Re: Thoughts on Iraq

[Adam Levenstein <cleon42@xxxxxxxxx>]

I think it's also obvious at this point that the US is in Iraq for the
long haul. At least, that's the intention.

Washington has locked itself into a vicious cycle; they know full well
they will not be able to make Iraq into a nice little puppet the way
they did after the invasion of Panama in 89. The moment the military
leaves, Iraq goes into upheaval. Any "permanent" puppet regime they try
to install will be overthrown before you can say "shah." So the US has
already locked itself into occupying the country for a good long time,
I think.

The cycle comes with the resistance. The more the people resist, the
more the Army tries to clamp down, the more the troops fire into
protests, the more they run the country like a concentration camp. Of
course, the more they do this, the more the population becomes
outraged, the more they fight back.

So is the US "losing?" Well, yes and no. The US has successfully
conquered Iraq. But, as I said, this will come at an increasing price;
more and more US troops, business interests, and government officials
will become targets. As it stands now, the US maintains control, but I
don't think it can for much longer. Over time, the US occupation will
become an unmitigated disaster for the United States.


--- Gary MacLennan <g.maclennan@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> In military terms the situation in Iraq would appear to be poised on
> the
> knife edge.  Stan Goff knows more about military matters than I have
> ever
> wanted to and he seems to think that the USA is losing the war as
> they did
> of course in Vietnam.

=====
-----------------------------------------------------------
Adam Levenstein                          cleon42@xxxxxxxxx
ICQ: 17125158

There may be no such thing as a stupid question,
but there sure are a lot of inquisitive idiots.

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com