Sometimes we mean it and change our mind–or our administration.

Back, say, in the 1980s, was it bad policy to “abandon” our allies such as Saddam (who we aided during the Iran-Iraq War) and the mujahideen (who we offered similar aid to in their fight against the Soviets in Afghanistan?)

Hell, we reflagged Iraqi oil tankers as US vessels, making an attack on those tankers an act of war against the US and guaranteeing a revenue stream for Iraq’s government; how much snugglier with Saddam could we have gotten?

Did we unwisely “abandon” these allies once they served our temporary purposes?

Or was it a mistake (of the Reagan administration) to have ever have made alliance with them in the first place?

After all, it’s not disputed by any serious person that matériel that we sold or provided our “allies” in this era wound up being used against innocents, e.g. the Kurds in Saddam’s case, and against us and our longer-term allies, in Al Qaeda’s case, as they inherited a lot of leftovers from the Afghani campaigns.

What kinds of “allies” d’you reckon we have in Iraq right about now, aside from the Kurds?

———————————————————–

MAKING THE LAST MISTAKE IN IRAQ

By Tony Blankley

THE WASHINGTON TIMES

———————————————————–

The decisions made on Iraq over the next few months will take the measure of

America’s maturity and sense of responsibility. Because, whether we like it

or not, our decisions — and our decisions alone — will determine

whether the barely containable murderous pathologies of the Middle East will

just be dumped into the face of humanity — or whether rational efforts

will be persisted at to contain and mitigate its civilization-threatening

forces.

We have the most profound obligation to attempt to calculate the

consequences of the impending American decision to wash our hands of the

Iraq unpleasantness. In that regard, the words of President Kennedy come to

mind: “There are risks and costs to a program of action. But they are far

less than the long-range risks and costs of comfortable inaction.”

If we, the most powerful force on the planet, in a fit of disappointment

and anger at our bungling policies to date, decide to shrug off our

responsibilities to the future, we will soon receive, and deserve, the

furious contempt of a terrified world. In fact, even those Americans who

today can’t wait to end our involvement in the “hopeless” war in Iraq, will

— when the consequences of our irresponsibility becomes manifest

— join the chorus of outrage.

Expedient Washington politicians take note: Your public is fickle. They

may cheer your decision today to get out of Iraq, but vote you out of office

tomorrow when they don’t like the results.

Much of the world (and a fair portion of the American public) may hate

us today for our alleged arrogance. But they will spit out our name with

contempt through time if we permit to be released the whirlwind that will

follow our exit.

I have heard it said (by conservatives and Republicans, as well as

others) that “if the Iraqis just want to murder each other, we should let

them. We offered them freedom and they didn’t want it.” If our decision on

Iraq was only about Iraq, that argument might be persuasive.

But if, as it is hard to imagine otherwise, our departure from Iraq

yields civil war, chaos, war lordism and terrorist safe havens — it is

very likely that Iran will lurch in to harvest their advantages, Turkey will

send in its army to stop an independent Kurdistan and Saudi Arabia, Egypt

and the other Sunni states will be sucked in to fend off Shi’ite Iran’s

hegemony. In that nightmare maelstrom, the 20 million barrels a day of oil

shipped from the Persian Gulf — and the world economy with it; will be

in daily risk of being cut off.

Nor is that all. Al Qaeda and other terrorists are already gloating that

they have whipped the “cowardly Americans” in Iraq. We will be seen (in fact

already are beginning to be seen) as a weak reed for moderate Muslims to

rely on in their hearts-and-mind struggle against the radical Islamists.

Osama bin Laden was right in one regard: People fear and follow the strong

horse; even more so in Middle Eastern culture where restraint is seen as

weakness and murder is seen as strength.

In the face of such a dreadful likelihood, the emerging Washington

consensus is an exercise in self-delusion unworthy of a 5-year-old. The

almost consensus Washington argument assumes that if only we will formally

talk with them, Iran and Syria will volunteer to pull our chestnuts out of

the fire while we start removing troops from Iraq. Such arguments exemplify

the witticism that when ideas fail, words come in very handy.

Iran has been our persistent enemy for 27 years; Syria longer. They may

well be glad to give us cover while we retreat — but that would merely

be an exercise in slightly delayed gratification; not self-denial, let alone

benignity. So long as Iran is ruled by its current radical Shi’ite

theocracy, she will be vigorously and violently undercutting any potentially

positive, peaceful forces in the region; and is already triggering a

prolonged clash with the terrified Sunni nations. Our absence from the

region will only make matters far worse.

We need to start undermining by all methods available that dangerous

Iranian regime — as the Iranian people, free to express and implement

their own opinions and policies, are our greatest natural allies in the

Muslim Middle East.

We have only two choices: Get out and let the ensuing Middle East

firestorm enflame the wider world; or stay and with shrewder policies and

growing material strength manage and contain the danger.

Those who call themselves realists are the least realistic. Their great

unreality is that they can’t imagine that the passions of the people; for

good or ill; are to be reckoned with. Thus it was they who for half a

century supported and exploited the Middle East dictators who caused the

Islamist pathologies that threaten the world today. It is they who will do

business with the corrupt dictators to the very minute that they are

overthrown by the Islamist mobs. They will keep the cash register humming

until it is flooded with blood. The “realists’ ” unjustified conceit is,

today, the most dangerous pathology facing America.

As in all struggles, each side will make mistakes. We have certainly

made several. But as the last century’s great chess master Savielly

Grigorievitch Tartakower once famously observed: “Victory goes to the player

who makes the next-to-last mistake.” Retreating from Iraq would be the last

mistake.”

An ugly but related truth is that once our policy objectives have been either achieved or abandoned, our interest in helping our allies achieve *their* policy objectives tends to wane rather quickly.

Who, pray tell, has historically been a more “steadfast” ally than the United States in this wide world?