America as Spectator to History by Bing West, National Review
In 2003, President George W. Bush persuaded Congress and the United Nations to authorize the invasion of Iraq. After Saddam Hussein’s forces were quickly routed, Mr. Bush declared we had an obligation to install a democracy. Our generals agreed to undertake the role of nation-building.
By 2006, Iraq teetered on the verge of civil war between the newly-enfranchised majority — 18 million Shiites — and the resentful losers — nine million Sunnis. But by 2009, most Sunnis, trusting America as their guardian, accepted the authority of the sectarian Shiite Prime Minister, Nuri Maliki. The Sunni terrorist cells seemed to be beaten. Mr. Bush agreed to withdraw American troops by 2011, claiming the move “had the blessing of Generals Petraeus and Odierno,” and that “Maliki’s political instincts proved wise.”
In 2011, President Obama triumphantly withdrew our troops and supported Maliki in a deadlocked race to retain the post of prime minister. Both presidents proved unwise in reposing trust in Maliki, whose oppression of the Sunnis caused the resurgence of the terrorist cells.
Now Sunni Islamists have seized the Sunni Triangle and the Kurds have employed military force to safeguard their de facto state. As Iraq has splintered apart, Iran is offering military support to Maliki. Two Iranian battalions are reported to be fighting alongside the beleaguered Iraqi battalions.
The morale of the Islamists has soared inside its rump state of western Iraq/eastern Syria. Their victories ensure more recruits. The Sunni tribes and their supporters (Saudi, etc.) are embittered toward us. Depending whether you are among the winners or losers, you jeer or curse American passivity…
Comments
At the end of the Vietnam war,
Did the United States become a "spectator in Asia" and a "spectator to history?"
At the end of the Vietnam war,
Did the United States "fade away as a global power?"
At the end of the Vietnam war,
Did the United States "morph into a regional geographic giant, the Brazil of North America?"
I think the answer to all the above questions is a resounding "No."
After the Vietnam War (much like Iraq and Afghanistan, a "nation-building" bridge too far), the United States simply focused more on its core interests and regions; thereby, and specifically because of these limiting and refocusing measures, (1) retaining its global power status and (2) ensuring its ability to shape both Asia and history.
Herein, we did not "ignore our troops sacrifices and achievements" in Vietnam, but simply learned from the strategic mistakes that we had made there.
Thus, the President(s) that made the decision to withdraw from Vietnam -- and not reengage -- getting it right.
As to the question/thought that Carl, below, seems to have, to wit:
That in order not to be damaged and destroyed by terrorists, the United States must invade, occupy and stay in all countries and regions in which terrorists might go to and spring from;
This would seem to be an impossible task. And, thus, a self-destructive/suicidal task.
Curmudgeon:
No, I think Mr. West is quite wise. I figure if you combine 9-11 hitting us from one of the last places on earth and Trotsky's supposed comment "You may not be interested in the dialectic but the dialectic is interested in you.", we would do well to retain the capability to actually do something way out there. The problem is, as Mr. West suggests, part of capability is the willingness to act, which we don't have right now and won't have until at least 2017.