EDITORIAL: LBJ and GWB
     
America's conduct in Iraq is beginning to look like its conduct in Vietnam, and in a way that ought to be particularly unflattering to the administration.

In reading accounts of US military conduct in Fallujah, then Najaf, then Sadr City, one gets the distinct sense that military and political objectives are becoming hopelessly muddled, and that US military action is being micromanaged from Washington. This is a recipe for an interminable - and politically unsustainable - conflict.

In his campaign rhetoric, George W. Bush says he'll remain in Iraq "as long as it takes," and scolds John F. Kerry for hinting at a timetable for withdrawal. Bush is certainly right on the second count - withdrawal now would be a catastrophe for the nascent Iraqi government, for US prestige, and for the overall effort against terrorism. But as-long-as-it-takes should not become an excuse for waging a war in slow motion. That is what the US appears to be doing.

In a recent interview to The Washington Post, Marine Gen. James T. Conway complained of the aborted March assault on Fallujah: "When you order elements of a Marine division to attack a city, you really need to understand what the consequences are going to be and not perhaps vacillate in the middle of something like that," he said. "Once you commit, you got to stay committed."

That's not what happened. Instead, in an echo of Vietnamization, the US abruptly handed responsibility for Fallujah to an Iraqi brigade, which was not only incompetent but ultimately colluded with the enemy. Now Fallujah is a no-go zone for US forces. The same goes in Najaf, where last month US troops again waged battle aborted midway by political negotiations.

No doubt, the administration congratulates itself for keeping US military casualties comparatively low: There's been no repeat of April, when more than 100 US soldiers were killed. The US has also avoided harming such sites as the Shrine of Ali in Najaf where rebel cleric Muqtada al-Sadr took refuge.

Yet these "victories" are achieved at a cost: the erosion of US credibility among Iraqis who are understandably unsure who will prevail. The more this credibility erodes, the easier it will be for the assorted insurgent groups to mount a Tet-style assault on American forces. Worse, they will do so with the approbation of noncombatant Iraqis who understandably are coming to view US presence as a source of friction, not security.

How does the administration avoid this scenario? Not by waiting it out until the election: A showdown is almost certain to come before then. The question is whether it will happen at a time of America's choosing or not. The US could decide, tomorrow, that it cannot tolerate a situation in which one city after another has become a no-go zone. This would have the useful effect of putting the enemy on the defensive before it has the opportunity to mount a coordinated assault. It would also be useful in showing that even though a campaign is on, the president is still in the saddle.

America lost in Vietnam not because Vietnam was an inherent quagmire, but because Lyndon Johnson turned it into one. Similarly, Iraq is not yet a quagmire and need not become one, its complexities as a multiethnic society notwithstanding. But in his effort to achieve multiple and in some ways conflicting objectives - building democracy, destroying the insurgency, involving the UN and so on - GWB risks turning it into one. If the president doesn't pause for a rethink, he'll lose more than just Iraq, just like the last Texan-born president did.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1095131863680

Sheesh!

I think this is precisely what is happening.

We have an enemy in the midst of US Troops, who are told that no matter how hard they are hit, there are 'sacntuaries' to which the enemy can retreat and into which US Troops cannot follow!

And while the 'Iraqization' of the war may be a tongue-twister to say, it is very easy to understand ~ it is the first step in snatching defeat from the jaws of victory!

Eric The(GetSomeSnapInYourDrawers,Prez!)Hun

Quoted: America lost in Vietnam not because Vietnam was an inherent quagmire, but because Lyndon Johnson turned it into one. Similarly, Iraq is not yet a quagmire and need not become one, its complexities as a multiethnic society notwithstanding. But in his effort to achieve multiple and in some ways conflicting objectives - building democracy, destroying the insurgency, involving the UN and so on - GWB risks turning it into one. If the president doesn't pause for a rethink, he'll lose more than just Iraq, just like the last Texan-born president did. Wow. Insightful 'n' shit.

Yes, that paragraph was really insightful.

These 'political considerations' are going to get more US Troops and Iraqis killed than anything else going.

The President and/or his advisors better be thinking real hard about what the 'Coalition of the Willing' needs to be doing over there.

Eric The(GettingTheirPoopInAGroup)Hun

Quoted: Wait until November 3, my friend. Hell hath no fury like a Commander in Chief that doesn't have to worry about another term.

Yes, I hope so, as well, but IF those terrorist POSs have two brain cells to rub together, they will NOT wait for that date on the calendar to start their own 'Tet Offensive'!

We know that they long for the days of a President Kerry, who has already signaled a withdrawal in six months!

Why would they not seek to bring about that result.

And you know that a 'Tet Offensive' at this particular moment woulld cause some disturbance in our Electoral Process!

And that disturbance might redound to the President's benefit, or to the challenger's.

Who knows?

And why would we wish to have a Commander-in-Chief who keeps one eye on the Polls and the other eye on the death and casualty lists?

If something makes good military sense, JUST DO IT!

Are we watching the 'Clintonization' of President Bush?

Eric The(SomethingBeyondPollNumbersAndFocusGroups)Hun

Quoted: The CIA gave some reports to the White house  -------- and in them they said we are screwed in Iraq -- after all we do they will resort to shit again ---------- so why are we still there Over 1000 dead and still counting -- time to bail ............ ? Or is it ???

These 'reports' that the CIA gave the White House were not Top Secret?

I doubt that we can even begin to imagine what reports the CIA is giving the White House about Iraq.

Eric The(Right?)Hun