One of the concerns of those who'd rather not have a "War In Iraq" is the fear of the quagmire we'll find ourselves in after the military campaign is over. We dare not go forward to Baghdad for fear of nation-building, chafing the "Arab street" and a long military occupation. But haven't they noticed? There is a quagmire, and we're already in it - up to our necks.


One of the things that the First World War drummed into the psyche of Americans is that when you go to war, you don't leave the job half done. Stopping on the way to Berlin left the Germans pining away for the day when they could rebuild their honor. It wasn't too many years before Hitler played on that feeling and WW2 came a knocking.


So, having learned our lesson from the "War To End All Wars," when it came time to fight the second time around, we didn't make the same mistake twice. Hitler made it easy for us in Europe - he had his armies fighting to the last and the taking of Berlin with an enforced change of government was inevitable. In Japan, the allies would accept nothing short of unconditional surrender - in spite of the fact that this condition may just have caused the war to go on longer. One thing was for sure, we didn't want to have to come back again.


In the end, the Japanese were forced to stare the very destruction of their civilization in the face. They had no choice. The forced re-structuring of their government was what they got as well.


Both societies found the experiences so traumatic and soul-shaking, that neither would return to the same warrior path that had led them to stare over the precipice again.




The first Gulf War came about after a long-belligerent Iraq finally went so far that the world community could no longer ignore them. Unfortunately, the conclusion of the armed conflict did not remove the real cause of the conflict - not the occupation of Kuwait, but the regime in Baghdad. It would be unfair to blame George Bush, Sr. for that outcome. It would be easy to forget the political reality of the time. The UN mandate governing the invasion did not call for Saddam's removal. The Arab governments did not want us to remove Hussein, and we cared sufficiently about their concerns that we were afraid that the Western Powers removing an Arab leader by force would agitate the Arab Street so badly one or more of these governments may fall. We also still had the idea that a Hussein government would continue to contain Iran.


So Saddam was left in place. In effect what we had was an Arab leader who stood up to the United States and won. The fact that he lost the military campaign was beside the point. He had fought and tried and was still in power - another Arab victim of the Imperialist Americans. He was left in place to play his games of agitation. The other Arab governments could continue to appease their radicals and they and Hussein were in a better position than ever to continue their proxy war against Israel.


In order to enforce UN Resolutions to prevent Saddam from continuing to oppress his people, the US, UK and, for a very short time, France, set up the northern and southern no-fly zones. Once these were in full swing (but not before, shortly after the cessation of hostilities, Saddam was able once again to commit oppression and massacres on these people), they were, and have been responsible for allowing the northern Kurds, for instance, a measure of autonomy they have not known before - complete with a measure of democracy.


Unfortunately, these zones are no long-term solution. We can't stay there forever. We need an exit strategy. When it was still hoped that Saddam would be overthrown, that was the exit strategy, but it's not happening. Instead, we've let Saddam revel in political games. The US/UK "occupation" continues to chafe the Arab world on a continuing basis, and Saddam wastes no effort in playing on this. To the Arab world, we look like oppressors, continuing to pick on yet another Arab government that won't kow-tow to Washington. Saddam wastes no effort in claiming all sorts of civilian casualties from the occasional bombing.


He parlays this across the Middle-East, combining his identity as victim with cash rewards to the families of homicide bombers and making himself into a figure-head of the radical Islamic world - something no one needs and which does no one any good at all.


Further, the NFZ's (no fly zones) cost us money and risk lives. They harm our political standing with very little hope of reward. France understood this early, and got out, leaving the US and UK holding the bag.


Various UN resolutions - the various "Oil for Food" programs - have been manipulated by Saddam. Although progressive resolutions have attempted to make more essential items available in order to help the Iraqi people while preventing Saddam from re-arming, Saddam has refused to cooperate fully with the UN. The Iraqi people have suffered. Although the numbers are clearly exaggerated for effect by Saddam, much of the world buys his inflated figures, and it's no skin off his nose if a few babies starve for the cameras. Important to note is the fact that again, in the Kurdish areas out of Saddams' control, where the various UN agencies are actually able to operate freely and distribute goods under the programs, there is no such humanitarian crisis.


Unfortunately, that doesn't help our image. The sanctions have to end sometime. We can't keep them up forever. It's the US and the UK paying the diplomatic price. Not the UN, and not Saddam. It has to come to an end some time.


Saddam has masterfully played the world off against each other. He's kept pressure on his fellow Arabs through his manipulation of the Arab Street, he's kept control of his own money through "Oil for Food" by refusing to cooperate with the UN, and he's rewarded those governments who support him against the US with lucrative contracts and cheap and smuggled oil - notably the French, Russians and Chinese. Ironically, before the sanctions, business was done through a number of Iraqi firms - now it all goes through the government. Again, this further isolates the US and UK.





So now we have much of the world community sitting back and telling us that we have to continue with the status-quo. Well that can't happen. They aren't paying the price for it. That price includes money, it includes risk, it includes lost diplomatic clout, it includes erstwhile allies distancing themselves from us and it includes a continuing irritant across the Arab world.




So, should we just call it quits? Declare victory and depart the field? Leave the already porous, corrupted sanctions in place but give up any semblance of enforcement? Any sanctions at all would continue to provide a diplomatic stick for any two-bit Middle Eastern demagogue. Cancel them altogether? Remove the NFZ's? Leave the Kurds, the Shi'ites, the Marsh Arabs to their fates - again.


I submit that this would eviscerate the United States' credibility. It would leave one of the worst of the Middle East's tyrants in power, and worse, increase his prestige immeasurably. Imagine what mischief a stronger Saddam would be able to reak across that region. (I'll leave out of this discussion the obvious destruction of whatever credibility the UN has left.) He would have won, and the US would be shown to have been a paper tiger once again. Just stick to your guns against her and she can't last. We would have shown a weakness in our core that no tin-pot dictator would fail to note.


So while we're fretting over the quagmire in front of us, let's not neglect pulling ourselves out of the one we're sitting in.


And you just know, in the end, we'd have to come back.