More from the liberal fantasyland of warfare

The Belmont Club looks at an article by Richard Clarke in The New Republic which sufggest that we could always re invade Iraq after we left.

...

The US can "declare that we will act, with the Iraqi government or without, to prevent Iraq from becoming a terrorist haven after we depart". But who's going to believe threats and declarations from a force in retreat? It may be argued that on the contrary, US declarations will have even less force once it has been shown that American main forces can be driven off, not even by threats to kill American troops but simply by threats among the locals to kill each other.

...

One of the most tangible effects of a perceived American defeat in Iraq is that no state supporter of terrorism need fear it any more. The UK Times describes the open rearmament of Hezbollah from Syria. The IDF's withdrawal from both Gaza and Southern Lebanon may have achieved many things, but none of them include putting the fear of God into Syria. Neither America nor Israel seems to worry it much, nor apparently does the EU-heavy United Nations Peacekeeping force tasked with stopping it.

...

This is what the argument that the enemy will pursue following a withdrawal from Iraq really means. It will send the signal that even relatively weak powers like Syria and Iran can openly destabilize their neighbors and attack the United States without any real fear that their regimes will be changed. And inevitably they will do so again and again. Perhaps the most cruel aspect of proposals to "withdraw" from Iraq without decisively winning is that the word is really a euphemism for a change of venue. Using the word "withdrawal" falsely implies a choice between war and peace when it is really a choice between war and more war....

...

Is Clarke really naive enough to believe that the US would have the political will to re invade Iraq? I am sure the Bush administration can count on his support as well as the other contributors to The New Republic for such an operation. I can already see Nancy Pelosi signing on for that too. What Clarke is really talking about is serial punitive strikes that have the effect of long term raids. But, without a persisting force you just scatter the covey which will return as soon as you leave the field.