Famous Logic that REGIME CHANGE won't work in Iraq

Sorry...I couldn't confirm recent discussion of this article...I guess I lost my search privileges after not donating for a year..these arguments are especially relevant in the face of recent pressure by Bushco et al to support "winning the WAR"....

http://mediachannel.org/blog/node/542

These quotes are so prophetic:

1. Iraqis are already fighting Iraqis. Insurgents have killed far more Iraqis than Americans. That's civil war. We created the civil war when we invaded; we can't prevent a civil war by staying.

2. Until the United States withdraws from Iraq and admits its strategic error, no such coalition can be formed. What will happen to our credibility if the course he is pursuing proves to be a major strategic disaster? Would it not be better for our long-term credibility to withdraw earlier than later in this event?

3. The U.S. presence is not preventing Shi'ite-Sunni conflict; it merely delays it. Iran is preventing it today, and it will probably encourage it once the Shi'ites dominate the new government, an outcome U.S. policy virtually ensures. There is no question the insurgents and other anti-American parties will take over the government once we leave. But that will happen no matter how long we stay. Any government capable of holding power in Iraq will be anti-American because the Iraqi people are increasingly becoming anti-American. (I would argue will always be following many more than 200,000 innocent killed)

4. Imposing a liberal constitutional order in Iraq would be to accomplish something that has never been done before. Of all the world's political cultures, an Arab-Muslim one may be the most resistant to such a change of any in the world. Even the Muslim society in Turkey (an anti-Arab society) stands out for being the only example of a constitutional order in an Islamic society, and even it backslides occasionally.

5. The issue is not military training; it is institutional loyalty. We trained the Vietnamese military effectively. Its generals took power and proved to be lousy politicians and poor fighters in the final showdown. In many battles over a decade or more, South Vietnamese military units fought very well, defeating VC and NVA units. But South Vietnam's political leaders lost the war. Even if we were able to successfully train an Iraqi military and police force, the likely result, after all that, would be another military dictatorship. Experience around the world teaches us that military dictatorships arise when the military's institutional modernization gets ahead of political consolidation.

6. Most surprising to me is that no American political leader today has tried to unmask the absurdity of the administration's case that to question the strategic wisdom of the war is unpatriotic and a failure to support our troops. Most officers and probably most troops don't see it that way. They are angry at the deficiencies in materiel support they get from the Department of Defense, and especially about the irresponsibly long deployments they must now endure because Mr. Rumsfeld and his staff have refused to enlarge the ground forces to provide shorter tours. In the meantime, they know that the defense budget shovels money out the door to maritime forces, SDI, etc., while refusing to increase dramatically the size of the Army.

7. The U.S. invasion of Iraq only serves the interests of:

a. Osama bin Laden (it made Iraq safe for al-Qaeda, positioned U.S. military personnel in places where al-Qaeda operatives can kill them occasionally, helps radicalize youth throughout the Arab and Muslim world, alienates America's most important and strongest allies – the Europeans – and squanders U.S. military resources that otherwise might be finishing off al-Qaeda in Pakistan.);

b. The Iranians (who were invaded by Saddam and who suffered massive casualties in an eight-year war with Iraq.);

c. And the extremists in both Palestinian and Israeli political circles (who don't really want a peace settlement without the utter destruction of the other side, and probably believe that bogging the United States down in a war in Iraq that will surely become a war with the rest of Arab world gives them the time and cover to wipe out the other side.)

The wisest course for journalists might be to begin sustained investigations of why leading Democrats have failed so miserably to challenge the U.S. occupation of Iraq. The first step, of course, is to establish as conventional wisdom the fact that the war was never in the U.S.' interests and has not become so.

It is such an obvious case to make that I find it difficult to believe many pundits and political leaders have not already made it repeatedly.

1. The only way to prevent the civil war MIGHT be Balkanization... dividing Iraq into three countries. The cure might also be worse than the disease.

4. Just because it hasn't happened before doesn't mean it can't happen now... it's just not likely with this group running things.

5. A military dictatorship might be the best thing to happen... IF the dictator was secular and not a total prick. A dictator can, if he wishes, set things up to create a constitutional democracy. See Franco of Spain.

you wrote:
"The only way to prevent the civil war MIGHT be Balkanization... dividing Iraq into three countries. The cure might also be worse than the disease."

Ironic isn't it...that we here in the US don't understand the value of individual states? Of all the nations in the world capable of assisting in the formation of a "united states"....wouldn't you think we'd be the frontrunner?

It may not be as far fetched as people think. Well the Kurds are already there....and with 3 states...this means the possibility to work an interesting competition between the states...just as we have here in the US.

As wacky as it sounds...it would be better than the distressing military "forced nationalistic" solution...leading to an unsolvable violent civil war in which we are caught inbetween for an indeterminable period.