Saddam a Failure by Kissinger's Standards

Kissinger didn't quite say we are doomed in Iraq despite the headlines the last couple days. He did essentially say what I've long said, that there is no military solution to an insurgency (short of genocide, of course). Military action is a shield behind which political, social, and economic progress undermines an insurgency.

But Kissinger's comment is interesting:

"If you mean by 'military victory' an Iraqi government that can be established and whose writ runs across the whole country, that gets the civil war under control and sectarian violence under control in a time period that the political processes of the democracies will support, I don't believe that is possible."

By this standard, Saddam did not run his own country. The Kurds were beyond his control protected by our air power. By civil war standards bandied about nowadays, having a part of the population carve out their own homeland counts as a civil war situation. Even Anbar province was a place where Saddam reigned but did not rule. The tribes were pretty autonomous out there even under Saddam.

Given the way that everybody lied to stay alive in Iraq, can we say Saddam's writ ran across the entire country? His death squads, yes. But his writ? Nope.

As for sectarian violence being under control. I don't think so. Saddam killed and tortured Shias regularly and slaughtered in large numbers as needed. While the sectarian violence was all in one direction (Sunnis killing Shias), is this honestly what you mean when you say sectarian violence is "controlled?"

Although in the plus column for Saddam under Kissinger's standards, the Western democracies had plenty of patience with Saddam while he killed and plundered the Shia majority into stunned submission and gassed the Kurds. Sadly, there is no patience left for a democratically elected government fighting off savage killers. The Western democracies are funny that way.

Still, Kissinger assumes that we have to remain long enough for the Iraqi government to subdue the insurgents and terrorists. We do not. We need only make the government strong enough to win. With the alternative to winning being their deaths, the Iraqi goverenment will win that fight no matter how long it takes. He also glides by the fact that a lot of the world's democracies were against the fight to remove Saddam from day one, so why does their opinion in year 4 or 5 or 10 matter?

Really, though, Kissinger 's assessment is very damning of Saddam's capacity to rule.