Lieberman makes evocative and persuasive political arguments... and I agree that, having decided to meddle in Middle Eastern political affairs by invading four years ago, the U.S. cannot honorably withdraw from Iraq without having established a working infrastructure that can, one must hope, withstand the depredations of terrorists within the region.
However...
By invading Iraq, the U.S. has successfully made it a flashpoint for every religiously motivated violent group in the Middle East and beyond. The initial reason that bin Laden turned against the United States, after being an ally and "freedom fighter" in the conflict between Russia and Afghanistan in the 1980s, was because America chose to establish permanent bases in Saudi Arabia during and in the wake of the first U.S.-Iraq war back in 1991. By maintaining a physical presence in the region, by appearing even symbolically to continue in the course of American cultural colonialism and military adventurism, the U.S. will remain the preeminent antagonist to every individual who feels the "Great Power" has no business being on their land telling them what to do.
Many of those people are religiously motivated -- believing that it is their holy mission to drive the American invaders and any vestige of American control from their homeland. I would wager that intimidation will not work against many of these people, because they aren't afraid to die in pursuit of that goal.
If the U.S. targets them directly, it only plays into their dreams of martyrdom.
If the U.S. targets those they've worked with, they hail those who have been captured as true martyrs to the cause who will find an honored place in the afterlife.
If the U.S. targets their families and friends, it may intimidate them to some degree out of concern for those they care for... or it may harden their resolve and prove to them within their own minds just how monstrous a foe the Americans actually are.
And in the last case, by being just as hard-edged as the terrorists are, the U.S. is dragged down in the opinions of other nations, making them less likely to cooperate with us in any way in the future. Some might argue that the U.S. can of course go their way alone -- we're a superpower, after all; nothing is beyond us! -- but that's a hollow boast that rings untrue in the face of our national debt and perpetual trade deficits.
In conclusion... and this became quite a bit more long-winded than I expected it to be... the U.S. cannot win if they stay. But it also cannot win if it leaves at this point. The one question which remains highly relevant is how many years and how many American lives will be lost in Iraq before the voting populace grows weary of the ongoing sacrifice of their kin for land and people thousands of miles away. Regardless of how substantial that loss is, I do not believe it will be sufficient to establish and maintain a bastion against terrorism in the Middle East without being just as draconian a police state as the one that Saddam Hussein held for decades.
Lieberman contends that the problem is a shortage of troops on the ground in Iraq. I seem to recall similar contentions being made concerning the ongoing "police action" in Vietnam in the 1970s.
At this point, the only other question in my mind is when the Bush administration decides to stop saber-rattling and actually invade Iran, providing them with a putative Middle Eastern geographical power bloc (stretching two thousand miles from Iraq to Afghanistan) and an entirely new set of problems.
no subject
However...
By invading Iraq, the U.S. has successfully made it a flashpoint for every religiously motivated violent group in the Middle East and beyond. The initial reason that bin Laden turned against the United States, after being an ally and "freedom fighter" in the conflict between Russia and Afghanistan in the 1980s, was because America chose to establish permanent bases in Saudi Arabia during and in the wake of the first U.S.-Iraq war back in 1991. By maintaining a physical presence in the region, by appearing even symbolically to continue in the course of American cultural colonialism and military adventurism, the U.S. will remain the preeminent antagonist to every individual who feels the "Great Power" has no business being on their land telling them what to do.
Many of those people are religiously motivated -- believing that it is their holy mission to drive the American invaders and any vestige of American control from their homeland. I would wager that intimidation will not work against many of these people, because they aren't afraid to die in pursuit of that goal.
If the U.S. targets them directly, it only plays into their dreams of martyrdom.
If the U.S. targets those they've worked with, they hail those who have been captured as true martyrs to the cause who will find an honored place in the afterlife.
If the U.S. targets their families and friends, it may intimidate them to some degree out of concern for those they care for... or it may harden their resolve and prove to them within their own minds just how monstrous a foe the Americans actually are.
And in the last case, by being just as hard-edged as the terrorists are, the U.S. is dragged down in the opinions of other nations, making them less likely to cooperate with us in any way in the future. Some might argue that the U.S. can of course go their way alone -- we're a superpower, after all; nothing is beyond us! -- but that's a hollow boast that rings untrue in the face of our national debt and perpetual trade deficits.
In conclusion... and this became quite a bit more long-winded than I expected it to be... the U.S. cannot win if they stay. But it also cannot win if it leaves at this point. The one question which remains highly relevant is how many years and how many American lives will be lost in Iraq before the voting populace grows weary of the ongoing sacrifice of their kin for land and people thousands of miles away. Regardless of how substantial that loss is, I do not believe it will be sufficient to establish and maintain a bastion against terrorism in the Middle East without being just as draconian a police state as the one that Saddam Hussein held for decades.
Lieberman contends that the problem is a shortage of troops on the ground in Iraq. I seem to recall similar contentions being made concerning the ongoing "police action" in Vietnam in the 1970s.
At this point, the only other question in my mind is when the Bush administration decides to stop saber-rattling and actually invade Iran, providing them with a putative Middle Eastern geographical power bloc (stretching two thousand miles from Iraq to Afghanistan) and an entirely new set of problems.