Costly Withdrawal Is the Price To Be Paid for a Foolish War
[This News Service prides itself on hardly ever describing any item as a must read item. This is a rare exception, but
only for anybody who wants to understand the significance of the current situation in Iraq. The point to be made is one
of the foremost authorities on the subject of war has declared the whole Iraq adventure lost and lots more beside.
An indication of Van Creveld’s authority in these matter is given at the very bottom: [The Israeli Van Creveld] is the
only non-American author on the U.S. Army's required reading list for officers. His writing on various military subjects
including Israel’s wars are used by people from all sides in the conflict. He is also far from being a pacifist or a
left-winger. It may be a good idea to distribute this in your local ALP/Greens/Democrats branch and to post a hard copy
to your local member – they need to know how serious the situation is. Definitely recommended reading.
A search of the sent items file reveals that a year ago I posted to some of you a 10-page item Why Iraq Will End as
Vietnam Did by the same author. His prediction certainly withstood the test of time. I will be happy to send anyone who
requests it a copy. It may be worthwhile observing the change of tone (and tense.)
- Sol Salbe]
http://www.forward.com/articles/6936
By Martin van Creveld
November 25, 2005
The number of American casualties in Iraq is now well more than 2,000, and there is no end in sight. Some two-thirds of
Americans, according to the polls, believe the war to have been a mistake. And congressional elections are just around
the corner.
What had to come, has come. The question is no longer if American forces will be withdrawn, but how soon — and at what
cost. In this respect, as in so many others, the obvious parallel to Iraq is Vietnam.
Confronted by a demoralized army on the battlefield and by growing opposition at home, in 1969 the Nixon administration
started withdrawing most of its troops in order to facilitate what it called the "Vietnamization" of the country. The
rest of America's forces were pulled out after Secretary of State Henry Kissinger negotiated a "peace settlement" with
Hanoi. As the troops withdrew, they left most of their equipment to the Army of the Republic of South Vietnam — which
just two years later, after the fall of Saigon, lost all of it to the communists.
Clearly this is not a pleasant model to follow, but no other alternative appears in sight.
Whereas North Vietnam at least had a government with which it was possible to arrange a cease-fire, in Iraq the opponent
consists of shadowy groups of terrorists with no central organization or command authority. And whereas in the early
1970s equipment was still relatively plentiful, today's armed forces are the products of a technology-driven revolution
in military affairs. Whether that revolution has contributed to anything besides America's national debt is open to
debate. What is beyond question, though, is that the new weapons are so few and so expensive that even the world's
largest and richest power can afford only to field a relative handful of them.
Therefore, simply abandoning equipment or handing it over to the Iraqis, as was done in Vietnam, is simply not an
option. And even if it were, the new Iraqi army is by all accounts much weaker, less skilled, less cohesive and less
loyal to its government than even the South Vietnamese army was. For all intents and purposes, Washington might just as
well hand over its weapons directly to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.
Clearly, then, the thing to do is to forget about face-saving and conduct a classic withdrawal.
Handing over their bases or demolishing them if necessary, American forces will have to fall back on Baghdad. From
Baghdad they will have to make their way to the southern port city of Basra, and from there back to Kuwait, where the
whole misguided adventure began. When Prime Minister Ehud Barak pulled Israel out of Lebanon in 2000, the military was
able to carry out the operation in a single night without incurring any casualties. That, however, is not how things
will happen in Iraq.
Not only are American forces perhaps 30 times larger, but so is the country they have to traverse. A withdrawal probably
will require several months and incur a sizable number of casualties. As the pullout proceeds, Iraq almost certainly
will sink into an all-out civil war from which it will take the country a long time to emerge — if, indeed, it can do so
at all. All this is inevitable and will take place whether George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Condoleezza
Rice like it or not.
Having been thoroughly devastated by two wars with the United States and a decade of economic sanctions, decades will
pass before Iraq can endanger its neighbors again. Yet a complete American withdrawal is not an option; the region, with
its vast oil reserves, is simply too important for that. A continued military presence, made up of air, sea and a
moderate number of ground forces, will be needed.
First and foremost, such a presence will be needed to counter Iran, which for two decades now has seen the United States
as "the Great Satan." Tehran is certain to emerge as the biggest winner from the war — a winner that in the not too
distant future is likely to add nuclear warheads to the missiles it already has. In the past, Tehran has often
threatened the Gulf States. Now that Iraq is gone, it is hard to see how anybody except the United States can keep the
Gulf States, and their oil, out of the mullahs' clutches.
A continued American military presence will be needed also, because a divided, chaotic, government-less Iraq is very
likely to become a hornets' nest. From it, a hundred mini-Zarqawis will spread all over the Middle East, conducting acts
of sabotage and seeking to overthrow governments in Allah's name.
The Gulf States apart, the most vulnerable country is Jordan, as evidenced by the recent attacks in Amman. However,
Turkey, Egypt and, to a lesser extent, Israel are also likely to feel the impact. Some of these countries, Jordan in
particular, are going to require American assistance.
Maintaining an American security presence in the region, not to mention withdrawing forces from Iraq, will involve many
complicated problems, military as well as political. Such an endeavor, one would hope, will be handled by a team
different from — and more competent than — the one presently in charge of the White House and Pentagon.
For misleading the American people, and launching the most foolish war since Emperor Augustus in 9 B.C sent his legions
into Germany and lost them, Bush deserves to be impeached and, once he has been removed from office, put on trial along
with the rest of the president's men. If convicted, they'll have plenty of time to mull over their sins.
Martin van Creveld, a professor of military history at the Hebrew University, is author of "Transformation of War"
(Free Press, 1991). He is the only non-American author on the U.S. Army's required reading list for officers.
*************
[The independent Middle East News Service concentrates on providing alternative information chiefly from Israeli
sources. It is sponsored by the Australian Jewish Democratic Society. The views expressed here are not necessarily those
of the AJDS. These are expressed in its own statements]