Do We Have a Strategy to Win?

From Lawrence Auster's View from the Right.

I particularly find the comparison to FDR interesting.

When it was pointed out that the "democratization" rhetoric was harmful because it confused a realistic, concrete goal (defeating the insurgency) with a more abstract, and unlikely one (creating a democracy in a country that is majority Muslim), the correspondent said:

"Roosevelt formed a coalition in defense of the "four freedoms" with Stalin. That's acting from political necessity."

Hmmmm. The only problem is that the rhetoric was never intended to direct our policy. Killing the "Krauts" and "Japs" (I'm not advocating the use of racial slurs, but let's face it, that is how the Germans and Japanese were thought of during WWII) was the policy. Even if we talked about freedom, we didn't discuss "liberating" Japan and Germany, nor was there any serious thought that we prioritized their freedom; we wanted to remove tyrannical tendencies in their societies in order to reduce the chances of another Tojo or Hitler, but our first goal was to kill them all until they submitted.

I think that there is only one way that we can win in Iraq. That is to resort to massive anti-Sunni Arab brutality. Even if we caused Syria to close its borders, the insurgency would be going on strong. It might lose its supply of suicide bombers, but it would still have the ability to place IEDs and would still have most of its warriors who fight with guns and mortars.

The only way to stop the insurgency is to convince the Iraqis that any ethnic group that attacks us will be decimated. Currently, that means massive retaliatory attacks against the families and towns of insurgents.

This is a bad situation.

That is all.