Another Long Haul War for USA
That nice Timothy Garton Ash compares USA in 2005 to Great Britain in 1905 and argues that America simply does not have the stomach for the long haul when it comes to Iraq. He makes a direct correllation between Britain’s Boer War and USA’s Iraq War:
The British won only by a ruthlessness of which, I'm glad to say, the democratic, squeamish and still basically anti-colonialist United States appears incapable.
Kurt Nimmo argues a point on similar lines by drawing a parallel between USA and this time, in his case, France in its colonial adventure with Algeria in the 50s. And he also comes to the same conclusion:
In the meantime, there is a “way to go” before this reality—minus extreme brutality, the United States will never be able to seriously occupy Iraq, as the French were unable to occupy Algeria (where some serious brutality was in fact levied, all for naught)—sinks in.
Only Kurt, doesn’t have to sugar his pills to ensure his grants keep rolling in and keep his ass safely ensconced in Academia like Garton Ash has to and qualifies his points with this little master blaster:
Well, [Chuck Hagel] may not realize it, but that is precisely the game plan—the neocons want to destabilize the Middle East, decimate Islamic societies and culture, and instigate a revamped Sykes-Picot Agreement of sorts, that is to say carve up the Middle East like the Brits and French did in 1916.
Say it like it is, Kurt