The Fifteen Years' War

Rep. Jan Shakowsky took a trip to Iraq:

But the military presentations left her stunned. Schakowsky said she jotted down Petraeus's words in a small white notebook she had brought along to record her impressions. Her neat, looping handwriting filled page after page, and she flipped through to find the Petraeus section. " 'We will be in Iraq in some way for nine to 10 years,' " Schakowsky read carefully. She had added her own translation: "Keep the train running for a few months, and then stretch it out. Just enough progress to justify more time."

"I felt that was a stretch and really part of a PR strategy -- just like the PR strategy that initially led up to the war in the first place," Schakowsky said. Petraeus, she said, "acknowledged that if the policymakers decide that we need to withdraw, that, you know, that's what he would have to do. But he felt that in order to win, we'd have to be there nine or 10 years."

It really is striking how un-optimistic the more optimistic views of Iraq are when you get down to it. Michael O'Hanlon thinks our strategy "probably can't succeed" unless the political situation in Iraq magically alters. General Petraeus thinks he's making so much progress that the war will need to continue twice as long again as it's already gone on. More to the point, once you're looking at that kind of time frame, all forecasts are nonsensical. We could leave tomorrow and ten years might be plenty of time for Iraq to descend deeper into civil war, for the civil war to end, and then for stability to emerge. There's just no telling. Petraeus is saying that there's no light at the end of the tunnel.

Comments

Accept, for the moment, that no one really cares about the Iraqi people. There seems to be a broad consensus that we still need to be there. I'm willing to believe that the motivation is oil, but I need the mechanisms we're worried about spelled out for me. Is this purely a matter of making sure some other power doesn't supersede our influence in the region? Who are we worried about? Iran? Iran as a staking horse for China?

I'm willing to believe we really should stay there, but someone needs to explain why. Terrorism isn't doing it for me, and either is humanitarian concern.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | August 25, 2007 8:34 PM

"We could leave tomorrow and ten years might be plenty of time for Iraq to descend deeper into civil war, for the civil war to end, and then for stability to emerge."

It's like those acne treatment commercials that promise to clear up individual zits within 7-10 days.

Zits clear up on their own within 7-10 days. The Iraqi civil war would almost certainly clear up on its own within ten years.

But some people make money selling those acne treatments. Other people make money selling this war.

Posted by ML | August 25, 2007 9:02 PM

As far as I can tell, the choice being put to us is to kick the can down the road - at a relatively predictable cost in American lives, treasure and military readiness, and a moderate but poorly known ongoing loss of Iraqi lives and lifestyle; or we could leave now and let all hell erupt behind us.

I'm for the former, because I see no indications that leaving in ten years won't still result in all hell erupting behind us, as I see no signs of stability emerging. But there is a huge downside, especially politically, to declaring defeat and taking the blame for the resulting violence, while war proponents - who really are to blame - can wave the flag and let Americans and especially Iraqis continue to bleed less dramativally, at little cost. Little cost to them, at least.

Posted by Warren Terra | August 25, 2007 9:07 PM

Alternative reading: Petraeus has taken with him a group of officers who have studied, intensively, counterinsurgency -- guys who will tell you that the average counterinsurgency takes (you guessed it) 10 years to win. Some longer. That is the military and political reality of history.

The problem is that none of this has ever been really well explained to the American public; in part, I suppose, because civilian political leaders know the public doesn't really have the stomach, in advance, for a decade-long war. (That's no slur on the public, btw, no 'stab in the back' narrative -- that's the reality of conducting a war of choice in a liberal democracy.)

It's not really Petraeus' fault that case hasn't been well-made; then again, at this point, it's probably not NOT his fault, either.

Posted by Anon | August 25, 2007 9:08 PM

It’s been crystal clear for a while now that the Bush strategy is to hold out until January 2009 and then throw the ball up the court to the next (Democratic) president. Petraeus has become a willful tool in this strategy, and will no doubt get his rewards when the time comes.

The rolling out of this strategy will pick up steam in September when Petraeus presents “his” report. How the Democrats respond then will be a real test of their spine.

But, as the January-09 deadline approaches, it will increasingly become the Democrats’ problem to explain how they intend to manage the transition in Iraq to a “fifteen years' war” and to deal with the “stab in the back” attacks that the Republican machine is already preparing.

Posted by Justin X | August 25, 2007 9:13 PM

It is very simple.

The bloody fact of this century is that China, India, Europe are all going to outgrow the United States in economic terms, the more so if the US keeps its borders shut to immigration.

Control of the Persian Gulf is an insurance against the US losing its military hegemony.

In summary, I believe it will all boil down to whether the US will accept to leave the centerstage graciously or not. If the latter, the Iraq war will be the first of many in the decades to come.

Posted by Eco | August 25, 2007 9:27 PM

This timeframe is to be expected. Having learned that UNSCOM was right and Saddam didn't have any WMDs, having captured Saddam Hussein and witnessed his execution by Moktada-chanting sectarians, our goal is now to effect a generational change in Iraq.

15 years...just about a generation.

We thought a generational change would happen in less time because we wanted it to?

Posted by cpl | August 25, 2007 9:33 PM

Jan Schakowsky is a professional activist of the Jewish hard-left. Meaning she wants America humbled, PC, and the little duped infants in military uniforms safe again with their "mothers and families"....while of course being a hardcore Likudnuk for her other country of interest.

Schakowsky has a felon husband who spent time in jail for check-kiting fraud at one of the Lefty institutions the two worked with since the early 60s.

She is a member of some 20 different Leftist organizations and boards - most Naderite, as well as sitting on the Governing Board of the American Jewish Congress and somehow, no conflict of interest recognized - being Chair, Government Agency Division, Jewish United Fund.

Sounds like she needs to get a refresher from her Likudnik pals on defeatism not being such a hot idea and less time with her "good friends" Nancy Pelosi and the young lad she helped mentor, Obama.

If we win, we may stay in countries decades or centuries. Usually do, as investors, business folk, manning the odd military base or two.

If we lose and are defeated, then we "completely withdraw to keep our children safe" as Pelosi puts it.

Petraus, Hillary, Biden, Dodd, Thompson, Romney all recognize we are likely to stay to stabilize Iraq, and to have a strategic land position in the ME to help fight terror and protect our vital interests.

Posted by Chris Ford | August 25, 2007 9:34 PM

Any day now, the WHite House is going to start using Ahmed Chalabi's line "We are heroes in error"

Posted by Don Williams | August 25, 2007 9:36 PM

Accept, for the moment, that no one really cares about the Iraqi people ... I'm willing to believe we really should stay there.

We really HAVE become a nation of little Eichmans. We deserve EVERY POSSIBLE BAD THAT THAT HAPPENS TO US.

Posted by LarryM | August 25, 2007 9:41 PM

Every one of voting age in this country has the blood of dead Iraqi children on their hands. A time will (hopefully) come when we are as utterly defeated as Nazi Germany and are forced to deal with our guilt as Germany has.

Posted by LarryM | August 25, 2007 9:43 PM

The bloody fact of this century is that China, India, Europe are all going to outgrow the United States in economic terms, the more so if the US keeps its borders shut to immigration.

For the sake of the world, we can only hope that this is true.

Posted by LarryM | August 25, 2007 9:45 PM

Hey Chris Ford, how the hell can you sleep at night with the blood on your hands, you freaking baby killer.

Vital interests, right. It all comes down to killing innocents to protect the oil supply, and bring a profit to Brown & Root, et. al. Fine with you, I guess.

May you, and all of your like minded butchers burn in hell for all eternity.

Posted by LarryM | August 25, 2007 9:48 PM

Why doesn't ANY Democrat have the balls to ask Bush -- and the country -- what right Bush has to sacrifice one more American life for this 4 year long clusterfuck??

Our soldiers sign up to DEFEND the COUNTRY -- not
to be sacrificed for Big Oil and the Israel Lobby.

Why does not one Democrat point out the endless series of lies that Bush and the Neocons have told over the past 6 years --and tell them that they no longer have the trust of the people?

It takes one --maybe two -- Democratic Senators to end this damm farce with a filibuster on further funding in IRaq. To shut down the government if need be.

It takes one --maybe two Democratic leaders to go on Meet The Press or This Week and denounce FOX NEws , Bill O'Reilly, and Rush Limbaugh for the series of cons run on this country over the past six years.

WHY are Democrats such pathetic , contemptible COWARDS?? Isn't the life of ONE soldier worth more than a political career??

WHY haven't they declared WAR on the deceitful bastards who got us in this mess -- FIGHT the Republicans with no holds barred. It would only take $25 Million dollars to mail a letter to every household in this country -- a letter that documents exactly what Bush and Cheney have done.

The Democrats NEVER LEAD goddammit!!! They lie on their asses on the sidelines, endlessly carp about what Bush is doing, making endless sneers about unimportant matters --but they NEVER actually stand up and fight for something.

They seem to think they are entitled to power -- that they simply have to show up , wait for the Republicans to blunder, and then proudly take positions they have done nothing to earn. They never risk their butts on anything -- even when disaster is falling onto their constituents as a result of this lazy, supine cowardice.

Posted by Don Williams | August 25, 2007 9:51 PM

Well I'd ask this instead: why doesn't any Democrat question the United State's right to kill innocent people in order to protect our real and imagined economic interests?

Because they believe in such right, as do 98% of all of our elected politicians and 90% of our citizens.

To our eternal shame. If I can do nothing else, I hope I can make some of you people think about dead and mutilated Iraqi children, and your responsibility for same, while you pump your relatively cheap gas. If I can burn that image into your heads, I will have done more good than any Democratic elected official out there.

Sleep well, monsters.

Posted by LarryM | August 25, 2007 9:56 PM

And Don, while at soem level we are on the saem side, it's a sad state of affairs when we are reduced to making our arguments in terms of saving American soldiers, who, while deserving our sympathy of course, are in some sense complicit with this nation's massive war crimes, instead of invoking the innocent Iraqis who we have murdered.

But hey, I'm as realistic as the next man, and I realize that if there is any chance of ending this horror, it is by appealing to sympathy with the troops, as opposed to the faceless masses in the middle east.

Posted by LarryM | August 25, 2007 10:00 PM

And for those people who, either through brain damage from being dropped on their heads at birth, or from pure disingeniousness, start making the laughable argument that we need to stay in Iraq to (chortle)help and protect the Iraqis, well, there's LOTS I could say, but to start with let's keep in mind that right now we happen to be arming all three sides of the ongoing civil war.

Posted by LarryM | August 25, 2007 10:06 PM

Unfortunately, Bush has been able to pursue his wars in the Middle East because the Democratic Leadership allowed him to establish the BIG LIE in the days after Sept 11 -- because they lacked the courage to tell the truth.

Bush claimed Sept 11 occurred because "they hate our freedom". But Bin Laden had warned the US --via interviews with US TV networks in 1997 and 1998 -- that he was going to launch jihad because of the massive death and destruction the US government has inflicted on the Middle East in defense of Big Oil's investments.

Bin Laden reiterated that point in Nov 2001 -- in an interview which the New York Times deliberately refused to report. See http://www.dawn.com/2001/11/10/top1.htm

Some excerpts:
"HM: Can it be said that you are against the American government, not the American people ?

Bin Laden: Yes! We are carrying on the mission of our Prophet, Muhammad (peace be upon him). The mission is to spread the word of God, not to indulge massacring people. We ourselves are the target of killings, destruction and atrocities. We are only defending ourselves. This is defensive Jihad. We want to defend our people and our land. That is why I say that if we don’t get security, the Americans, too would not get security.

This is a simple formula that even an American child can understand. This is the formula of live and let live. "
--------
"Bin Laden: The American people should remember that they pay taxes to their government, they elect their president, their government manufactures arms and gives them to Israel and Israel uses them to massacre Palestinians. The American Congress endorses all government measures and this proves that the entire America is responsible for the atrocities perpetrated against Muslims. The entire America, because they elect the Congress.

I ask the American people to force their government to give up anti-Muslim policies. The American people had risen against their government’s war in Vietnam. They must do the same today. The American people should stop the massacre of Muslims by their government."

Posted by Don Williams | August 25, 2007 10:10 PM

Oh my God, the American Jewish Congress! How peacenik and anti-Israel can you get?

Posted by Bruce Moomaw | August 25, 2007 10:12 PM

Well Bruce, oddly enough I - well, I don't AGREE with you - but I agree that the portion of the blame that gets placed on the Israeli lobby is excessive. While said lobby deserves SOME blame, the sheer bloody minded selfishness of domestic interests is more than sufficient to explain the horrors of American foreign policy.

Posted by LarryM | August 25, 2007 10:16 PM

And as for peacenik (yeah, I know that wasn't directed at me), far from it. While PERSONALLY, for a variety of reasons, including family obligations, a small degree of cowardice, and the knowledge that most of our enemies have ... well, let's just say, some issues of their own ... I would never give material support to said enemies, I certainly understand their need to violently oppose our criminal policies.

Posted by LarryM | August 25, 2007 10:19 PM

The bloody fact of this century is that China, India, Europe are all going to outgrow the United States in economic terms

You're an idiot.

And this thread could use more smart and level-headed posts from LarryM.

Posted by Homer | August 25, 2007 10:29 PM

We really HAVE become a nation of little Eichmans. We deserve EVERY POSSIBLE BAD THAT THAT HAPPENS TO US. Posted by LarryM

No, self-loathing Americans like LarryM deserve a lasting stain in the history books as the ineffectual little Quislings they are.

it's a sad state of affairs when we are reduced to making our arguments in terms of saving American soldiers, who, while deserving our sympathy of course, are in some sense complicit with this nation's massive war crimes, instead of invoking the innocent Iraqis who we have murdered. But hey, I'm as realistic as the next man, and I realize that if there is any chance of ending this horror, it is by appealing to sympathy with the troops, as opposed to the faceless masses in the middle east.Posted by LarryM

Oh, how refreshing after all the Lefty talk of being patriotic and saying they love and support the troops soooooo much - to have a Lefty admit that the "complicit in war crimes, murdering" troops are only useful tools to exploit in seeking defeatby using the masses sympathy for America soldiers. All to mask where LarryM's real sympathies lie - with the enemy civilians in an occupied country.

Quite honest of you, LarryM!

Hey Chris Ford, how the hell can you sleep at night with the blood on your hands, you freaking baby killer. Vital interests, right. It all comes down to killing innocents to protect the oil supply, and bring a profit to Brown & Root, et. al. Fine with you, I guess. May you, and all of your like minded butchers burn in hell for all eternity. Posted by LarryM

I'll sleep quite well knowing that you belong in a jail cell next to Adam Gadan, Johnny Taliban Lindh, SGT. Ackbar, Sniper Boy Malvo, and Jose Padilla. Not that you'd ever join those traitorous scum because even being a traitor requires more balls than a drama queen Lefty is capable of...but I can dream.

Posted by Chris Ford | August 25, 2007 11:17 PM

"Is this purely a matter of making sure some other power doesn't supersede our influence in the region? Who are we worried about? Iran? Iran as a staking horse for China?"

In the early 1990's, Paul Wolfowitz wrote Cheney a report saying that an invasion of Iraq was required for us to ensure our primacy of post-Cold War power in the face of Europe, China, India, etc. I last read it on the PBS website for the documentary "Behind Closed Doors," which may still be up there.

Chris Ford goes from blaming the lefty Jews to calling the left traitors. Does that remind anybody of anything?

Posted by Reality Man | August 25, 2007 11:38 PM

Could Chris Ford be Jim Webb's sock puppet? Before you dismiss that question out of hand, read Webb's "History Proves Vietnam's Victors Wrong".

Think about it...

Posted by Adam and Steve | August 25, 2007 11:43 PM

Well, some clever Dem should write a bill authorizing a nine year stay in Iraq at the current military occupation level and press it on the congress. Let's see if even one republican signs on. If none do, then it will be unanimous: everybody in Congress hates america.

Since Petraeus has come up with an unworkable framework by plugging in the numbers derived from our current policy, one can only hope that the Dems highlight it, daily, that Reid and Pelosi send some spokesman out every day using every vehicle in the press and blogosphere they can find to make the case that the Bush plan is for another decade of high level involvement. In the meantime, the idea of withdrawal has to be given much more body. We have to know what congress proposes to do to make withdrawal and Iraqi stability twin projects. It is fairly easy to list what needs to be done, from relief for the refugees to encouraging Depression era work relief programs to get Iraqis back to work. The NYT report today on the current power infrastructure showed that the Iraqi cities and districts are slicing up the centralized power system in order to provide desperately needed power to places around the country, with Sadr's militias in the south making the seizure of power plants a priority. Using the Anbar solution - a disguised surrender by American forces applauded by the same knuckledraggers who think we coulda won in Vietnam -- let's extend the policy to withdrawing U.S. supervision of reconstruction projects and simply providing the means to make sure that those plants, and other plants around Iraq, can be sustained in whatever way the Iraqis devise. Unconditional negotiation between all sides has to evolve out of dealing with the fundamental humanitarian crisis, which is simple destitution, in Iraq. All U.S. efforts should be oriented to ending that destitution, which is preliminary to unconditional negotiations between Iraqi factions.

Not that I believe for a second that the Democrats will be that bright, or that a real program to help the Iraqis addressed to their real needs stands a chance in Congress, or with the President, a mealy mouthed bloody bastard whose name will be cursed for generations. However, it would be so nice if the theme of withdrawal was contextualized with the theme of letting Iraqis return to the kind of economic and managerial system that has worked for them before.

Posted by roger | August 26, 2007 12:02 AM

General Petraeus thinks he's making so much progress that the war will need to continue twice as long again as it's already gone on. More to the point, once you're looking at that kind of time frame, all forecasts are nonsensical. We could leave tomorrow and ten years might be plenty of time for Iraq to descend deeper into civil war, for the civil war to end, and then for stability to emerge. There's just no telling. Petraeus is saying that there's no light at the end of the tunnel.

Petraeus knows he can't win immediately. The ONLY way he can concieve of to win is to continue fighting (using better tactics) and maybe in ten years he WILL win. (Note that the sounds of I've heard of the last coupla months indicate he wants more troops.)

Why doesn't he say it's toast and we should quit? We cannot be driven out at this point, and he's been told to find a way to win, so he's doing his job.

(Different generals react differently to this kind of situation, depending on the dictates of their conscience and what they perceive their job to be. Guderian did his best there at the end of the Third Reich, but he kept telling Hitler it was over; eventually there was a huge breakthrough and he was fired. Rommel, in a similar situation in the west, was contemplating opening the gates to the Allies just to get the war over. In both situations, the German army was outmanned, outgunned and outplaned. We're not there yet, so I wouldn't expect Petraeus to suggest folding, except in private. Note though that Petraeus left the door wide open to someone (that is, Congress) TELLING him to quit and offered no stern opposition to that.)

Unfortunately, Congress has no balls.

m, when did your commenters go beserk, anyways?

Posted by max | August 26, 2007 12:06 AM

"The bloody fact of this century is that China, India, Europe are all going to outgrow the United States in economic terms"

Let's just shed some lights on the bloody facts: (1) Europe has already outgrown the US in economic terms. (2) Alas, in quite a few dimensions, the City of London is a bigger pond than Wall Street. (3) China and India have about 4 times the US population; all they need is to have about 1/4 of US per capita income for their economies to be larger than the US.

Posted by Eco | August 26, 2007 12:12 AM

"Let's just shed some lights on the bloody facts"

To quote Homer Simpson: "It's true, we're so lame".

A few thoughts:

- The City of London is doing quite nicely. We should consider learning from some of its regulatory and tax policies.

- Before China becomes the next global hegemon, let it figure out how to sell toothpaste that doesn't kill people. It's nice to see the Chinese move beyond some of their previous, disasterous economic policies and bloody political purges to where they are today, with a growing middle class and growing prosperity. China is in for some interesting times though. It's stock market will crash, spectacularly, and fairly soon (if I knew exactly when I'd have shorted it already, but I'd guess within a year or so -- perhaps after the Olympics). It's economy will also go into recession at some point -- no economy grows at double digits indefinitely. After China finishes dealing with these challenges, it will face the retirement of its "one-child" parents, who will have to be supported in old age by one worker each. Interesting times, indeed.

- India is a far more demographically and politically complex country than China, and its democracy makes the transition to a market economy difficult, but ultimately, India will continue to grow richer and pull more of its poor out of poverty. India will also grow to have an extremely close alliance with the United States, fueled by shared interests as well as its highly successful, bi-national diaspora of businessmen and tech entrepreneurs.

Posted by Fred | August 26, 2007 12:43 AM

Fanning the fire of war
http://james-fanningthefireofwar.blogspot.com/

Posted by James | August 26, 2007 1:01 AM

All to mask where LarryM's real sympathies lie - with the enemy civilians in an occupied country.

Just as it's nice to hear to another jingoistic “patriot” admit that Iraqi civilians are enemies whose welfare could only matter to cowards and traitors.

Posted by DJ | August 26, 2007 1:34 AM

The problem is that none of this has ever been really well explained to the American public

I think this applies on both sides, though perhaps less so since the primary contest began. Few elected Democrats have been honest enough to say that they've got a choice between defunding and letting Bush walk away with 100k+ troops in Iraq, and that even if they passed a defunding bill with a veto-proof majority, Bush would likely ignore it. All the promises of withdrawal before January 2009 are just as much cheerleading as the Magic Pony Plans.

Before China becomes the next global hegemon, let it figure out how to sell toothpaste that doesn't kill people.

Um, the test of hegemony is to be able to sell toothpaste with bonus added anti-freeze and still have people buy it. It's a difference in degree, not in kind, from a United States that sells bullshit wars and forces other countries to swallow them.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | August 26, 2007 2:12 AM

" All to mask where LarryM's real sympathies lie - with the enemy civilians in an occupied country.

Just as it's nice to hear to another jingoistic “patriot” admit that Iraqi civilians are enemies whose welfare could only matter to cowards and traitors."

This brings up the question of what exactly Chris Ford thinks we should be doing in Iraq and why we're there. The humanitarian argument for going into Iraq was bullshit because it was unworkable with our current military and without an international coalition, but it at least had the normative truth going for it that Hussein was an evil tyrant. However, if you believe in the war but you don't believe in this, you have to ask yourself why we are there. If he thinks that every bad Muslim in the world is allied, that's just stupid. I wonder if crackpots in Baghdad think that John Walker Lindh and Charles Manson are allies. The WMD argument was bullshit. That just leaves the three g's: gold, glory and God. Killing infidels, stealing their land and oil and showing the world you have the biggest penis thus become the only reasons to fight. Ego and profit thus become the war's raison d'etre. Such people are a drain on our country. They think that because they aren't on "The Left" that somehow in his head supports the insurgency and AQ that they are the real Americans. In fact, they are Americans only by blood, not by reason and ideology. Our country was one of the first founded in part on ideals. People like Chris Ford look at America and don't see a nation composed of people with high ideals dating back to the Enlightenment, but instead as a collection of like-minded nationalists bound by blood. If you don't fit into his tribe or his tribal ideology, you are on "The Left" and thus not an American. I doubt he has any Jewish, Muslim or atheist friends.

Posted by Reality Man | August 26, 2007 2:14 AM

There's no fucking tunnel. There's just a black pit. Out. Now.

Posted by Dick Durata | August 26, 2007 2:55 AM

I was being sarcastic towared Chris Ford, Larry M. I was, in fact, referring to his bizarre comment simultaneously atacking Shakowsky for being a "peacenik lefty" and for being an (apparently) corrupt member of the AJC. (Of course, that was before he came off his gimbals completely a little later in this thread.)

Posted by Bruce Moomaw | August 26, 2007 3:06 AM

"But he felt that in order to win, we'd have to be there nine or 10 years."

Petraeus' strategy is obvious.

It was foretold by the movie "Triple X".

The Russian agent tells the American agent that she has been in place in the terrorist group for two years.

"What was your plan?", he asks, "To let them die of old age?"

Petraeus knows the war is likely to be over within ten years out of simple exhaustion on all sides, and the complete reduction of the country to rubble.

He doesn't care - as long as he gets to leave at that point claiming "we won" - exactly like the US officer told the North Vietnamese officer (before he was corrected as to the reality by the North Vietnamese officer: "That is true. It is also irrelevant.")

This is the bottom line of the "stay the course" strategy - as long as you don't admit defeat, you aren't defeated. Never mind that none of the goals you set were achieved. Never mind what it costs in human lives or the taxpayers dollars. After all, Petraeus isn't paying for it - and as a general, he stands in no particular physical risk - unless somebody gets lucky and shoots down his chopper. It's a victory if you're the "last man standing."

Which of course the United States can always be since they have some place to go home to - so far, anyway.

The country the US has totally destroyed, however, usually sees it differently.

This is the bottom line: Petraeus, the Joint Chiefs, the officer corps, Bush, Cheney, the neocons and the right wingnuts DO NOT CARE how much it will cost the US public in terms of the lives of their relatives or the tax expense - as long as they to proclaim "we won" and "we were right."

As William S. Burroughs once said, the mark of a "shit" is that they HAVE to be "right".

In reality, though, it's the mark of a human. As I've repeatedly said, humans operate on this basis: "If you're right, I'm wrong. And if I'm wrong, I'm dead - and that can't be allowed. So I'm right and you're wrong. And I'll kill you to prove it if I have to."

Chimpanzees aren't that dumb.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | August 26, 2007 3:12 AM

Richard Steven Hack,
Your 3:12 AM (?!) is brilliant. Can you post that on TPMCafe or somewhere where it might get wider notice?

Cranky

Posted by Cranky Observer | August 26, 2007 10:56 AM

So now we have the Patreus Unit to use for gauging how much longer we'll need to be in Iraq, in addition to the Friedman Unit. Apparently it takes about 20 FU's to make a PU.

Posted by DrBB | August 26, 2007 11:30 AM

Hey, at least the money's good.

Posted by Uncle Kvetch | August 26, 2007 12:16 PM

I believe that "our" purpose in being in Iraq is to be in Iraq. The war with it's many shifting rational's is beside the point.I do not think that any future american president, Democrat or Republican, will willingly give up the base we are building there. Just ask Bush at the next news conference if America intends to have permanent bases in Iraq and if not why won't he say so?

Posted by paul Katz | August 26, 2007 12:56 PM

This is the bottom line of the "stay the course" strategy - as long as you don't admit defeat, you aren't defeated.

Consider it a corollary to O'Brien's lecture from 1984:

"Reality exists in the human mind, and nowhere else, Winston. Not in the individual mind, which can make mistakes, and in any case soon perishes: only in the mind of the Party, which is collective and immortal. Whatever the Party holds to be the truth, is truth."

The basic rule -- inflexible and constant -- is that the Party (which, in our case, means the Demopublican Beltway monopoly) must always be right. If extending the war for a decade (or two or three or a hundred) allows the Party to avoid admitting it made a mistake in its collective decision to endorse Bush's invasion, then that is what it will do. Or at least try to do. And if the price eventually rises too high or the political pain becomes too intense for even the Party to stand, then the Party will create and disseminate a myth that blames the Iraqis, or the French, or the Saudis, or the anti-war movement (such as it is) or all of the above for "losing" Iraq. The process is already underway, in fact.

It is, in all essentials, a Soviet-style system now, as are all empires to a greater or lesser degree. Why should we expect anything other than a Soviet-style outcome?

Posted by Peter Principle | August 27, 2007 5:10 PM