Now, I'm not going to get all hysterical on him, because he's at least partly right - The situation in Iraq isn't all that great. I however don't think it's close to collapsing, but it's at a static phase right now - not getting better, not getting worse. We're dealing with a bad case of status quo, which is not a good thing.
The one big thing that I disagree with Mr. Cross on is where to lay the blame. Cross would blame the Iraqis themselves, and I blame America.
Yep. America. Specifically our politicians and media. I may ramble a bit, but try to stay with me here.
America's military, for all that it is the best in the world, is still controlled by civilian politicians. Now, this is a good thing, and I'm not objecting to it. But when the civilians in charge are a bunch of corrupt, spineless, parasitic asshats, THAT'S when we start to see problems begin. We as a nation have not won a major military war since World War Two, and each time the blame can be laid on a lack of willpower by our politicians.
Korean War? Technically still ongoing. There's simply a cease-fire in place that's extended for over fifty years. We can't say we won a war that's ongoing.
Viet Nam? Chalk that up as a loss. And why did we lose it? Because our politicians refused to allow our military to fight it properly, and the so-called "leadership" of this country gave up. The American military did not lose a single battle in that war. Some skirmishes here and there, some firefights, yes, we lost. But battles? Nope. We won those. The Tet Offensive, dubbed by the media as some great horrible loss for America, was actually the single worst loss by the North Vietnamese. It took them two years to recover from that loss. TWO YEARS before they where anywhere near the strength they were at before Tet. But what did America do with it? The politicians gave up.
The Gulf War? We drove Saddam out of Kuwait, and then stopped. Saddam was still in power, and would kill hundreds of thousands of people while the world dithered for twelve years. We had a chance to take Saddam out, and we didn't. Why? Lack of political spine.
We have a military that can win any war you put them in, combined with politicians who can't win anything outside of their election. And unfortunately for Iraq, it's the politicians that are in charge. They don't have the courage and the willpower to see victory in Iraq. I don't care if the Chiefs of Staff came up with a sure-fire plan for victory, it's the politicians who have to say "Go ahead". And they haven't done that. Nor will they, I fear.
As for the media - the propaganda wing of the
That's SIXTY THOUSAND dead terrorists. Versus a little more than 3,000 American troops. That's a 20 to 1 kill ratio. Do you think most Americans know that fact?
How many Americans hear about the schools being built? The hospitals? The power grids? Sewers? I'm betting that people who get their news from ABC/NBC/CBS/CNN don't know a single thing about that. And I'm sure they don't know that the terrorists operating in Iraq are funded by Iran.
In fact, if I were to do anything to improve the situation in Iraq, I would move our troops to the borders of Iran and Syria, then shoot anyone coming across. But the politicians won't do that either. We might "provoke" someone. If the terrorists are funded by Iran, why are the politicians afraid to call them on it?
Because they're weak, craven cowards.
Look, I'm not going to pretend that Iraq is all roses and fluffy bunnies, but it could get a lot worse. And it could get a lot better. But what we have to recognise before anything happens is that it's up to America to determine how bad it gets in Iraq. Do we have the willpower to gain victory?
Judging from who just got elected Speaker of the House, my gut instinct is "No".