenario where events do spin out of control.
Our government might just be playing games here, but it is playing a very dangerous one.
The US had that kind of air superiority over Kosovo in 1999. The Serbs had over 100 tanks in Kosovo that were targeted by NATO. After the bombing campaign, the final estimate is that the Serbs did not lose a single functional tank, they were all successfully hidden. Also the Israelis had total air superiority in 2006, S. Lebanon. Airpower was totally ineffective against trained combatants.
I am afraid that old saying "Don't get in a pissing match with a skunk" if you want to stay clean comes to mind. As someone who has great respect of Juan, I realize how difficult it must be for him to write as he does. But I am also getting the impression that the pro-Israel organizations are less and less hesitant to come out and identify themselves openly as skunks.
What comes to mind "is that it was worse than a crime, it was a mistake". Iraq has turned out to be a massive strategic defeat, had it not turned out that way, the illegality of our invasion would be forgotten.
It is only right that the US try to make amends for it's crimes, but given that our defeat is so complete, that is very unlikely. We refused to do so after the Vietnam war and we will refuse to do so now. Losing a war unleashes unpredictable political reactions: sometimes very negative (Germany after WWI), sometimes positive (France after Algeria) and sometimes both (the US after Vietnam). But a desire to make amends to the wronged parties is not politically possible.
I have to back Juan in this argument. This is a significant development. One thing is that it is a partial withdrawal, but it is irreversible, or at least if it is reversed the President will pay a severe political price. The remaining US troops will be restricted to their fortified bases. As the Iraqi army becomes more independent (and more importantly, armed with ground to surface missiles, which the Iranians have in abundance) those US air bases will become less and less militarily relevant. Should the Iraqis decide to sanction those bases, the costs of resupply will become ruinous. Of course, complete withdrawal today would be preferable, but this is a step in that direction. Patience is required, this could go on for another 20 years.
Even today it remains unlikely that the US will attack Iran, Obama has decided he doesn't want to do that. However, being unlikely, just means that the odds of it happening are less than .5. I think any serious game theory player would have to estimate that the chances for war are uncomfortably high, at least at .1 or so. There is the very real danger that events will spin out of control and, irrespective of what Obama desires, war will break out. Every verbal threat and enhanced sanctions and especially bluffs by us to the Iranians that we really are ready to attack have the unfortunate outcome of creating a scenario where events do spin out of control.
Our government might just be playing games here, but it is playing a very dangerous one.
The US had that kind of air superiority over Kosovo in 1999. The Serbs had over 100 tanks in Kosovo that were targeted by NATO. After the bombing campaign, the final estimate is that the Serbs did not lose a single functional tank, they were all successfully hidden. Also the Israelis had total air superiority in 2006, S. Lebanon. Airpower was totally ineffective against trained combatants.
I am afraid that old saying "Don't get in a pissing match with a skunk" if you want to stay clean comes to mind. As someone who has great respect of Juan, I realize how difficult it must be for him to write as he does. But I am also getting the impression that the pro-Israel organizations are less and less hesitant to come out and identify themselves openly as skunks.