No one seems to be writing opinion pieces quite the way I would, so I decided to do it myself.

The name? Taverns are places where one goes to discuss the interesting events and things in the world, so this is my tavern.

I will offer my views on politics, economics, and whatever else strikes my fancy.
I will occasionally publish the entire article from another journal for purposes of causing discussion.

 

Army Won't Face Reality

USA Today By Dave Moniz, USA TODAY

WASHINGTON — The former civilian head of the Army said Monday it is time for the Pentagon to admit that the military is in for a long occupation of Iraq that will require a major commitment of American troops.

Former Army secretary Thomas White said in an interview that senior Defense officials "are unwilling to come to grips" with the scale of the postwar U.S. obligation in Iraq. The Pentagon has about 150,000 troops in Iraq and recently announced that the Army's 3rd Infantry Division's stay there has been extended indefinitely.

"This is not what they were selling (before the war)," White said, describing how senior Defense officials downplayed the need for a large occupation force. "It's almost a question of people not wanting to 'fess up to the notion that we will be there a long time and they might have to set up a rotation and sustain it for the long term."

Looks like if you try to tell the truth to the Bush administration (especially Rumsfield) you get fired. But the State Department leaked a study saying that it was not likely that Iraq would become a democracy before the war, and the experience in Bosnia has been that we are still there and there is no exit in sight. This administration has been talking about us pulling our troops out next Fall. Surely no one has taken that seriously outside the administration! It simply isn't reasonable!

The next thing is that while we are there, there will be a steady low level of attacks on our troops. That's also true in Afghanistan. But we are now there in both Iraq and Afghanistan. We own them. Their governments are ~our~ responsibility.

So why are governments established? Jefferson said they were to provide for "...Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness." The Bush administration has taken the responsibility for those things for Iraq and Afghanistan onto the US, just as Clinton took them on for Bosnia - and we are still there in Bosnia.

The Taliban clearly did not offer Life, liberty or the Pursuit of Happiness. Neither did Saddam, but the radical Shiites don't either. We can't let the Ba'ath Party have Iraq back, not can we turn it over to the Shiites or the Whahabi Fundamentalist Muslims. Nor can we let the Taliban have Afghanistan back, yet to let the wqrlords have most of the nation is much the same.That is what we are presently doing. In Iraq and Afghanistan we (that is the Bush administration acting in the name of the American People) have grabbed the tarbaby, and now we are stuck. The cost of leaving is now higher than the cost of staying - except perhaps politically in the short term for the Bush administration.

Which has always been the real objection to such nation-building exercises. Is it worth being in control of those countries because we fear the repeat of 9/11? The real question, though, is whether this is even an appropriate response to 9/11.

I guess it comes down to two questions. The first is whether the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq are workable responses to the threat posed by 9/11. The second question is whether the two invasions and the resulting nation-building responsibilities are worth the cost.

Personally, I am convinced that Afghanistan was appropriate and worth it. But the jury is still out on Iraq. The other question is whether the Bush administration is willing to do what is required in either country after the war is over. The history in Afghanistan is not encouraging.
posted by Richard at 10:22 PM