For, given the chaos
of Iraq, the ineptness of its government, the bloody civil war, O'Hanlon and
Pollack's only argument for Iraq's survival five years after our intervention
is more brute American force.
They follow this with
the vague hope that this so-called "surge" buys more time for the
establishment of a cohesive, democratic, Iraqi government with the broad
support of the three Iraqi tribes. But most serious observers consider that
laughable.
All of this sounds
awfully familiar. This is almost exactly what happened to us in Vietnam. We
sent more and more forces into that nation to help contain the Vietcong
insurgents - but for what purpose?
To hope that another
inept corrupt government with no popular support would replace us in South
Vietnam.
Remember, "Vietnamization?"
Our problem in both
cases is that we never understood the political, cultural and religious
conditions of either country when we intervened.
Had we stuck to
legitimate security needs, we would have never sent troops into either nation
in the first place.
