Iraq is a Loser

The Associated Press has run a story by its military writer Robert Burns making the claim that the so-called "surge" is "working" in Iraq and now the war is entering "a new phase." Burns, however, rather weakens his argument by conceding that, for all of US efforts, the US can't guarantee victory -- "only the Iraqis can." Then he points out that "it is far from certain that they are capable" of doing this because of "deep-seated sectarian loyalties", because of a "deepening crisis" in the government coalition, and many related issues, all leaving American commanders "clinging to a hope that stability might be built from the bottom up ... " According to Burns, though, beyond the "clinging hope", there is another reason why the US military chiefs do not want to give up -- "they feel that so much has been sacrificed already that it makes no sense to quit now" referring to the 3,665 US soldiers lost so far, and the current average of two per day dead. But, of all the arguments for staying, this last one undoubtedly is the most dangerous and most futile. By dint of this belief, the US should have remained in the Vietnam War indefinitely since we lost 55,000 lives -- and Ronald Reagan should never have pulled US forces out of Lebanon after losing several hundred US troops to a terrorist attack. America cannot base its national security decisions on romantic fantasies but on realities -- and the truth is that the US is embedded in an intervention it should never have undertaken, caught up in a civil war that it cannot settle or stop, and, most importantly, has lost the support of the only constituency that counts -- the American people.