Redstate

By speciallist Posted in Archived — Comments (30) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

I want you to Stare at this picture...

Look again..

Now...wipe the tears and listen up...

The talk is heating up about pulling our troops out of Iraq. Forget it Dumbaxx. Ain't gonna happen. We will lead the Mideast to peace, but only if we hang tough and do the right thing.

Iraq is in a battle for its very life and America is there to rightly wage war against the worst component of humanity, lowlife swatches cut from the same cloth as those who had murdered nearly 3000 of her children on September 11, 2001.

One of the most reverberant arguments in the debate over Iraq holds that the United States can Win by pulling its troops back, as part of a phased withdrawal. If American troops begin to leave and the remaining forces assume a more limited role, the argument holds, it will galvanize the Iraqi government to assume more responsibility for securing and rebuilding Iraq.

No, it's no time to cut and run. In fact people like me say that we need to do the opposite. We should send in another 500,000 (or more) troops. Secure the borders. total and complete occupation in hopes that the situation will eventually settle down. Get the citizens running water and electricity. Squeeze out the insurgency....but I digress..

Cut and Run is the case now being argued by many Democrats, most notably Senator Carl Levin of Michigan, the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee. But this argument has been challenged by a number of military officers, experts and former generals, including some who have been among the loudest critics of the Bush administration's Iraq policies.

Anthony C. Zinni, former head of the United States Central Command and one who called for the resignation of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, argued that any substantial reduction of American forces over the next several months would be more likely to accelerate the slide to a real civil war than stop it.

“The logic of Cut and Run is you put pressure on Maliki and force him to stand up to this,” General Zinni said in an interview, referring to Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, the Iraqi prime minister. “Well, you can’t put pressure on a wounded guy. There is a premise that the Iraqis are not doing enough now, that there is a capability that they have not employed or used. I am not so sure they are capable of stopping sectarian violence.”

Instead of taking troops out, General Zinni said, it would make more sense to deploy additional American forces over time to “regain momentum” as part of a broader effort to stabilize Iraq that would foster political reconciliation, and develop more effective Iraqi security forces.

John Batiste, a retired Army major general who also joined in the call for Mr. Rumsfeld’s resignation, described the Congressional proposals for troop withdrawals as “terribly naïve.”

“There are lots of things that have to happen to set them up for success,” General Batiste, who commanded a division in Iraq, said in an interview, describing the Iraqi government. “Until they happen, it does not matter what we tell Maliki.”

Before considering troop reductions, the United States needs to take an array of steps, including step up the effort to train Iraq’s security forces, secure its long and porous borders, enlist more cooperation from tribal sheiks, engage Iraq’s neighbors and weaken, or if necessary, crush the militias.

General Batiste has said that until we properly train an effective Iraqi force, it may be necessary to deploy tens of thousands of additional “coalition troops." General Batiste said he hoped that Arab and other foreign nations could be encouraged to send troops...Good luck with that..

Kenneth M. Pollack, an expert at the Brookings Institution (who served on the staff of the National Security Council during the Clinton administration), also argued that troop reductions would backfire and would contribute to the disorder in Iraq.

“If we start pulling out troops and the violence gets worse and the control of the militias increases and people become confirmed in their suspicion that the United States is not going to be there to prevent civil war, they are to going to start making decisions today to prepare for the eventuality of civil war tomorrow,” he said. “That is how civil wars start.”

What are we fighting for?

What we're fighting for is...Survival

If we pull our troops out, the entire Middle East will turn into Armageddon. Iraq will turn into a legitimate civil war. Iran will rush in, Saudi Arabia will eventually become vulnerable. WE will become vulnerable.

What the Iraqi people have so far experienced is just a taste of what will happen to millions of Iraqis if the reckless Left forces the US from Iraq before the terrorists, including active Al Qaeda members, are driven out of the country.

The Democratic Party and most of those on the left side of the political spectrum either do not realize, or do not seem to care, that the lives of millions of Iraqis will be seriously jeopardized should America cut short its efforts to help stabilize their country.

Many reasons have been given for why we fight and our youth must die in Iraq. We’re told we must honor the fallen by “completing the mission.”

This is what this blog is about...To do otherwise would demean the sacrifice of those who have died or been wounded. Any lack of support for “completing the mission” is unpatriotic, un-American, and detrimental to the troops. I insist the only way one can support the troops is to never waver from the policy of winning...and Saving the Iraqi people from certain death.

Though most people think this war started in March of 2003, the seeds were sown many years before. The actual military conflict, involving U.S. troops against Iraq, began in January 1991. The prelude to this actually dates back over a hundred years, when the value of Middle East oil was recognized by the industrialized West.

Most Americans ignore that we provided assistance to this ruthless dictator with biological and chemical weapons technology. We heard no complaints in the 1980s about his treatment of the Kurds and Shiites, or the ruthless war he waged against Iran. Our policy toward Iraq at that time played a major role in convincing Saddam Hussein he had free reign in the Middle East...and you know what?...THAT IS OVER.

In 1998 Congress capitulated to the desires of the Clinton administration and overwhelmingly passed the Iraq Liberation Act, which stated that our policy was to get rid of Saddam Hussein. “The policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein.”

The Clinton administration repeatedly said that Saddam Hussein was a threat to us with his weapons of mass destruction, meaning nuclear, biological, and chemical. Since we helped Saddam Hussein obtain biological and chemical weapons in the 1980s, we assumed that he had maintained a large supply.

Shortly after the new administration took office in January 2001, this goal of eliminating Saddam Hussein quickly morphed into a policy of remaking the entire Middle East, starting with regime change in Afganistan and Iraq. The 9/11 disaster proved to be a catalyst for invading both countries.

The Surge.

We're on the move. We're taking action. We're helping this young democracy succeed. Violence ran virtually unchecked through the streets of Baghdad before the surge began taking hold. Our troops have increased their presence on the streets of Baghdad, and together with Iraqi forces, they're working to ensure that terrorists and death squads cannot intimidate the local population and operate murder rings.

Attacks and casualties at times have increased recently only because our forces are Confronting the enemy in Baghdad and in other parts of Iraq.

Street violence in Baghdad and surrounding areas has declined. Shops and markets once boarded up are reopening. Iraqi civilians are going out into the streets again and living their lives with less fear of being tortured, persecuted, maimed or killed. There is still plenty of terror and violence in Iraq, but since the "troop surge" began, it has lessened considerably. People are going about their business. Homes are being built, and a good number of existing houses and storefronts being repaired.

Iraqis are not yet giving up on their lives or their country.

The Iraqis have Hope. Ya hear that Obama? The Surge is kindling that hope. We are helping the Iraqi people by ensuring the imposition of basic law and order.

What happens if we Cut and Run?

The violence is being caused by a combination of terrorists, elements of former regime criminals and sectarian militias.

It is obvious to all on the ground in Iraq that if America Bails before the job of restoring law and order is finished, Iraq will instantly collapse and wholesale mass murder will commence. How can the leftwing Democratic Party call for withdrawal, leaving the good people of Iraq at the mercy of those who have demonstrated their intent and capability to commit humanity's foulest acts?

If the Democratic Party is successful in effecting a premature troop withdrawal from Iraq, alot of unlucky people will be killed because of their religious affiliations or because they were employed by Americans.

Let's pretend for a moment a democrat becomes the next president, and the democrat led house and senate actually get enough votes for a complete and immediate withdrawal from Iraq. For those who think this is a good idea, what do you suppose the short term and long term effects of such an action would be?

Does "Rwanda on steroids" sound about right?

Those on the left complain that we don't do anything to stop the various slaughters throughout the world, yet they seem intent on starting a new one in Iraq.

Okay. So we walk away, and the U.S. no longer has to concern itself with Iraq and what happens there after our departure. What happens?..correct..Everyone, with the exception of the people of Iraq, live happily every
after...and...The brutality of Iraq's enemies will be on full display.

They can Succeed

Amid the violence, important political developments are also taking place. The Iraqi legislature reached a compromise and set up a process for addressing the difficult issues of federalism and constitutional reform. In addition, the government of Prime Minister Maliki has taken three important steps to build confidence in his government and in the Iraqi security forces.

First, Prime Minister Maliki announced a plan to bring together Sunni and Shia parties and stop sectarian violence. The Prime Minister's plan has received support from every major political group in Iraq, including some hard-line Sunni elements that chose not to join the unity government. Among the steps the Prime Minister announced is a new system of local and neighborhood committees, made up of both Sunni and Shia members, that will work directly with Iraqi security forces to resolve tensions and stop sectarian strife.

Second, Prime Minister Maliki met with tribal leaders from the Anbar Province. These tribal leaders told him they've had enough of the terrorists seeking to control the Sunni heartland, and they're ready to stand up and fight al Qaeda. The Prime Minister told them that he welcomed their support and would help them.

Third, Prime Minister Maliki's government suspended the Eighth Brigade, Second Division of the national police after learning that this unit was not intervening to stop sectarian violence in and around Baghdad. This police brigade has been decertified by the Iraqi Ministry of Interior, it's been removed from service, it's now being reviewed and retrained. With this action, the Iraqi government has made clear it's not going to tolerate the infiltration of the Iraqi security forces by militias and sectarian interests.

Iraq's democratic government is just months old. In the face of terrorist threats and sectarian violence, Iraq's new leaders are beginning to make tough choices. And as they make these tough decisions, we'll stand with them, we'll help them. It's in our interests that Iraq succeed.

These are tough times in Iraq. The American people are seeing unspeakable violence on their TV screens. The enemy is doing everything within its power to destroy the government and to drive us out of the Middle East, starting with driving us out of Iraq before the mission is done. The stakes are high. As a matter of fact, they couldn't be higher. If we were to abandon that country before the Iraqis can defend their young democracy the terrorists would take control of Iraq and establish a new safe haven from which to launch new attacks on America. How do we know that would happen? Because that's what the enemy has told us would happen. That's what they have said. I take the words of the enemy very seriously, and so should you.

We cannot tolerate a new terrorist state in the heart of the Middle East, with large oil reserves that could be used to fund its radical ambitions, or used to inflict economic damage on the West. By helping the Iraqis build a democracy we will deal a major blow to terrorists and extremists, we'll bring hope to a troubled region, and we'll make America more secure.

Surrender Monkeys

Why are the Democratic Party, the mainstream press, the human rights groups, the UN leadership and the "social justice" crowd currently pushing policy that virtually guarantees an Iraq genocide? Are they not familiar with what transpired after the US abandoned South Vietnam to the communists? Can they not see that their cries for US withdrawal threaten to take Iraq to the same places as the killing fields of Cambodia and Bosnia and Rwanda?

It has been said by the Left that Democrats are more empathetic than Republicans. It has also been said by leftists and those sympathetic towards them that they are more compassionate than people on the Right, that the Left fights for "the oppressed," for the "little man," for "human rights" and for "civil rights." Yet the Left is willing, almost eager, to abandon the people of Iraq, a people desperately in need of all the Left says it offers. It is ready to abandon innocent Iraqis to those who will deny them their rights including the most basic one of all, the right to live.

It is indeed time for the Left to prove, through action, that it is truly concerned for the welfare of the oppressed. And there is no better way for it to accomplish that than by putting aside its vile hatred of the President, and supporting the soldiers and the policy makers who are trying to bring peace and stability to the Iraqi people, a people who for forty years, have truly been oppressed.

In closing...

Those innocents must somehow be protected from the human-hunters. It is the right thing to do, and America's soldiers are rightly trying to do that. Yet if the American Left and the Democratic Party accomplish their goal of pulling the protectors from Iraq before law and order there is restored, shemagh-wrapped hunters will stalk their human prey with impunity. They will murder hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of innocent men and women and children in Iraq. And some day America will pay a dear price for that folly when the hunters of humans, emboldened by their victory in Iraq and possessing the resources to amplify their destructiveness, again take aim at America's shores.

As Iraq extricates itself from 40 years of injustice, brutality and death, the steady, just imposition of law and order is what is necessary for it to achieve a state of civility and prosperity. And law and order is being brought to Iraq not by leftwing Washington, DC, politicians who spout antiwar rhetoric for political gain, or by disingenuous antiwar icons like Cindy Sheehan, but by brave Iraqi Army and Coalition soldiers positioned along the highways and in the villages and towns orbiting Baghdad.

That presence is emboldening good Iraqis to rise up against their tormenters, and chase them out, which is now happening with increasing frequency throughout the country.

You know what needs to happen?...The Democratic leadership, the "social justice" crowd, the human rights groups, the UN leadership, the mainstream media and anyone else trumpeting concern for oppressed peoples, need to put aside their pathological hatred of President Bush and their unfair criticisms of the US Military long enough to view the Iraq situation as a simple matter of human rights...as a battle between evil oppressors and the liberators of the oppressed.

I ask Democratic Party leaders to put hatred aside long enough to pretend that it is their sons and their daughters, their wives and their children who are being, tortured, maimed and killed by oppressors in Iraq. It will only be a matter of time before those hunters of humans, the beheaders, the torturers of women and children, the suicide bombers and the hyper-religious fanatics, bring death to your own cities and towns.

Then, you and your loved ones will have paid a dear price for your unending hatred of one man, your naked self indulgence, your utter, rank hypocrisy and your unquenchable thirst for power.

In the end, whether Iraq thrives or descends into total chaos depends largely on whether or not American soldiers stay long enough to restore order, and to impart their skills on Iraqi security forces. If American forces leave before law and order is permanently restored, or before Iraq's security forces are capable of holding the line against the terrorists, Iraq surely will be lost.

Please...Don't let American soldiers die in Vain...We all get to watch the NBA finals because of these Heroes..Remember