William Lind, the Director of the Center for Cultural Conservatism at the Free Congress Foundation, authored a scathing article today
posted at the conservative website military.com.
Quick background history on Lind: Dartmouth and Princeton are in his C.V. He has worked as an LA (legislator assistant) to both senators Taft and Hart. He is author of over a quarter-dozen books on military history and tactics.
William Lind offers a brief ancedote before launching into his main story:
One day late in the Vietnam War, a Senator called his defense staffer into his office. Like too many Senators (though neither of the two I worked for), the distinguished legislator depended entirely upon his staff but treated them like peons. Although the end of the day had come and gone, the Senator snarled at his hapless staffer, "I want to give a speech on the Floor tomorrow morning on the Vietnam War. You can stay here tonight and write it."
The next morning, the Senator found the text of his speech on his desk, neatly typed and bound. Without bothering to look it over, he took it to the Floor of the Senate where, with the voice if not the mind of Cicero, he shared it with the world. About half way through, he read a page that concluded with the words, "I will now offer my five-point plan for ending the Vietnam War." Turning the page, he found an unexpected message from his despised staffer: "You're on your own now, you SOB. I quit."
Lind goes on to state that his position is, in so many words, a withdrawl to save face in the international community. He argues that we lost before the first bomb fell, and only created an even-more-so intractable position with our various policies in place. His plan boils down to this:
- total withdrawl of troops based on the talking point of, "We came to kick Saddam out. We did, and they have a constitution. Goodbye and good luck."
- Negotiate with the Iraqi Gov't as to when the US should finally leave.
- Back-handed negotiations with Sunni rebels for the following:
a) cease-fire because of US withdrawl with a timeline
b) help clean out al-quaida
4) Quit massive patrolling of Iraq and force hot-spot combat in mixed region areas.
His assement: "The Bushbunker may be so detached from reality that it still thinks we can win this war militarily. But the time is past for arguing whether we need an exit strategy; the discussion should be about what that strategy might be."
My assessment:
I am not so sure about the want of Sunnis to clear out Al-Quaida. I think the two probably are political bedfellows with a common goal: killing Americans in the middle east. Thus, one would be happy to fund and equip the other, share intelligence and the like.
I agree a timeline must be set, and the idea that this would cause attacks to decline. With a set date, the "occupation" would be seen as ending soon, thus there would be no reason to fight and die to oust someone who is already leaving. Unless, of course, the insurgents don't trust our word on leaving which is totally possible and hope that more bombings will cause us to leave faster. Not sure which it is.
The hotspot idea of combat is good but I dont know if combatants would agree to that one or not. And, by agree, I mean on a subconcious tactical level. Why go to an area where all the people who want to kill you are? Go elsewhere, and disrupt society where you are free to get away from it. That is a rational decision, based upon the logic people want to live. The insurgency in Iraq is broken into two groups by the Department of defense: Geurillas, who are interested in keeping their lives; Myrtars, who have a cop-suicide mentality of taking out as many marines as possible.
Also, the fact that conservative commentators are demanding a withdrawl is a huge idea that democracts can latch onto, showing republicans that their own side is not as transfixed with staying the course as they claim them to be.
What does everyone else think about this?