Christian Dem in NC had a
diary earlier today about the resolution being introduced in the House that will call a timetable for withdrawal "inconsistent with achieving victory."
Like everyone here, this bothers me in so many ways. It's blatant politicking, it's a waste of valuable time in our Congress, and it gives the Rethugs even more opportunities for grandstanding. But what really bothers me is that they continue to use word "victory" as if it were remotely possible (or even defined!).
Attention, Rethugs, MSM, and all Americans: There can be no conventional victory in Iraq.
Reasons on the flip.
First: there isn't anyone who can surrender. In wars past (at least the ones we've won), there has always been someone in charge of the enemy. Someone who can admit defeat, sign a piece of paper, and say that they'll stop trying to kill our soldiers now. There is no one in charge of the insurgency in Iraq; that will never happen. They are loosely banded together at best. Anyone can be a terrorist--all it takes is the ability to blow things up. Hell, all it takes is a pile of rocks and a willingness to throw them at someone. Nothing can make all of them, decide to stop attacking us. I don't know why no one says this in the MSM more often. Or why Democrats don't bring it up. It's not an "unwinnable war" because we're going to lose to a superior fighting power; it's an unwinnable war because there's no one who will admit defeat. A war against terrorists (or terrorism) is unwinnable by definition.
Second: As long as we're there, the insurgency will never stop fighting us, because they're fighting an occupation. They are fighting our soldiers precisely because we're there. As long as we are there, they will keep fighting us (because they see us as an occupying army). When we leave, we will no longer be an occupying army, so they'll stop fighting us!
This is what I liked about Murtha's plan. He wanted to "redeploy" the troops that are there. In effect, he seemed to be trying to draw a distinction between the effort that has gone on so far (which, to many Iraqis, looks like an occupation) and start a new phase. The new phase will be aimed at getting us out, but, more importantly, will also look and feel different to the Iraqis. It would involve an international coalition (a real coalition of the willing).
We have to leave Iraq at some point--we just don't have the army to keep 130,000 troops over there indefinitely. If we can convince Iraqis that we're not occupiers, we will have a more peaceful transition.