HOME | POLITICS | SPORTS | LIFE | SCI/TECH | OPEDS | HELPFUL TIPS
|
July 14, 2007 The press, the Democrats, and some Republicans are now having a good time bashing Bush over the war in Iraq. He doesn't seem to care as he is not running for re-election when his term is up. What is his overall point in keeping up the pressure on Baghdad? He can either win or lose with the surge in troop strength. It seems that he has the luxury of pursuing a wholly military strategy; his hands not, as in the case of Vietnam, tied by the media. The surge policy undertaken by General Petraeus owes a lot to French General Challe, who took over at the height of Algerian civil war. Upon assuming command he reorganized parts of the French army into 100-man commando units, each responsible for a single company of rebel Algerian FLN troops, and is credited with driving the FLN out of Algiers. If the French Army could win the battle of Algiers, is it not feasible that the US Army could also win the battle of Baghdad? And is not possible that the general population of native born Algerians was not against French rule? After all, it is very hard to speak one's mind when the liberators live on your block. At present, their descendants seem to be fighting to live under French rule, some even giving their lives in the effort to get on to French soil. The US lost the war in Vietnam to win the global conflict against the Soviets, Vietnam being but a small part of the puzzle. Afghanistan was the bait taken by the Soviets, who reasoned that the US, after the defeat in Vietnam was out of the game. Similarly, if the US pulls out of Iraq it will, for a decade or so, become another Afghanistan of yore, in this case to be divided between Saudi Arabian Sunnis and Iranian Shiite. Who will win control of the Shat al Arab waterway, the source of most of the world's oil supply? Does the US have any long term international plans beyond 'spreading democracy'? How long will it take for democracy to take root, as long as on the American Continent after the American War of Independence? Seems unlikely as the colonists were steeped in European traditions regarding law and religion. I can't see any Arab government in the near future becoming democratic, as they have never inclined towards democracy any way. The world is in a constant state of turmoil, needing strong players who arrange things in such a way so as to minimize future shocks. Democracy is a great concept, but merely implementing it will not automatically bring peace to the world. Germany and France were fairly democratic during the early Victorian period but still they were responsible for starting the greatest war the world had seen since the beginning of time. The Wiemar Republic, too, disintegrated after a very short run, again plunging the world into a greater war than the first.
Americans now must feel very lonely. They have succeeded in driving all of the other players off the board, and must now run the game by themselves.
|
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
