Israel lost all chance of keeping all the West Bank when it signed onto Oslo.
No, Israel as a decent Jewish state never had any chance of "keeping all the West Bank." And it has nothing to do with military strength. It has everything to do with demographics. Even Sharon and Olmert eventually realized that, Nadine. Why can't you? Sure, if Israel had wanted to kill and dislocate a couple of million people, maybe they could have tried to "keep" it. But even then, Arab fury and world condenmnation would have been so strong, that they would never have succeeded. Nadine, think about demographics. And don't let the propaganda of '48 and '67 wars eat up your brain cells. Examine the situations there. People learn and adapt. Even Muslims. Guess what, they're not stupid (even though I admit sometimes they do some pretty stupid things--but guess what, so do we all).
For an example of what I mean by a report, see this blog entry
Message 23338049
and let me know if you have seen any MSM reporter cover the situation in as much depth.
OK, I read the blog. It was interesting. And not, as you say, "happy reporting." But, consider this paragraph:
4. "Catch and release" swells the ranks of the opposition. Every battalion I spoke with was convinced the "rules of law" for arrest, imprisonment and release favor the insurgent. The Iraqi judiciary system cannot be straightened out for another five years. At higher levels, this is disputed. I remain on the side of the battalions. We must lock up tens of thousands until the violence subsides.
There is the rub. And the reason why, if I may put words into Ed's mouth, insurgencies that avoid major battles and major losses, but inflict injuries with a thousand cuts, are effective--IF they actually have the support of at least a sizable minority of people. The truth is, we CAN't simply "lock up tens of thousands until the violence subsides." We will simply create even more "bad guys" (but the truth again isn't that they are necessarily all "bad guys," they just oppose our presence, they would be perfectly "good guys" if they just "supported" us) and the lockup certainly won't change their minds about us or the ruling order that supports us and we support.
Another paragraph:
11. Trust will decide this war. We know the essence of the problem: Whether the Iraqi central government and security forces are led by deceivers who tell us they believe in a stable federation with power-sharing, while they abet sectarian division. In my most recent visit, there was the pervasive, open acknowledgement by the police, IA and the residents that they trusted the Americans, but not each other.
Well, guess what, of course they are going to tell an American that they "trust Americans, but not each other." But--"trust Americans" for what? Do they want the Americans to run their country? Is that how they "trust Americans"? Do they really think that the Americans know who to lock up or kill? They know that the Americans don't have centuries of ill will toward either Sunni or Shia factions, so they are "trusted." Both sides need the Americans to tilt toward them, that is a fact. The writers "essence of the problem" is, indeed, a part of the essence of the problem. But the other part is--even if the central government and Iraqi security forces are NOT led by those who secretly "abet sectarian division", does it at this point really make any difference? Has the cleansing gone on too long already, the innate mistrust between the groups been inflamed too much, the outside backers of the factions in other countries become too involved (not just Iran for the Shia, but Sunni countries for the Sunni factions), so that this is now the early stages of a civil war that must flame up and burn itself out over a period of years? It is hardly farfetched to hold the latter view, and to have held that the latter was always the most likely outcome of this splendid little war from the start--even if Bush et al had done everything "right" from the start.
I will wait until I hear the generals and the troops say it's doomed to failure. They have been positive all the while, and if they are worried now, it's about the likes of you, not their chances in the field. I think it is you who have confused your expectations with your wishes. If Bill Clinton had startecd the war - and let's not forget he instituted the US policy of regime change in Iraq - would you have been saying it was doomed from day one? I very much doubt it.
This is utter nonsense. Complete utter nonsense. It was Democrats who led the opposition to Vietnam against a Democratic president, not Republicans. True, they were late--Wayne Morse's prediction that everyone would deeply regret their Gulf of Tonkin vote was proven largely correct, as Byrd said a few years ago. But at least a number of them were there by '66-67. Johnson's pride doomed his political career and thousands of soldiers to death and maiming, not to mention leading to the disaffection of millions of Americans toward the government, and a damaging split in the American public that still has not entirely healed. In case you haven't heard, a number of generals have come out against this war. And in case you can't make the connection, the generals are often the last ones to speak publicly about their misgivings about public policy, for both very good and very bad reasons. The bad reasons are illustrated by what has gone on at Walter Reed. They cite the good reasons all time. But retired generals spoken out. Read Cordesman's recent article, here: csis.org
But of course, you ignore people of that "ilk", as they clearly want the US to "lose", like I do, lol. The fact that we believe that we have provoked and are now in the middle of a civil war that we can never win one way or the other; and in fact we can only lose as we tilt now one way, now the other way; and in fact we actually have allies on both sides of this civil war, as well as enemies on both sides; these facts do NOT add up to wanting the US to "lose." They add up to looking at the situation, and making inferences from the facts. |
