Just wondering…
Let’s just say, for the sake of argument, that Andrew Bolt is right, and that we’ve already won in Iraq.
Or if that’s too utterly unbelievable for you, let’s just say, for the sake of argument, that the violence in Iraq continues to decline, civil order continues to improve, and it ends up being a viable and functioning country—and an ally—within the next couple of years.
In other words, what if the new counterinsurgency methods of General Petraeus really have reversed a situation that as recently as last spring looked exceedingly dire, and had many declaring it was already lost?
If so, these would be my questions:
If things turn out well in Iraq, will it finally put the ghost of Vietnam to rest?
If things turn out well in Iraq, will naysayers Reid and Pelosi and Edwards ever say they were wrong?
I have a strong feeling that the answer to both these questions is “no.” This is partly because the Vietnam War years were so searing and the scars so long-lasting, and partly because Vietnam has been so useful for the antiwar side to invoke in order to rally feeling against any subsequent war involving complexities, hardships, or errors of execution. In addition, the Iraq War itself has already caused so much division and anger that even victory will probably be defined as just not worth it by many of those opposed to the undertaking. It is also because admitting misjudgment is an exceedingly difficult thing—and that’s a phenomenon hardly limited to Democrats.
But if things do turn out well in Iraq then I, for one, will be deeply grateful that the Democrats lacked enough votes to achieve their goals of prematurely cutting off the surge and pulling out of that country. Of course, had they been able to do so, history would probably have said they were correct to do so because the Iraq War was manifestly unwinnable.
History isn’t really all that good at evaluating alternatives to what actually happens. Most of the time, it’s difficult enough to understand what did happen, much less to understand the ramifications of what did not. The latter seems to be a matter for the alternative history science fiction writers, not the historians.
The ghost of Vietnam won’t be laid until the 2030s. That’s when everyone who defined their political and psychological existence in terms of opposition to the war in Vietnam will finally be dead of old age.
Consider how much of the opposition to the war in Iraq was either aging anti-Vietnam war lefties reliving their youth (e.g. John Kerry, who occasionally even slipped up and said “vietnam” when he meant Iraq) — or younger wannabes doing what amounted to Vietnam War protest reenactments.
I suppose I missed the post where you explain how arming the Sunnis as a bulwark against the predominantly Shiite government that rejects political reconciliation puts us on the path for victory in Iraq.
Regardless:
No, Vietnam will never be put to arrest. And neither should Iraq. If Iraq turns out well, it will have been mostly luck that it does so. By analogy, imagine picking a fight with someone, only to realize that this person is bigger and faster than you thought. You win, but only after getting your face pounded in. There’s still a lesson in that, even if you win.
As for Reid et al….why? I have seen no conservative hawk admit that they personally were wrong about Iraq being a cakewalk, so why demand more honestly of liberals than of conservatives?
Consider how much of the opposition to the war in Iraq was either aging anti-Vietnam war lefties reliving their youth…
Sigh. The commentators here would do well to read a little more.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_popular_opinion_on_invasion_of_Iraq
Vietnam to rest? this has alway been a false analogy — those who are committing mass murder in Iraq are more akin to the Khmer Rouge than the Vietcong. History, if history prevails in a free super power like America, will demonstrate this was a false analogy, and much more of a buzzword for galvanizing the Left and their allies the isolationist Right. Off on a tangent but, Kucinich and Ron Paul — shake hands!
…no preview sucks
Never happen. What you’re up against is the human ego – the desire to be right. Even if the Iraqi people united against the insurgents, the insurgents raised a giant white flag, their surrender was broadcast live on CNN, and the U.S. Army had a victory parade through downtown Baghdad with children thrown flowers – leftists would still claim the whole thing was a disaster.
Like X, for example. No victory – just a fluke, dumb luck, skin of our teeth, deus ex machina.
And whether we win or lose, they’ll go to their graves believing they were smarter and better than the rest of us sheeple.
There’s still a lesson in that, even if you win.
Yeah, there’s a lesson alright. It’s to not pussy-foot around trying to not disturb the delicate sensitivities of the liberal appeasement crowd, but rather to go in hard, fast, and ruthless. The lesson is to not give your enemy month after month to hide or remove their weapons to a neighboring country by dithering around with a wholly corrupt UN.
I have seen no conservative hawk admit that they personally were wrong about Iraq being a cakewalk,
And I remember repeatedly hearing Bush, McCain et al proclaim that a “long, hard road lay ahead,” just as clearly as I remember the unquestionable cry of “we’re beaten” from the likes of Reid. Who ever said it was going to be a cakewalk? How much of the cakewalk-factor, if it existed, was pissed away by the enemy-supporting propoganda pushed at us by the defeatists in the Democratic party and their complicit media partners?
or younger wannabes doing what amounted to Vietnam War protest reenactments.
That fit you, X? I noticed you conveniently left that part of Trimegistus’ post out. And as for “conservatives” not being “honest” about Iraq being a “cakewalk”, I distinctly remember the President telling the nation that it would be difficult in Iraq on many occasions–the “Mission Accomplished” brouhaha notwithstanding (it was in reference to the defeat of the Iraqi Army, and the success of the invasion, not the aftermath). But you, X, and all the other Iraq naysayers conveniently neglect to recall all of the times the President and others have said that Iraq would be a “long hard slog” (Rumsfeld’s words).
Xan:
“If Iraq turns out well, it will have been mostly luck that it does so. By analogy, imagine picking a fight with someone, only to realize that this person is bigger and faster than you thought. You win, but only after getting your face pounded in. There’s still a lesson in that, even if you win. “
Ah, thats right. The liberal contention that there simply isnt anything worth fighting for. You might get hurt in the attempt. And this from a person that claims to both have a better understanding of the Constitution than the rest of us, and more determined than we are to preserve its actual meaning.
Just as long as you dont get a bloody nose doing it.
The problem is we suffer from an infestation of communist agitprop (I’m not looking in any particular direction, X).
To see this, note that when the US engages in Realpolitik and deals with noxious dictators, leftists howl about our mendacity, arguing that we should overthrow them. When the US changes course and removes them, leftists howl about the blood and treasure, and says we should have treated with them.
It’s most acutely apparent with respect to Islam. On its face, is any movement more antithetical to the espoused principles of leftists than militant Islam? Theocratic, repressive, homophobic, misogynistic, all to an astounding degree…but leftists are happy to make common cause with them, Nazi-Soviet pact style.
Why? Because they share a common enemy: the US. And each thinks it can use the other.
I notice that all you neo-con commenters ignore Xanthippas’ factual statement that arming Sunnis against the Shiite-dominated government won’t lead to victory. I’d say all we’re doing is stoking the fires of civil war.
But OK. I’ll play along and say we’re victorious. Can we now, please, get the h— out of there?
X.
Lying like a rug, again. I, for one, am astonished.
“Cakewalk”. Liar.
The Vietnam meme survives being a failure. The efforts in Central America were going to be another Vietnam. Now they have all those boring elections. The meme failed. Did the meme lose any credibility? Nope. Central America is a non-event.
The hope of folks like X is to convince us that, 1, Vietnam was always going to be lost, could never be won no matter what. 2. That being the case, we shouldn’t have started. 3. This new situation, being labled another Vietnam can’t possibly be won, see 1 above, and so shouldn’t be started, see 2 above.
Because if we start, we might just win and X wouldn’t like that.
I’ve about given up on the idea that correcting misapprehensions of folks like X is the right thing to do. It presumes they are misinformed, rather than dishonest. But nobody’s that misinformed. See “cakewalk” above.
From now on, I won’t be wasting my time trying to correct misapprehensions which are, in reality, flat lies.
Besides, I have this feeling that X & Co. laugh at the time and effort the rest of us spend believing it’s all a matter of incorrect information. All we need to do is introduce the correct information. What fools we are.
Richard,
Bullseye. I’ve drawn the same conclusion, hence the agitprop characterization above.
Occam and Richard: Oh, X is useful all right, but unfortunately not an idiot. More than likely a professor at a prestigious university, busily indoctrinating little Mary and Bob as we speak.
Yeah, there’s a lesson alright. It’s to not pussy-foot around trying to not disturb the delicate sensitivities of the liberal appeasement crowd, but rather to go in hard, fast, and ruthless. The lesson is to not give your enemy month after month to hide or remove their weapons to a neighboring country by dithering around with a wholly corrupt UN.
Shucks, I thought you were outlining PR tactics for dealing with the appeasement crowd.
NAKD-
We are not arming Sunni militias. If you read Totten or Yon, you would see that that is emphatically not the case. The local militias are supposed to supply their own weapons. These forces are vetted, trained and ultimately integrated into the Iraqi Security Forces.
Perhaps the Sunnis and Shia are taking a break from killing each other, and another new round will begin shortly. But I doubt it, because the trend in Iraq in late 2005 and early 2006 was toward less violence. The Samarra mosque bombing had the effect AQI intended, triggering a massive increase in violence. The Iraqis have since realized the AQI is an instigator of violence, and have largely driven them out.
Reconciliation is much, much possible in this environment than the one that prevailed earlier this year.
And no, we cannot withdraw yet for a bunch of reasons. One is to provide muscle, to make sure AQI is driven from Iraq. Another is to ensure JAM is neutralized. A third is to be a neutral arbitrator amongst the Iraqi factions to make sure that they stay on the path to peace. The country made be pacified, but it is not healed yet.
Marty.
You think NAKD didn’t know this already?
“If things turn out well in Iraq, will it finally put the ghost of Vietnam to rest?”
They’ll keep bringing up anything they can find that is wrong with Iraq and say they were right…. regardless.
factual statement that arming Sunnis against the Shiite-dominated government won’t lead to victory
They were waiting for this video from blackfive to be posted. So wait no longer.
Why waste precious time arguing for the facts of the matter on this subject when it will already have been covered with a bit of patience?
This will not convince the Left of course, but it will galvanize coherent support from American loyalists, whether classical liberal or not
The confidence that you are right, is not a very common trait, especially when faced against Leftist psychological attacks and subversion operations. The Left not only believes that arming Sunnis against Shiites won’t lead to victory, they will do their best to convince you of the fact as well. Not because they believe you can be convinced, but rather because they believe you can be demoralized and neutralized if you become too tired defending against the Left. If you are too tired by defending against the Left, then disasters and mistakes in Iraq will occur more frequently.
But nobody’s that misinformed.
Actually, there are plenty of people like that. In a pop segment of 1 million, you will have all kinds of folks. Simple statistics, and the Soviets know how to take advantage of the statistics of demographics. So do the Islamic jihad for that matter.
The Samarra mosque bombing had the effect AQI intended, triggering a massive increase in violence.
Categorically speaking, both the AQI/Sunni wing and the Jam Shiite/Sadr wing needed each other. Without the threat of violence, the peasants would get out of line and even ally with the Americans. So the AQI grew stronger by promising to protect against the Shiites, while blowing up Shiite civilians since they were far easier to kill than Americans or even Iraqi Army members. The Sadr/Shiite wing blew up Sunnis and promised to protect the Shia from the Sunnis. This is a rather extended version of the protection racket. You create a threat, and then you promise to protect the civilians against the threat that you are the cause of. By empowering the civilians at the bottom, who look out for themselves more effective than top level corrupt politicians ever could, we cut the Gordian knot of the Al Qaeda and Sadr cycle of violence. Iran was notably supplying both sides with weapons and IEDs because the stronger AQ was, the stronger their buddy Sadr also became. This kind of global strategic analysis is not available to the Left, of course.
Iraq the Model first forward this observation, and it does correctly describe all the vectors and factions in play.
If things turn out well in Iraq, will it finally put the ghost of Vietnam to rest?
The ghost is still crying out for vengeance, Neo. It won’t be put to rest until it has seen justice done. Certainly the criminals will not be punished even if Iraq were to be won, because Petraeus’ strategy does not depend upon punishing the betrayers so much as it is focused on organizing and protecting the loyalists in Iraq.
You think NAKD didn’t know this already?
I don’t really think it matters. You have a point, Richard, but it is incomplete. Because the Left can utilize doublethink, they can simultaneously know and not know a belief or a piece of information.
In a sense both are true. The Left are ignorant, but they also know exactly what they doing and what is going on.
WIthout the recognition of doublethink, it is literally impossible to analyze or figure out Leftist beliefs or thought.
It’s most acutely apparent with respect to Islam. On its face, is any movement more antithetical to the espoused principles of leftists than militant Islam? Theocratic, repressive, homophobic, misogynistic, all to an astounding degree…but leftists are happy to make common cause with them, Nazi-Soviet pact style.
Also don’t forget about the Cuban Revolution and the Iranian Islamic Revolution along with Stalin’s purging of Trotsky, a former Marxist that I suppose wasn’t Marxist enough for Stalin, or just in the way.
Leftists tend to have this habit of killing off their fellow revolutionary buddies after the revolution is over. They really can’t share power.
Hitler and Stalin would have fought eventually as well, since the world wasn’t big enough for two megalomaniacs. It is why Iraq fought Iran. Dictators and narcissists really hate other dictators and narcissists. It hogs up their oxygen, presumably.
The Baatezu and the Ta’nari. Devils and demons, fighting an endless war over which is the “correct” version of “true evil”.
NNC: If things turn out well in Iraq, will naysayers Reid and Pelosi and Edwards ever say they were wrong?
And will the press constantly hound them to admit they miscalculated?
No and no. You should know better than to expect anything above that from the liberal. X-whatever his Greek name is proves that point. These people crave American defeat and will live forever in 1967.
Ha – look at the rancor on just this mild little post.
“Vietnam” has less to do with Vietnam than it did with the fear of going to “Vietnam.” And those for whom “Vietnam” was like a blinding revelation, the veil of geopolitical Maya jerked back, already feel as though that vision was confirmed by all the other events of what occurred in less than a decade, culminating in Watergate. That’s why “Vietnam!” was heard immediately – within the first week of the campaign, and indeed before the campaign began. The same happened during Afghanistan. This is a permanent illusion, based partly on valid inferences. Things will be better when the babyboomers are gone.
“Vietnam,” of course, is only made possible by the failure to understand or acknowledge what the Soviet Union and International Communism were – but forgive me, they were merely figments of McCarthy and the obscene enterprises of the military-industrial complex…
In any case, Iraq will not stand as Vietnam II. This is certain because, even if we leverage the current reprieve and the Iraqis manage to devote themselves to a general rapprochement, this region is doomed to turmoil, and will take on a more end-times character as the final battle of Islam(ism) and Modernity approaches. Either one will win, and the victory of either one will demolish the discoursive framework of the “Vietnam!” crowd. That, at least, is what I imagine will happen. Every theme, after all, can only bear so much weight.
Am I the only one who realizes that the very people who bring up Vietnam as a failure and as an example of why policy should go one way or another are the very people who got us into Vietnam and then arranged it’s loss, while also ensuring our allies in the region also lost and were slaughtered? It just strikes me as ridiculous that these very same two faced speakers are given credence, save for the clownish political nature of this nation at present.
(With apologies)
Q: How many psychologists does it take to change a light bulb?
A: Just one, but the light bulb has to want to change …
I have a conjecture for why the Vietnam meme won’t die.
Most Americans seem to believe that war is deterministic. So, if you have difficulties in war, it must be be because you failed to prepare adequately, or you failed to execute properly.
But war is not deterministic, but rather opportunistic. Chance, uncertainty, and the will of the enemy conspire to make the simplest things almost impossible. In a very real sense, war cannot be planned at all. One enters the fight with an eye toward opportunity — and given time one is bound to appear.
Interestingly, it was precisely the deterministic view that lost the Vietnam War. MacNamara’s absurd doctrine of “escalation” effectively prevented strategic and operational level surprise, surprise being the most effective way to provoke an opportunity to win.
I think the Viet Nam meme survives because of a fundamental, even philosophical, misunderstanding about the nature of war.
We didn’t win, so much as the terrorist lost the PR war in Iraq. Once many Iraqis got to experience the full blown flavor of extreme Islam, the romance was over.
If there is really evidence that there were critical turning points for the U.S. on its own terms, i.e., that is we were winning, then I will give the neocons credit that it wasn’t a quagmire.
There is a difference between predicting a win, then overrunning an enemy, vs. predicting a win, then finding that you won because the enemy had an outbreak of disease.
Not really. Many diseased armies have conquered because their opponents couldn’t exploit their advantage. It is an error to think that war is deterministic.
For all unconventional forces, the support of the people is the center of gravity. If the enemy ceded that advantage by error or miscalculation, then US forces exploited it well. If the US defeated the enemy in the “PR war” by other means, then US forces exploited other vulnerabilities extremely well.
Is a substantial amount of chance involved? Yes, in every aspect of war. The difference is in who best exploits opportunities. US forces have been much better at that.
And frankly considering the hostile world press, it’s quite an accomplishment to win the “PR war” by any means whatsoever.
Leftists and leftism will die out, just as the old Soviet Union died and Castro’s Cuba will die. Good riddance to them. They lived well past any possible usefulness, and now are only a hindrance to creating a better world for everyone.
The left is now an obsolete circle jerk existing only to justify its past and present excesses and uselessness.
I am happy to know that I will live to water their resting places with nitrogenous golden showers.
😉
“I have seen no conservative hawk admit that they personally were wrong about Iraq being a cakewalk, so why demand more honestly of liberals than of conservatives?”
This right here answers your question – on something as simple as this the anti-war people can not admit they were wrong, in fact they still hold that idea no matter how many times it is shown to be grossly incorrect.
The only way Iraq is going to suddenly become a success to them is if the Democrats win next election, it will then promptly be declared as such.
“I notice that all you neo-con commenters ignore Xanthippas’ factual statement that arming Sunnis against the Shiite-dominated government won’t lead to victory. I’d say all we’re doing is stoking the fires of civil war.”
I’ll address this when you address that Superman has sided with the terrorist and this will lead to our total defeat unless we find some cryptonite.
Since neither thing is true I’m not terribly worried about it.
njcommuter Says: “The lesson is to not give your enemy month after month to hide or remove their weapons to a neighboring country by dithering around with a wholly corrupt UN.”
Exactly! – p.d.
The success of of General Petraeus’ counterinsurgency methods has only recently been grudgingly acknowledged by the MSM. But that didn’t stop simultaneous pronouncements yesterday by the AP, CNN and CBS that 2007 was the “worst ever” because the US troop death count was the worst ever compared to the previous years. I wonder what those institutions would have said about US casualties in 1945, the last year of the war. Factoring in the number of dead from the Battles of the Bulge, Iwo Jima and Okinawa, to name a few, I’m sure 1945 might have been close to the “worst ever” Of course as we all know, it was also the worst ever for the Axis forces, and they lost the war!
I am continually disturbed by your comparisons to Viet Nam, as they seem to make the assumption that our actions there were ultimately justified or ligitmate from the outset. Or that “we could have won, if only…” And I have even greater difficulty beginning to believe that things are improving in Iraq upon learning that casulaities were greatest during this past year. Or is it just “get even” time for those evil Democratic legislatures?
Jimmy.
You can be continually disturbed if you wish. It’s a free country.
But I think most of us would appreciate it if you kept your disturbance to yourself. Your use of planted axioms and misrepresentations make discussions with you a dreary prospect.
Adios, my friend.
Doom Says:
November 6th, 2007 at 9:57 pm
Am I the only one who realizes that the very people who bring up Vietnam as a failure and as an example of why policy should go one way or another are the very people who got us into Vietnam and then arranged it’s loss, while also ensuring our allies in the region also lost and were slaughtered?
Many of us have spoken about this facet. It is just too depressing and in need of revenge and justice to keep pounding, that is all. We can only speak about Diem’s assassination by pro-Communist and anti-American journalists before we get sick of it.
Chance, uncertainty, and the will of the enemy conspire to make the simplest things almost impossible.
Becareful Jeff, the more you threaten the Left’s defense against sanity, the more they will be mean to you.
Once many Iraqis got to experience the full blown flavor of extreme Islam, the romance was over.-logern Says:
So this was why the Palestinians revolted against Arafat and other Islamic Jihadists and created democracy, right?
Logic just doesn’t parse. Again, the difference is that there is no simply no belief nor faith in the US military to create liberty and freedom. To the Left, the military is a parasite that only gorges on the meat of freedom and civil rights.
Also, Doom, it is not really new to the Left, what you have described. Look at Al Gore in his jet. Do you think that he is somehow solving a problem that he had nothing to do with promoting and creating? These people create problems such as social revolution, and then they come in and promise that they will protect you from the problems that the Left created.
The British disarmed their population and now they are promising protection with 24 hour camera surveillaince and all the apparatus of a police state.
It is the same old protection racket that thugs have engaged in for millenia, Doom.
I think the Viet Nam meme survives because of a fundamental, even philosophical, misunderstanding about the nature of war.
I have to categorically disagree with you about the Left misunderstanding war, Jeff.
The Left understands quite well how surprise and will works in war, because they have implemented many good tactics in their war against human progress in addition to warring against the Republican party. The Soviet Union organized such efforts, since they saw a use in useful idiots.
For all unconventional forces, the support of the people is the center of gravity.
Obviously the Left understands that quite well, Jeff. It is why they have spent so long reprogramming universities to teach what they allow to be taught. It is why they try so hard to kick ROTC and the military off campuses. It is why they seek to subvert American politicians, policies, and the US Constitution. It is the people that matter, and the Left wishes so much to enslave the people to their will. The blacks were not enough for the Democrat party, in a way.
Their appearance of incompetence and ignorance over how to fight the Islamic Jihad is not so much ignorance as unwillingness. They are unwilling to unleash Leftist tactics upon the Islamic Jihad, much as they were unwilling to unleash Leftist tactics upon Communists and Nazis. That is, until the Nazis betrayed the Communists; the Left never forgave the Nazi jackbooted fascists that.
Still, the Left is not all that competent at conventional warfare or even active measures such as assassination, COIN, insurgency, or anything else concerning active operations for that matter. They may be able to grasp the basic tactics of defeating an enemy psychologically, but they still are not students of history nor of warfare. That is a distinct weakness, as we saw with AQ as the Marines slaughtered their way into Fallujah 2.
The difference is in who best exploits opportunities.
As a concrete example of what I speak of, consider Valerie Plame. Is that not an opportunity exploited by the Left? How about Sandy Berger? How about Dick Clark when he authorized the clearance for Saudi Arabians to leave America after 9/11, without Presidential authorization? How about the UN and WMDs? Vietnam, even, as an excuse for anti-Americanism and pro-Soviet sentiments?
The Left may have their weaknesses and faults, Jeff, but I have never believed that they were ignorant of warfare tactics in unconventional warfare dealing with the civilian population.
Given a choice between assigning misunderstanding to the Left and active malice, I prefer the latter over the former.
History isn’t really all that good at evaluating alternatives to what actually happens. Most of the time, it’s difficult enough to understand what did happen, much less to understand the ramifications of what did not. The latter seems to be a matter for the alternative history science fiction writers, not the historians.
It is funny that you would mention that, Neo, given that I have read many of Eric Flint’s alternative history novels, both science fiction and contemporal.
I was wondering what your take on this link about Communism would be, Sergey.
Link
The reinvention of history is a topic that is very important to learn, in my view, since the Left uses the same methods with Vietnam that they used with the Soviet Union. Or rather, their dealings with the Soviet Union.
Ymarsakar,
Yes, I see this. The thugs in the apartment complex to the west of my house, brought in secretly in agreements between Chicago and my town (some legitimate, some not) which has lead to an increased (and yet watered down) police presence. Oh, do tell. Oh, and the fact that our state has probably now become compellingly liberal (democratic) by the immigration of Chicago’s public housing problems.
Do tell, England? Really. It’s right here. Oh, and being punished in engineering courses for not toting the line (or at least being quiet, urhm, which I am not if also I am not really an activist radical if a radical (radical, really and in truth is a free-market, small government, economic fluidity (real), and a believer and God, therefore God given rights). Do tell, England and police state. My word, and I declare, and lots of things. Hmm, I’ll hush and move on. I’m getting the Vapors anyway. :p
I have read Andrew Bolt’s article, the Natan Sharansky piece, a recent Fred Kagan in the Weekly Standard, and the Times Online’s “Petraeus Curve” article. All articles do not account for the fact that the Sunni tribal ousting of Al Qaeda is no indication that those tribes will help the central government in Iraq. The articles do not acknowledge that the Basra region is nearly completely under the control of Shiite militias that are fighting each other, that are implementing more fundamentalist strictures on, for instance, the role of women in society, and that oil revenue earned in this region will not go to the official Iraqi government, will not be available for reconstruction. In Baghdad, Shiites now control 3/4 of the city and Sunnis live behind concrete barriers and are protected by American forces. Violence in Baghdad is down yes, but because of this separation of these religious groups which used to be intermingled. Andrew Bolt and others cited by Neo recently who do not address these issues are the ones who are not facing reality.
In a recent blog entry of my own, I linked off to the Newscorp-Neocon articles cited by Neo here, and also liked to sources of my information:
http://elrondhubbard.blogspot.com/2007/11/that-good-news-from-iraq-you-keep-not.html
All articles do not account for the fact that the Sunni tribal ousting of Al Qaeda is no indication that those tribes will help the central government in Iraq.
Since when did the detractors of Iraq start supporting centralized government? Do they treat domestic matters in the US with the same bias? No.
This stuff is meaningless given that people aren’t worrying over the actual strength of the central government, they are just trying to find anything that they can use to undermine their political opponents.
The only thing that matters in the end is the soul. The loyalty of one person to another. The common bond forged through battle. And the unity of purpose forged through killing one’s mutual enemies.
That is all that matters in the end. Centralized government came from this, it did not come from George Washington substituting the British with the US federal government as it now stands. Assuming he even wanted to.