Comments on: The Easy Way Out Isn’t the Way Out http://www.adamsweb.us/blog/the_easy_way_out_isn_t_the_way_out/ Fighting a never ending battle... Thu, 26 Jan 2012 22:04:59 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Adam Graham [Member] http://www.adamsweb.us/blog/the_easy_way_out_isn_t_the_way_out/comment-page-1/#comment-2457 Adam Graham [Member] Wed, 06 Jun 2007 17:04:14 +0000 http://adamsweb.us/blog/index.php/a/2007/06/05/the-easy-way-out-isnt-the-way-out/#comment-2457 I say that we need a change of direction, but cut and run isn't it. Also, I think that the problem we run into with partitioning is that there really isn't a demand for it in Iraq and it'd tick off Turkey. I say that we need a change of direction, but cut and run isn’t it. Also, I think that the problem we run into with partitioning is that there really isn’t a demand for it in Iraq and it’d tick off Turkey.

]]> By: David [Visitor] http://www.adamsweb.us/blog/the_easy_way_out_isn_t_the_way_out/comment-page-1/#comment-2456 David [Visitor] Wed, 06 Jun 2007 10:53:45 +0000 http://adamsweb.us/blog/index.php/a/2007/06/05/the-easy-way-out-isnt-the-way-out/#comment-2456 Regarding your first point: Despite a (very) few tempting parallells, Iraq is not Vietnam. For one thing, before the American pullout, the war in Vietnam had been won, hands down, by the American and South Vietnamese forces. It was the media-engineered, Democratic-backed pullout (ah, <i>there's</i> the most enticing similarity) that turned complete victory into utter defeat in Vietnam.<br /> <br /> But the differences between Vietnam and Iraq could not be more stark. The Vietnam civil war was genuinely that, a civil war--one in which one of the parties fronted for one side in a larger conflict while the other fronted for another, if you will, but still a civil war.<br /> <br /> The continued conflict in Iraq is not a civil war in the usual accepted sense. It <i>is</i> a continuation of a generational, a millennial, conflict between tribes, religious sects and disparate peoples groups. "Iraq" is a geopolitical fiction irrationally cobbled together by Britain around 80 years ago. There is less national identity than there is tribal and cultic identity in the region, and it is these tribal, cultic and ethnic identities that provide fertile ground for the ongoing conflict. Attempting to establish a Wester style democracy as an answer to the centuries-long conflicts of these disparate groups is like looking at a severely injured victim of a car wreck and saying, "I have a box of bandaids that'll fix him right up"... silly.<br /> <br /> Solution? There are two that have worked historically in the region: the strong man approach, which is, brutally, <i>brutally</i>, punish any group that breaks the peace. Not an approach likely to be implemented by the U.S.<br /> <br /> The other workable approach? Separate the kiddies. Make 'em go to their separate "rooms" and stay there. Partitioning. Break 'em up into smaller (much smaller, if necessary) geographical regions based upon their ethnic, religious, tribal identities. (Or, divide and conquer, 21st centiury style, in recognition of the 5th century "civilization" of the region.)<br /> <br /> That's broad strokes, but the process at least has the lessons of history on its side, as opposed to the pie-in-the-sky wishful Jacobian thinking of the White House. Regarding your first point: Despite a (very) few tempting parallells, Iraq is not Vietnam. For one thing, before the American pullout, the war in Vietnam had been won, hands down, by the American and South Vietnamese forces. It was the media-engineered, Democratic-backed pullout (ah, there’s the most enticing similarity) that turned complete victory into utter defeat in Vietnam.

But the differences between Vietnam and Iraq could not be more stark. The Vietnam civil war was genuinely that, a civil war–one in which one of the parties fronted for one side in a larger conflict while the other fronted for another, if you will, but still a civil war.

The continued conflict in Iraq is not a civil war in the usual accepted sense. It is a continuation of a generational, a millennial, conflict between tribes, religious sects and disparate peoples groups. “Iraq” is a geopolitical fiction irrationally cobbled together by Britain around 80 years ago. There is less national identity than there is tribal and cultic identity in the region, and it is these tribal, cultic and ethnic identities that provide fertile ground for the ongoing conflict. Attempting to establish a Wester style democracy as an answer to the centuries-long conflicts of these disparate groups is like looking at a severely injured victim of a car wreck and saying, “I have a box of bandaids that’ll fix him right up”… silly.

Solution? There are two that have worked historically in the region: the strong man approach, which is, brutally, brutally, punish any group that breaks the peace. Not an approach likely to be implemented by the U.S.

The other workable approach? Separate the kiddies. Make ‘em go to their separate “rooms” and stay there. Partitioning. Break ‘em up into smaller (much smaller, if necessary) geographical regions based upon their ethnic, religious, tribal identities. (Or, divide and conquer, 21st centiury style, in recognition of the 5th century “civilization” of the region.)

That’s broad strokes, but the process at least has the lessons of history on its side, as opposed to the pie-in-the-sky wishful Jacobian thinking of the White House.

]]>