What are you doing working on your computer at 1 AM? I hope your mom doesn't see this!
Actually, I find more of a cautionary tale in the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, since Algeria had been a French colony since the 1800s, and Algerians actually had rights approaching those of native Frenchmen. In contrast, The Soviets sought to add Afghanistan to their empire of buffer states. They had a puppet government, which "invited" them to help put down an Islamic rebellion against the Marxist regime. The Sovs spent 9 years trying to subdue the Mujahideen with massive numbers of troops and severe reprisals, but could never control much territory outside of the cities. Foreign Muslims flocked into Afghanistan to fight the Sovs and their puppet regime, and the US and others did all they could to undermine them, both covertly and diplomatically. Does that scenario sound familiar? Anyway, after losing 15,000-25,000 men, depending on whose stats you believe, the Sovs pulled out. The ensuing power vacuum left Afghanistan wide open for the Taliban to take over, and also allowed Al Qaeda to flourish there with Osama’s money and a strong cadre of Mujahideen veterans. This alone should be a convincing argument against Murtha and the cut-and-run crowd, but also an argument against these generals and others who advocated a massive US troop presence in Iraq.
Another lesson learned can be found in the Vietnam War, where the Kennedy administration authorized a coup against Ngo Dinh Diem in favor of General Minh, because Diem wasn’t doing a good enough job rallying his people. There has been a lot of bluster inside the Beltway about getting al Jaafari to step down for his inability to form a government fast enough, but we should absolutely avoid any measure that winds up making us look like the puppet masters to the Iraqi government, which would destroy any credibility they would have with the Iraqi people.
What are you doing working on your computer at 1 AM? I hope your mom doesn't see this!
She has yet to ask...lol
Your analogies seem very apt.
While this strategic difference may be what is prompting many of the generals, I think some of the driving force is simply a push for visible change, no matter the direction. While this is Bush's war, its also Rumsfeld's. Calling for Bush to step down...well, sounds good to me, but they wouldn't do it. Rumsfeld is the next best thing. However, he's more than a scapegoat; it was, afterall, his policies that led to Abu Gharib and various other disasters, all of which have only made the situation even worse.
Commenting by HaloScan
