It is not Stalingrad, in that US troops are not surrounded, and the news is spun heavily to make each retreat sound like a success for the US-UK coalition, but the language of commentary is slipping towards the language of defeat.
Yes, the US is mighty enough to use "awesome" force to destroy any minor regime militarily, as in Afghanistan or Iraq, but it cannot impose a new regime. This week the total of deaths of coalition troops went over 1000. Last night CNN had an item from an Arab or Middle East commentator. I did not catch the name but for the first time I heard the formula: there is no military solution. He was arguing that the insurgency is more than Al-Zarqawi and the remnants of the Baath regime. It is an extensive movement, and it will only be pacified by political negotiations which widen the consensus of forces behing a new regime. Allawi is already talking of amnesties. While the details are open to debate and are subject to misrepresentation and random misreporting that broad picture seems likely. It is confused by smaller groups that may have their own agenda - probably the spate of bombings against alcohol stores are of this nature - jostling for position about how secular and how islamist the balance of forces will be. There are acts of terrorism, and there are well targeted attacks eliminating allied security personal which we may not hear much about. A muslim Pakistani just released claims he was originally detained as being a secret agent, but he was let off. He reports he saw three others beheaded. There are softer targets like Iraqis who help the invaders, perhaps in the role of translators. But broadly this is no longer an insurgency, as the hegemons politely call it: it is a systematic war of resistance that will defeat the invaders. "There is no military solution." This defeat of US hegemony could be even more significant than the defeat in Vietnam, because after that the cold war still continued in other forms. This defeat will be a signal that no power can dominate the world without some show of international legitimacy - That is my suggestion, but events are unfolding. Chris Burford Niall Ferguson ended a prophetic article in Newsweek at the turn of the year, based on the Terminator analogy - rather journalistic but basically correct - "The United States has the capability to inflict appalling destruction while sustaining only minimal damage to itself. There is no regime it could not terminate if it wanted to-including North Korea. Such a war might leave South Korea in ruins, but the American Terminator would emerge more or less unscathed. What the Terminator is not programmed to do is to rebuild anyone but himself. If, as seems likely, the United States responds to pressure at home and abroad by withdrawing from Iraq and Afghanistan before their economic reconstruction has been achieved, the scene will not be wholly unfamiliar. The limits of American power will be laid bare when the global Terminator finally admits: "I won't be back."
