Newark Execution Murders

[kandrathe]

I rather liked your post up to this point. Failure to realise that some "wars" cannot be resolved by military means (alone) is what created this whole mess, and belief by too many people in your statement is what, in my opinon, will keep it a mess.

Good point, and I agree. Let me clarify further. After 911 we declared a war on terror, and winning "The War on Terror" is the only option. To lose would mean the success of anarchy within the West, and the success of extremist theocracies in many states throughout Europe, Asia, Africa and the Middle East. I would also say that what you see in Iraq is not "war" in the classical sense. Is France at war? They have as much violence. What you see in Iraq is a police action trying to root out an insurgency, and is a part of the War on Terror. The US is engaged in an asymmetrical nationless war against a violent ideology characterized by those justified by their twisted beliefs in remorselessly killing infidels or taking hostages and beheading them. Whether the fledgling Iraqi democracy succeeds or fails is immaterial to the real war, which is to prevent whatever remains from being a threat to the US or its allies.

So, the war is not just in Iraq. And, there is a part of that insurgency conflict which may be unwinnable by the US, or the Maliki government. The part that we may be losing is the part where the nationalistic Iraqi's kick us out due to a civil war, which they may do eventually if political unity between Shia, Sunni and Kurds is impossible. Or, we may lose that part of the war, because we choose to give up trying to keep it unified. This may not be a Vietnam because there is no strong Iraqi opposition leader driving a nationalist ideology, but it is looking alot like a Lebanon where whomever gains power is quickly destroyed by their opponents with the help of external state sponsors (Syria, Iran, Saudis, or Turks). Like the war weary Afghans, or Lebanese, the insurgency will end in Iraq when the people get tired of fighting, or a strong national government(s) are able to subdue/placate their opposition. But, whichever scenario, it will be the Iraqi civilians who may suffer in untold millions depending on our decisions. Iraq was artificially constructed after WWI, and maybe like the Balkans, or Yugoslavia in particular it needs to disintegrate because the only thing that held it together was a brutal dictatorship. When free, these people may decide that they don't want to share governance with each other. I have always maintained that a provincial federalist solution would have been a better choice for Iraq.

But, hopefully this disintegration can be staved off until we have accomplished the part that is important for winning the "War on Terror". This objective is that hopefully even within a peaceful transition to a multi-state solution for disintegrated Iraq, that each component not devolve into a haven for terrorists. This means that any new state have a solid government with a rule of law, and hopefully a respect for liberty and individual rights. Democracy is secondary to the previous statement. Either way, peaceful or war torn, eventually, the West will be on the hook financially to engage in nation building in what we now call Iraq.