by John M. Curtis
(310) 204-8700

Copyright Nov. 19, 2006
All Rights Reserved.

ush's prized kitchen Cabinet advisor, former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, now admits the Iraq War is unwinnable. For more than three years, the architect of the failed Vietnam War told President George W. Bush that the U.S. must not, at all costs, allow Iraq to turn into another Vietnam. By that Kissinger meant calling it quits and redeploying the troops. Since Bush declared “mission accomplished” May 1, 2003, the Pentagon allowed Iraq to be engulfed by a bloody guerrilla war, fueled by a lack of contingency plans, restoring law-and-order with Saddam's former Republican Guard or elite forces. Had the White House planned for life-after-Saddam, ceding power to former Baathists and disgruntled military, the insurgency might have been avoided. Opting for “free elections,” Bush opened up a can of worms, inviting Shiite rule and retaliation by Iraq's oppressed majority.

      Speaking on TV in London by the British Broadcasting Corp., Kissinger confessed that military victory was no longer possible in Iraq, something he would not admit in the U.S. press. “If you mean by ‘military victory” an Iraqi government that can be established and whose writ runs across the whole country that gets the civil war under control and sectarian violence under control in a time period that the political process of democracies will support, I don't believe that is possible,” admitted Kissinger. Offering such a pessimistic outlook runs counter to his prior public remarks, especially before the Nov. 7 midyear election. Like the White House, Kissinger refused to acknowledge Iraq was in civil war, an admission that would signal U.S. failure. No military force can stop Iraq's warring factions from making peace unless the parties themselves resolve their differences.

      Blaming the “liberal press” and calling Iraq's spiraling violence “sectarian strife,” President George W. Bush stubbornly refused to rethink Iraq. Nearly 2,900 U.S. soldiers and over $400 billion have been sacrificed to rebuild a country that, contrary to White House claims, was not a hotbed of terrorism before the U.S. invasion. Bush repeatedly emphasizes that without victory Iraq will become a breeding grounding, like Afghanistan under the Taliban, for terrorists to launch attacks on American soil. No evidence exists that Iraq had anything to do with any terrorist action against the U.S. at home or abroad. Before Nov. 7, former Secretary of State James A. Baker III hinted that his Iraq Study Group would make recommendations by year's end. Recent leaks about the report indicate the group will suggest “go home,” “go big,” or “go long,” nothing new, only rehashing old news.

      Refusing to tip his hand before the election, Baker tried to give Republicans the best shot at staving off a Democratic takeover. Nov. 7 told the White House that only the “go home” message satisfies U.S. voters. “A dramatic collapse of Iraq—whatever we think about how the situation was created—would have disastrous consequences for which we would pay for many years and which would bring us back, one way or another into the region,” said Kissinger with standard doubletalk. Iraq has already collapsed, with only the fortified “Green Zone” in Baghdad immune to the anarchy existing in other areas of the country, with the possible exception of Kurdish zone in the north. When Kissinger talks about disastrous consequences, he's talking about a hypothetical takeover by Al Qaeda or other Arab terror groups, not the ongoing civil war between Sunnis and Shiites.

      U.S. already has forces spread over the Middle East to confront a consolidation of Afghan-style terror threats should the Pentagon redeploy out of Iraq. U.S. airpower can deal with any amassed threat in the region, should U.S. forces pull out. If Iraq descends into full-blown civil war, the Iraqis will have to decide their own fate, not the artificial presence of U.S. troops. If the geopolitical map splits along ethnic lines, then that's Iraq's choice. Adding more U.S. troops, as suggested by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), won't inspire Iraqis to resolve their differences. It's not the U.S. problem that Iraqis don't accept the U.S.-backed government, or, for that matter, that its Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki uses radical cleric Moqtada al-Sadr's al-Mahdi army as his personal bodyguards because he can't trust his own military or police. If Iraq chooses al-Sadr, there's nothing the U.S. can do.

      Baker's Iraq Study Group and Kissinger want the U.S. to get Iran and Syria involved in stabilizing Iraq. Iran and Syria would love to exert the kind of influence in Iraq they do in Lebanon. Both are sworn enemies of the U.S., hell-bent on dominating the region. Iran, who the U.S. can't restrain from producing A-bombs, would like nothing more than annexing Iraq to recreate a new Persian Empire. Giving Iran leverage in Iraq would make radical Islam the dominant force in the Middle East. Handing more power to Syria would help fulfill Iran's extremist President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's goal of “wiping Israel off the map.” If there's any chance of stabilizing Iraq, it's through a Saddam surrogate like al-Sadr who has the political influence and military force to assert tyrannical control over today's anarchy. Adding more U.S. troops will only make a bad situation worse.

About the Author

John M. Curtis writes politically neutral commentary analyzing spin in national and global news. He's editor of OnlineColumnist.com and author of Dodging The Bullet and Operation Charisma.

©1999-2005 Discobolos Consulting Services, Inc.
(310) 204-8300
All Rights Reserved.