“Our great success in Iraq,” “Our great success in Iraq” … “Wait! We can’t leave Iraq or it will go to hell!”

How many times have you seen the neoconservatives declare that U.S. policy in Iraq has been a “success”—a success so marvelous, so historic, that we must follow the same policy in Afghanistan?

But now Frederick Kagan—described by the egregious Max Boot at Commentary’s web site as “the most influential and best-informed military analyst in Washington”—writes:

The Iraqi Security Forces will not be able to defend Iraq’s sovereignty, maintain its independence from Iran, or ensure Iraq’s internal stability without American assistance, including some ground forces in Iraq, for a number of years. The absence of a US strategic partnership with and military presence in Iraq will weaken the Iraqi military and could lead to the breakdown of internal security and political gains, which in turn could cause renewed communal conflict and the reemergence of militant Islamist groups. Iran’s use of proxy military groups poses the most immediate and serious threat to Iraqi security. Combined with Iran’s conventional, particularly missile, threat, the current military balance pitting Iraq by itself against Iran gives Tehran military dominance at every level of escalation.

To which Boot adds:

Luckily, momentum seems to be building to keep U.S. forces in Iraq past 2011.

- end of initial entry -

May 27

Gilda A. writes:

Since the U.S. destroyed Iraq’s air force, there is no way for Iraq’s military to defend against air attacks. Therefore, the reasoning goes, the U.S. has to stay.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at May 26, 2011 10:35 AM | Send