|
Whitaker's Current Articles
|
Fun Quote --
A general being interviewed was asked what he
learned in the Gulf War. He said he found that tanks stopped
working because they got sand in them.
I see his point. How could the
Pentagon have guessed that the Arabian desert has sand in it?
"America Wins the Wars but Loses the Peace"
It is an axiom of American history that America
wins the fighting and loses the peace.
For example, America won World War I for the
Allies in a matter of months after they had been bogged down in
trench warfare for four years. It was a famous victory.
But World War I led directly to World War II.
America was instrumental in destroying Nazi
Germany and militaristic Japan. It was supposed to victory over
tyranny. But over the next decade a quarter of the entire human
race was turned over to Communism in Europe and Asia.
You are Watching America Win the War and Lose the Peace Again
The fact that America wins wars and loses the
peace is supposed to be great mystery.
This is WhitakerOnline, and what we do here is
explain the obvious. We kill mysteries.
For instance respectable conservatives say that
leftism is brilliant and idealistic but flawed. They say the
failures of liberalism and socialism and Communism are mysterious
and complex.
Meanwhile, back here in the real world
WhitakerOnline lives in, leftism is just plain silly.
By the same token there is nothing complicated
about why we win wars and lose in the post-War period.
You are watching America win a war and lose a
peace right now. Once again, everybody will say that there is
something terribly complicated about what is wrong with our post-war
strategy.
Again, the real problem is not complicated.
When we talk about the war we have clear goals and are practical.
The instant we start talking about post-war policy we get silly.
We win wars because our planning for war makes
sense. We lose the post-War because our planning for the post-War
period is always ridiculous.
To Persuade Americans to Go to War, You Have to
be Rational
It is hard to get America into a war. We got
into World War I after Germany said its subs would sink any ship on
the Atlantic, including ours. We got into World War II after Japan
attacked us and Hitler declared war on us.
We know what winning a war is. It is a huge
job and America is great at huge jobs. Those forces going into
Iraq are highly professional.
But the instant you get into talking about
“post-War Iraq”, every word is dripping with imbecility. People
start babbling about what government we should impose on Iraq and
how much money we owe the Iraqi people. Everybody agrees that Iraq
owes us nothing at all.
Compare the Justifications for Getting
into War and the Justification of After-War Policy
Compare the Justifications for Getting into War
to the Justification of After-War Strategy
The minute any country starts talking about an
ideal government for another country, it is ridiculous. The instant
anybody starts talking about how much they owe other countries, they
get silly.
So let us look at the justifications we use to
get into this war: We have to argue that getting into this war is
in our national interest.
It may be true that this war is in our national
interest or it may not be true that this war is in our national
interest, but the discussion on that point makes sense. We are
talking about our own national interests, which is something we know
about.
When we are talking about self-defense or our
national interest, the whole world can agree that that is a
justification for going to war. We may make a right decision or we
might make a wrong decision, but the decision itself is not
ridiculous.
The instant anybody starts talking about a
post-War Iraq all self-interest is forgotten. We begin to debate
what is good for the Iraqis. We begin to assess how much of our
money we owe Iraqis. We join OPEC, because if we got Iraqi oil at
a price below that set by OPEC we would selfish and imperialistic.
We go into every war with a debate on whether
we have a national self-interest in doing so. That is why we win
wars.
We go into all post-War planning worrying about
the well-being of the people we defeated and those we fought with.
Our discussion of post-War Iraq, like our earlier discussions of
post World War Europe, does not include a single word about our own
self-interest. It is our proudest boast that we fight wars and get
absolutely nothing out of it.
It has never occurred to anybody that if we
looked to our own national interest in the post-War period, we might
actually win a peace for a change.
Iraq is a Ridiculous Geographic Combination
All the commentators agree that America “ must
maintain the territorial integrity of Iraq.
Why?
Well, first, Lincoln maintained the territorial
integrity of the United States. What Lincoln felt was good for
Americans is also good for Iraqis.
Actually Iraq is a ridiculous combination of
hostile peoples. Iraq was set up by the British Empire. Why
should the “territorial integrity” of a British colony be important
for Iraqis?
But the moment we start talking about “what is
good for Iraqis” we start imposing Abraham Lincoln on a former
colony.
One reason you get a dictator like Saddam in a
place like Iraq is because it takes a despot to hold that hostile,
ridiculous combination together.
What we should do is look to our own
interests. It would be better to split Iraq up into smaller, more
homogeneous and stable units. Iraq cannot be a democracy and keep
its present geography.
We don’t know what is good for Iraq, but we do
know that a united Iraq has been bad for us. If each people makes
an agreement on the basis of what they know is best for themselves,
we might get a rational conclusion out of this.
That’s not going to happen. We’ve learned
nothing. We are going to send Abe Lincoln ghost to Iraq.
We are also going to join OPEC against
ourselves. We should use Iraq to break OPEC. That would be a
terrific service to our own people. The despots who rule in the
Islamic world would not be able to control the world with their oil.
That’s not going to happen. All the
commentators are glorying in the fact that this war will do nothing
for us.
There is nothing complicated about why America
wins wars and loses the peace. We are winning a war and losing a
peace right now.
Again.
American Self-Interest Would Avoid a Battle of
Baghdad
As I keep pointing out, if urban guerrillas hole
up in Baghdad, what you should do is but off the water and wait.
Why on earth would we slaughter our troops to fight street to street
in Baghdad?
The only reason we would fight street to street
in Baghdad is for the Iraqis. We will say that they need their capital city
soon or we will say “We must finish the job” or some other
ridiculous motto.
And, of course, there is always the battle-cry
of slavery, “Ah, the CHILDREN!!!” If the guerrillas hold some
Iraqi women and children no number of American lives would be too
many to save them.
If we stick with self-interest, an interest in
the lives of our own troops, as the Constitution tells us to, there
will be no Battle of Baghdad.
Has Anybody Noticed that We are joining OPEC?
Bush would rather die than be
condemned by liberals, and liberals have said this war is for cheap
oil.
Has anybody considered what it
means if this war does NOT obtain cheap oil?
We will have to be sure that
Iraqi oil goes out at the "normal" price. What is the "normal"
price?
The "Normal"
price is the price set by the OPEC cartel. In fact, all OPEC
consists of is a group of countries who agree not to sell oil below
the price OPEC sets.
When we agree to sell Iraqi oil
at the OPEC price, we join OPEC.
|
