The nature of the war

For years now we have been fed one shibboleth after another. " we'll stand down as they stand up", "mission accomplished", "stay the course", "no cut and run", etc. The "War on terror" is a complete misnomer. "Terrorism" is a tactic, not an entity. Consequently "winning the war on terror" is ambiguous. The situation in Iraq is multifaceted. The insurrection is against the occupation- we leave, the insurrection is over. Al Queada is another matter. Routing out an idea is very difficult and extends over time. We can't kill all those whose ideas we don't like. It is an infection of the Islamic world that requires an antidote that is both military and social. It must be faced rationally and not just militarily. The Sunni - Shiite sectarian conflict is generational and not something we can solve. Only they can solve it in their own way. Not in a manner prescribed by us nor managed by us. We are simply caught in the cross fire. We can't sustain our present position so we must withdraw sometime- the sooner the better. The "chaos" will continue till it burns itself out. In any event Iraq will not be a democracy as we would like it but a theocracy run by the Mullahs.
The oft used phrase "in our national interest" means primarily one thing - OIL. To win the war simply means "control the oil". That was the principal aim of the war and will dictate our method of its resolution. Rumsfeld and Cheney convinced Bush the war could be won "on the cheap". Quick in and quick out. Didn't happen. The oil turned out to be a tar baby and we got stuck to it. Instead of a compliant Iraqi government we now will be required to occupy the country indefinitely for fear that Iran or Russia will move in. That was the fear to begin with so not much has changed, other than 600 billion in treasure lost, 4000 G.I.s killed, many thousands grievously wounded and an estimated 600 thousand Iraqis dead. Even seemingly
intelligent people do extremely stupid things. A recent column by Gwynne Dyer of London, an independent international columnist raised a new angle on the reason for the war. " The strategic community in Washington has identified China as America's new strategic rival, and it is becoming more and more vulnerable to interference with its oil imports." ".... the desire for permanent bases in the Gulf from which the U.S. could, at need, stop oil flowing to China". Despite writing a great deal about the administration's motives for the war Dyer admits "in the end I don't know why they did it. I suspect they don't know either. It just seemed like a neat idea at the time". Dyer, incidentally agrees with my contention that Saddam was in no position to threaten anyone.