Maj. Joel Rayburn, a historian and officer now posted to CENTCOM, writes about the dangers of a too-hasty exit from Iraq, drawing on the British experience post-WWI. I need to read this more carefully, but it seems his ideas present a pretty strong rebuke to both Republican and Democratic positions on the war right now. He says: a purely military approach, which is what the administration is pushing (though they claim not to be) will probably make things worse, but leaving now would probably be just as bad. From Foreign Affairs; a cached version.

People have been going in and pulling out of the Middle East for thousands of years. We didn't just discover this. We just have to read the records and change the names. The question remains, not why they pulled out, but why they went in in the first place. While some reasons seemed good at the time, retrospect and consequence seem to invalidate many of them. It doesn't seem like any occupants have achieved their objectives. How many different ways do we need to learn the same thing. The only people who can handle the heat are those that live there by choice or cannot leave, rather than those who stay through some misplaced obligation.

If they went in for the money, they will choke on it. If for land it will burn them, if for order they will create chaos. If for power, they will inherit a wasteland. There is a term that needs to be included in the rules of engagement. To win a war you need to win the hearts of the people, not the authorities. The contention that the military can solve the problem, is inhumane, sets a shocking example for the people to follow. How can students learn of the dangers of conflict, when their teachers carry guns.

To win a war you need to win the hearts of the people, not the authorities.

and where did we hear that before? Hearts and Minds, of the Gooks, was it?

When will they ever learn, when will they ever learn.