Eventually, and soon, the United States should return to the foreign policy admonition of George Washington’s farewell address to steer clear of foreign entanglements. No, that is not isolationism. We are talking about government meddling in the affairs of other countries; not the sharing of commercial, industrial, banking, and personal relationships.
However, as a background and immediate expedient, it is the earlier policy of the CIA in helping and backing Saddam Hussein that aided in “cementing” him into power. Then later, our attack of Iraq worked to create a political vacuum there. This resulting absence of any kind of order allowed the emergence of the terrorist groups. So in a sense, we are at fault nationally.
Many military writers, in addition to our experiences in Vietnam, the Philippines and similar conflicts, teach that it is impossible to combat terrorism (insurgencies) with general volunteer troops; or even conscripts, if a draft were in place. Regular troops simply are not trained for this particular type of combat. Our second major mistake is trying to "fight" in a mostly defensive mode.
The only way to fight insurgencies is with counter-insurgencies -- specialist forces such as Army Rangers, Navy Seals or even the British SAS. Remaining on defense, even with specialist forces, also is doomed to failure.
We must go on the offense taking the war to the terrorists using adequately numerous, yet small squads of specialist forces, OPERATING AROUND THE CLOCK, in conjunction with Iraqi intelligence. Only then can we root out and exterminate these killers. This tactic must be ongoing and non-stop until the job is completed.
These types of units successfully went into Mosul at the beginning of the "war" and neutralized the already-entrenched forces of Saddam Hussein.
As the country settles down to some acceptable level of normalcy, then adequately trained, domestic Iraqi forces should be able to establish and maintain security.
To those who say we would not have the support of the Iraqi people, I say bunk. The masses of the middle class want peace and decent order. There would be a minority who would not. It is no wonder that we don’t have more support now. We could not have bungled the job any worse, if we had tried.
Then we should get out of Iraq! Furthermore, we should consider the removal of our troops AND CESSATION OF GOVERNMENT MEDDLING in other nations of the world, as well. It’s time we start minding our own national business. Once again we would have the love of our allies and the respect of our then-fewer-in-number enemies.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
What a nice, high-school appr
April 7, 2007 - 12:10 ET by UnsaneWhat a nice, high-school approach to foreign policy.
YOU want the United States to be universally loved. There really are only two ways to do that: 1) Make the United States pathetically weak, and to be redundant, turn it into a whiny, toothless nation with a worthless diplomatic corps that travels the world, exhorting dictators and other bad people to "pretty please, pretty pretty pretty please, PLEASE stop being so bad, and just be nicer to your people and neighbors? PRETTY PRETTY PLEASE WITH LOTS OF SUGAR ON TOP!!!" or 2) just completely end the United States of America when we wake up tomorrow morning.
I, on the other hand, want the United States of America to be universally FEARED. I want an America where people do not even think of doing things like 12/7/41 or 9/11/01 to us because they know that the instant that happens, lots of people will die.
I have long dispensed with the illusion that the United States can just draw the blinds or curl up in its turtle shell, begging and whining for the rest of the world to Just Go Away. I realize that we need to interact with the wider world, and if need be, to manipulate it in the name of our interests.
You fail to recognize historical context, in your lust for isolationism (like it or not, you are advocating isolationism. That policy didn't work too well for us in the 20th Century). George Washington was the President of a nation that was consumed in the task of internal development and the settling of a frontier. It didn't have too much in the way of power projection because it couldn't. Today, the United States possesses global power projection and the world's largest, most advanced economy. That economy has much global involvement, hence the United States can ill afford to turn its back on the world.
"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???." - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)
Strangely, for not being love
April 7, 2007 - 12:12 ET by UnsaneStrangely, for not being loved by the world, the immigrants still come here in droves. Nations around the world always find something in our society to emulate.
But again, I don't care about being loved. Care to point out to me, for instance, the number of electoral votes the EU, Russia, China, the UN, and other nations and entities have?
"HAV3 TH3 BRIDG3S OF INSANITY B33N CROSS3D AND FOR3V3R R3TRACT3D???." - Meshuggah, "3ntrapm3nt", from Catch Thirty Thr33 (2005)