surely you understand that we don't always have to use a sledgehammer to pound in a nail.
I understand that very well. I’m not sure that everyone in DC does: the sledgehammer seems to be becoming the default response in some quarters. I think more than a few people believe that the use of force is a good thing in itself, and that we have to beat somebody up now and then just to prove that we have the will to do it.
Iraq was different.. We could make a decisive change in the strategic balance of power in that region with relatively little risk and potentially significant gain.
Have we made a decisive change in the strategic balance of power? Have we accurately assessed the risks?
What we’ve seen so far, in terms of ambushes, bombings, etc. could easily be the tip of the iceberg. The tactics we are using against them are not going to be effective in the long run: you can’t stop terrorism by sending thousands of troops to sweep neighborhoods. Unfortunately, there’s no other tactic we can use. We have no police force that can be relied on, no Iraqi domestic intelligence service we can rely on, no immigration service we can rely on. How are we supposed to investigate or prevent terrorism? Troops can’t do it; that’s not what they are trained to do.
Imagine trying to manage homeland security with no police, no FBI, no INS, long, porous land borders with nations that are known sponsors of terrorism, and a population largely sympathetic to the terrorists. Would you want that job?
A few hundred determined terrorists can effectively derail both physical and political reconstruction. How much work has been done on that big contract that was awarded to Bechtel? According to friends in Dubai, almost none. The subcontracts are awarded, but the people won’t go in until security improves (and until money is released, which apparently isn’t happening).
The war is still not over, and there is a whole lot that can go wrong. We are actually still entering the most difficult phase, something many here don’t seem to realize.
S. Korea can successfully defend itself from any invasion from the North (although it would be a bloody victory).
We don’t know if that’s true or not. I hope we don’t find out.
Syria could be a different issue though. I'm hoping there's sufficient "influence" that can be applied to make some difference there. It's really use to Bashir Assad.. But that's a battle for later on...
One must also ask whether it is our battle. Is Syria a threat to us, or is it now our responsibility to fight on behalf of the Israelis. |
