Archived material Access restricted Article
Rantburg

Today's Front Page   View All of Mon 04/02/2007 View Sun 04/01/2007 View Sat 03/31/2007 View Fri 03/30/2007 View Thu 03/29/2007 View Wed 03/28/2007 View Tue 03/27/2007
1
2007-04-02 Iraq
Kissinger says military victory not possible in Iraq
Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.
Posted by Steve White 2007-04-02 00:00|| || Front Page|| [11129 views since 2007-05-07]  Top

#1 He's wrong about a conference, though. Only worth it if we've already shaped the situation to our liking inside Iraq. And in that sense, too, he is wrong - a "military victory" means accomplishing what we need to accomplish. As we've already tried pure political development, asking nicely, perhaps some voodoo or incantations, perhaps now we could try, gee, I dunno, force. Ya know, the kind that has determined the outcome of every other single armed conflict in human history.

This doesn't mean securing every square inch. It does mean smashing Sunni rejectionists, AQ, IGRC, and select Shi'a militias - in that order.
Posted by Verlaine 2007-04-02 00:13||   2007-04-02 00:13|| Front Page Top

#2 You are correct (sir/madam). Any negotiation is a baad idea unless and until the context of said talks have been completely shaped for the desired end result.

Henry did some of this (piss poorly) in the lead up to the VC talks.
Posted by Captain America 2007-04-02 01:03||   2007-04-02 01:03|| Front Page Top

#3 Is Henry wearing Depends
Posted by Captain America 2007-04-02 01:04||   2007-04-02 01:04|| Front Page Top

#4 He's wrong about involving the neighbouring countries. The USA has to guarantee Iraq's borders then let the Iraqis figure most of the rest out themselves. It will be a mix of negotiation and military force, but it's going to happen anyway.

The big risk is the Turks or Persians (or maybe even Syria; a land corridor to to Iran would look pretty attractive) try to take advantage and grab territory.
Posted by phil_b 2007-04-02 01:14||   2007-04-02 01:14|| Front Page Top

#5 I thought military victory was achieved 4 years ago and its the attempts to humanise civilise democratize the resident vermin population have failed
Posted by gromgoru 2007-04-02 02:27||   2007-04-02 02:27|| Front Page Top

#6 I'm guessing the US will have military bases there for quite a while. I doubt there will be any land grabs until they are gone, and I doubt the military bases are going to be invited to leave until that threat diminshes.
Posted by gorb 2007-04-02 04:17||   2007-04-02 04:17|| Front Page Top

#7 Having served through the McNamara, Johnson, Nixon, and Viet "architect" Kissener period. I have observed personally, as have many others, the many misteps and blunderings. It is beyond me how he could go overseas and phueching say ANTHING or make ANY comment on what is going on in Iraq. Forty plus years of your sad groanings is enough you defeatest bastard. Just go away, please just go away.
Posted by Besoeker 2007-04-02 05:23||   2007-04-02 05:23|| Front Page Top

#8 Accepting an honorary degree from Waseda University? That second-rate dump? Kissinger has surely fallen on hard times.
Posted by gromky 2007-04-02 07:37||   2007-04-02 07:37|| Front Page Top

#9 Kissinger is a "realist," which means he believes all problems can be solved by negotiation, that there is no valid moral distinction to be made between various negotiating partners, and that right and wrong are not proper considerations in international diplomacy. (If your only tool is a hammer, . . . .) You can ask the South Vietnamese how well that all worked out the last time we tried it.
Posted by Mike 2007-04-02 08:58||   2007-04-02 08:58|| Front Page Top

#10 Let's see, he turfed the Vietnam situation repeatedly, and only Nixon & Abrams, working around him, got the ball as far as the 1972 ceasefire. He enabled the East Pakistan genocide, engineered the idiotic creation of Turkish Cyprus, got us involved in the Pinochet coup, screwed the Israelis during the Yom Kippur War so badly that it took *Carter* to straighten things out, and generally led us into the weakest period of American impotence since the isolationist years.

Yeah, I want to hear what the little war criminal thinks about foreign policy. If only to make sure that we're ignoring him comprehensively, and not even accidentally doing what he might want done.
Posted by Mitch H.">Mitch H.  2007-04-02 10:28|| http://blogfonte.blogspot.com/]">[http://blogfonte.blogspot.com/]  2007-04-02 10:28|| Front Page Top

#11 1.Negotiating with Mookie - We already have. And will again. The key is to negotiate with him from strength (as we are doing now?) and not from weakness.

2. Political solutions - yup, that means dealing with the oil, reforming debaathification. Some good first steps, but no closure yet. Will Malike achieve closure? If not, will we go with someone (like Allawi?) who will?

3. Dems - naturally they wanted to regain power - its not like the GOP was less than partisan. Alot of them think they won in 2006 mainly cause of Iraq. Unless and until the situation on the ground improves fairly dramatically, its hard for any hawkish Dem to respond.

4. Kissinger and the ME. K pushed for resupply Israel in '73, when Schlesinger and DoD were opposed. He negotiated the non-belligerency betw Israel and Egypt, which led to the Sadat initiative, which was in part an attempt to head off a Carter mistake, inviting the USSR into ME negotiations.


I wont defend all his other positions in those years, other than to say some of them flowed naturally from his belief, shared by many, that we were beleagured at that stage of the cold war, and had to act accordingly.
Posted by liberalhawk 2007-04-02 11:02||   2007-04-02 11:02|| Front Page Top

#12 I will give you the Yom Kippur War resupply. I was just in an ungenerous mood towards that goddamn little troll.
Posted by Mitch H.">Mitch H.  2007-04-02 12:40|| http://blogfonte.blogspot.com/]">[http://blogfonte.blogspot.com/]  2007-04-02 12:40|| Front Page Top

#13 No, LH, "dealing with the oil" and de-Ba'ath are not first steps of any lasting significance, because the Sunni rejectionists (most Sunnis, whether they just feel it or act it) will not be really mollified by such details. This is the game that Zal and crew got suckered into for over a year now, and which predictably went nowhere. The Sunnis don't have a bill of particulars whose resolution will affect the violence, which is all that matters.

You really think the Sunnis calling the shots (no pun intended) in this situation will end their terrorism and violence because of some oil compact or a decision to re-hire Ba'athist high school teachers? Not a chance the situation will be fundamentally changed by such moves. The Sunnis will rightly conclude that their pathetic little "insurgency" has in fact bought them leverage with a feckless Iraqi govt. and a pathetically lazy/misguided super-power that won't stand in their way in the long run. And it's all about getting back on top - or safely avoiding their richly earned comeuppance - in the long run.

A political solution that's of any significance with the Sunnis will follow on that community's subjugation and inability to mount a spoiling campaign of violence. Anything done without/prior to that will be short-lived.
Posted by Verlaine 2007-04-02 15:15||   2007-04-02 15:15|| Front Page Top

01:07 Mohammed was a pedophile
01:01 Mohammed was a pedophile
00:49 Mohammed was a phag.
00:46 Mohammed was a phag.
00:44 Mohammed was a phag.
00:15 Muhammad_is_a_Phag
00:09 Muhammad_is_a_Phag
23:55 Jesing Ebbease3087
23:46 Mac
23:43 JosephMendiola
23:37 3dc
23:35 Mike N
23:13 Zenster
23:08 JosephMendiola
23:00 CrazyFool
22:15 trailing wife
22:08 Dave D.
21:58 ed
21:57 Sneaze
21:55 Zenster
21:52 sinse
21:48 sinse
21:45 sinse
21:43 sinse









Paypal:
Google
Search WWW Search rantburg.com