Jonathan

I cleaned up the blogroll again — updated some links, recategorized others, deleted some that didn’t work or connected to dormant blogs. Let me know if I should change anything else.

Jed Babbin at NRO discusses how the Iraqi regime might exploit international and, especially, domestic U.S. opposition to the war to generate a cease fire. That’s all the regime needs, because it must only survive, whereas we have to win.

The U.S. may be in a position vis a vis Iraq similar to that faced chronically by Israel in responding to existential threats. Israel has typically (cf., 1956, 1967, 1973, 1982, 2002) been forced to fight quickly enough to meet its military objectives before bigger countries intervened to stop the war. The United States faces relatively little effective international pressure (though there is some, particularly as we want to keep the UK on board and are sensitive to Tony Blair’s concerns). What should worry us more is the possibility of significant domestic political opposition should our military efforts appear to bog down. The “anti war” demonstrators are not very effective, and may even be generating support for the war, but it’s obvious that much of the press is hostile to the war effort and so are leading Democratic politicians. These latter groups will not hesitate to exploit military setbacks for political gain to the extent they can get away with doing so.

Things appear to be going well but anything can happen. The Iraqi regime may be more resourceful and tenacious than the Taliban was. I hope that our war planners understand that our efforts in Iraq face political as well as military danger, and that the political risk increases with time. We should keep moving militarily and not stop until we win.

It’s interesting to watch polite, articulate, well groomed military officers field questions from slovenly reporters who look and sound like college students after an all-nighter. Clearly, some of the best people in our society have chosen military careers. With rare exceptions, the same cannot be said of journalism.

Worry not, Lex. I don’t think the anti-war demonstrators are helping their own cause. If anything they are antagonizing the many Americans who are inclined to support our government while our troops are in harm’s way.

The loony-lefties who drive the demos probably think they are positioning themselves to ride any wave of popular anti-war sentiment that develops in response to war setbacks. I think it’s more likely that the inevitable setbacks will increase popular determination to see the war through, and that many Americans will blame the antis for encouraging and even aiding our enemies. This isn’t Vietnam, where there were widespread doubts both about our tactics and our reasons for being at war. (It isn’t Algeria, either, Jacques.) The case for war against the Iraqi regime is clear. The case for finishing the job — after the first Gulf War and endless resolutions and sanctions didn’t — ought to be clear to anyone who isn’t blind.

We’ll win, and I don’t think it will be as difficult at you fear. Iraq isn’t 1940s Japan, the hard core of Hussein’s supporters isn’t likely to resist indefinitely. Those who aren’t soon killed or captured face an inevitable choice between 1) certain death in battle, 2) surrendering to U.S. troops and probably surviving, 3) being killed by other Iraqis, and 4) trying to escape while there’s still time. How many will choose death as opposed to some variant of surrendering or escaping? My guess is that an increasing number of them will, in one way or another, stop fighting as our victory becomes increasingly certain.

International hostility? We ought to be used to it by now, and it doesn’t seem to be slowing us down. The only thing that can stop us is if we lose our nerve, and I don’t think that will happen.

The market-determined odds for the removal of Saddam Hussein from power by the end of March were last quoted at around 78% (and may be higher by the time you read this), an increase of about fifty percentage points in the past couple of days. Markets don’t always evaluate probabilities accurately, but they tend to provide the best available estimates, and they adjust rapidly as new information becomes available.