Max Boot takes on former Secretary of State Kissinger for his comparison of the supposed diplomatic solution in Vietnam with a similar opportunity in Iraq and the Baker-Hamilton Commission recommendations for negotiations with Syria and Iran. (Read his Los Angeles times piece here.) Boot is absolutely right and the grisly truth about what really happened in Vietnam is worth repeating for those who have forgotten the chronology.
The idea that you can negotiate your way out of the Iraq conflict is worse than dubious. You succeed in Iraq—and anywhere in the Middle East--by winning militarily. Negotiation is what you do when you have lost.
In the the past couple of days I think I have detected a slight shift in public opinion as Americans have reacted adversely to Sen. Harry Reid’s all-night Senate teach-in on Iraq. It called attention to the underlying issues all right, and as such it backfired. Sen. McCain’s fine floor speech helped sharpen the contrast between Sen. Reid’s political posturing and a statesmanlike approach. The Tuesday NY Times reports a poll showing opinion moving back a bit toward support of our original invasion on Iraq.
What is most clear is that the war opponents don’t have a post-withdrawal plan. Saying that, yes, there may be a terrible genocide if we leave, but that we should leave anyhow (the Obama position) is just not persuasive. In fact, it is so breathtaking that it may be causing people to re-think. There is a difference between wanting to get out as soon as possible (even war supporters want to leave just as soon as a credible transfer to the the Iraqi government can be justified) and a willingness to risk the whole region slipping into chaos—and into our enemies’ hands.