Failure Is Not An Option
By The Directors Posted in War — Comments (172) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
The war in Iraq is vital to America’s national security and to the Global War on Terror. It is a fight which we are not currently losing on the ground, and which we will not lose if we commit to victory, rather than taking the path that appears easier, at least in the short term – abandoning yet another battlefield to the enemy.
We live in an age of unparalleled access to information. Little more than a century ago, wars were fought and supported by nations that had no idea of the outcome of battles until well after they were won or lost. Even monarchs and elected leaders often made decisions based on information whose age was measured in months or even years.
Today, the majority of Americans have access to instantaneous reports from Iraq. Yet still they harbor misconceptions, borne out of what we can only assume to be purposeful ignorance. They do so at a moment where these reports, and the story they tell, are vital both to our military success in that country and to the security of our country in the long term.
Al Qaeda, the terrorist organization which attacked us in 1993, in 1998, in 2000, and in 2001 – and numerous other times – has the dual distinction of being both the highest-profile enemy in the War on Terror, and enemy number one in Iraq. Regardless of Speaker of the House Nancy “The Real War on Terror is in Afghanistan” Pelosi’s apparent belief, along with many of her colleagues, that the latter is untrue, the leaders of that terror network have said otherwise, and have done so loudly and repeatedly.
Only last week, Ayman al-Zawahiri (via video) spoke of the vital role that Iraq currently plays as “the centerpiece of [al Qaeda’s] anti-American fight.” It is safe, we think, to suppose that al-Zawahiri may have a bit more knowledge of al Qaeda’s operations than Ms. Pelosi.
Yet since the war’s very beginning, the calls have come – from retired military officers, politicians, and activists – for a change in course in Iraq. And Ms. Pelosi is determined to listen.
Yes, it's our longest ever Directors' post, but please do keep reading . . .
This week, Democrats in Congress will be voting on a resolution (HR 2956) demanding this change of course – despite the fact that only six months ago, the Senate, by unanimous (81-0) vote, confirmed a new military leader who was bringing with him a brand-new strategic approach to the fight in that country.
The majority of Americans seem to have the same misconceptions about the relation between this “new” strategy and the so-called ‘Surge’ now as they did when it was first proposed. Allow us to provide some clarity: The ‘Surge’ – an increase in boots on the ground in Iraq – was never the strategy itself. The increase in troop levels, requested by General Petraeus, was one of many components (or “strategic shifts,” as national security advisor Stephen Hadley called them in a January 29 Washington Post op-ed, in which he even then was attempting to clear up the misconception that the ‘surge’ was the strategy in its entirety) necessary to implement the sweeping new strategy, which radically altered our country’s course in Iraq and sought to solve the problems and shore up the weaknesses which four years of fighting had created and exposed.
In truth, the strategy itself was and is far more intricate and multi-pronged than a simple ‘surge’ in troops. The main focus of the new strategy has been the Baghdad Security Plan – a strategy focused on the capital city of Iraq, which seeks (with increased Iraqi and American forces) to permanently rid neighborhoods of terrorists and extremists and keep them that way, and to secure the population.
The new strategy in Baghdad was to be met with new rules of engagement, set to ensure that Iraqi and U.S. forces could pursue lawbreakers and terrorists regardless of their community or sect, and to be followed by economic assistance and reconstruction aid – including billions of dollars in Iraqi funds – which would combine to offer employment and the prospect of better lives for average citizens.
While this operation has been ongoing since Gen. Petraeus’s appointment in January, troop levels in Iraq have just recently reached the amount necessary to fully implement the BSP and to undertake the other aspects of the new strategy.
Outside of the Baghdad Security Plan, the new strategy stepped up the fight against al Qaeda – the most brutal and violent foe we have in that country, and the one which has the most to lose from the victory of US and Iraqi forces. Beginning in Anbar Province – until six months ago, the most-written-off area of Iraq, and a sanctuary for AQI – US forces have systematically driven al Qaeda from their strongholds, rallying tribes, clans, and groups of all sects to the cause of liberty and of a free Iraq.
Anbar is hardly mentioned in the news media at all today, and Michael Yon recently reported having spent a month there without hearing a shot fired (an amazing development, as gunfire had been as common a background noise in Iraq as traffic horns are in America). The US military is currently wrapping up week three of Operation Arrowhead Ripper, the largest offensive since 2003 and one aimed directly at rooting out and destroying al Qaeda in Baqubah (in Diyala Province just north of Baghdad), one of their final Iraqi strongholds.
Each place that the coalition openly fights against al Qaeda, the citizens and tribesmen join in, standing side by side with Americans – their differences forgotten – and helping to win back their neighborhoods, their cities, and their country. This is the truth about what is happening on the ground – the truth that the American people do not hear, and Ms. Pelosi will not say.
Other aspects of this new strategy included doubling the number of provincial reconstruction teams (PRTs) in Iraq. These civilian-led units have been helping the Iraqi government distribute development aid across the country; this year, 10 new civilian PRTs have been be embedded with U.S. combat brigades. The training of Iraqi security forces has been accelerated, with benchmarks set to track progress, and numerical goals decided upon to best bolster the size and effectiveness of those forces. Contrary to popular belief, training and supporting Iraqi troops has been and will remain our military’s essential and primary mission in that country.
The Iraqi people do by and large want us there – not forever, but until they are secure enough to take over themselves. Taking a shattered state – especially one like Iraq, which, being comprised of people who think of themselves as members of a tribe, sect, clan, or mahalla, has no sense whatsoever of itself – and making it whole again is a long and arduous task. It is doubly so when an effective insurgency is being waged against the rebuilding force – and make no mistake about it: this insurgency is effective.
This is no easy task. It comes with a cost measured in much more than funds or effort – in the cost of young men and women, husbands and wives, brothers and friends. Yet that cost is outweighed by this simple fact: Failure here is not an option.
There is no “Plan B” to success in Iraq. If we fail there, the Iraqi government and its security institutions will almost certainly crumble under the pressure of widespread sectarian violence, ethnic cleansing, and extrajudicial killing. The chaos, which would spread across the country like wildfire, is likely to engulf the entire region. Even if it did not reach that far, our withdrawal would give al Qaeda exactly what they have so often asked for: a base of operations outside of Afghanistan, from which they can carry out attacks on American interests and on our homeland itself.
The American military can win this fight. What is needed is for the American people, and their leaders, to put politics aside in favor of presenting a united front against those who, regardless what concessions we make, will do their utmost to kill us. The effort will take time; all successful counterinsurgencies have. The time that winning the peace in Iraq will take is compounded by the fact that, for the Iraqi people to decide to put their lives on the line and to stand together against their murderous enemies, we must first convince them that we are committed to staying there to support them for as long as it takes.
Their skepticism on the latter is justified. We fled the battlefield in Vietnam, in Beirut, and in Somalia after being hit in the mouth by our adversaries. Furthermore – and more relevantly – we abandoned the Iraqis in 1991, after encouraging them to revolt against Saddam and promising to stand behind them while they did so. It will take far more than three weeks at full strength and a few more months of operations against the insurgency in Iraq to convince the people there that we will stick with them for the long haul; however, without doing so, we cannot succeed.
Giving in and pulling out of Iraq is exactly what al Qaeda and our other enemies have demanded of us. Despite the brief respite that such a decision would appear able to provide our “war-weary” nation and military, such a decision would bring nothing but harm, both to Iraq and, in the long run, to America. We were attacked on September 11th by the same enemy we are now facing in Iraq. Surrendering the field to them would be nonsensical and unacceptable, striking a self-inflicted, fatal blow at our war on terror, and inviting more attacks against ourselves here at home.
Along with the new strategy in Iraq came the author of America’s brand new field manual on counterinsurgency, General David Petraeus. Since his arrival, American and Iraqi forces have made marked and significant progress – and he has given our military confidence in our ability to succeed. But there is simply no rational point to giving such a man the task at hand without the resources or time to see it through. We are not surprised, of course. Perhaps, as some of us expected at the time, that was the plan all along.
So here hangs the balance of our mission, and the goal of a just, free, and peaceful world teeters near the brink. Either Ms. Pelosi has in mind a more ingenious strategy for victory then Gen. Petraeus – her brilliant strategic mind honed on the battlegrounds of late night games of Battleship – or she is unwilling to bear the political penalty with her base, and thus has become an eager fan of American defeat. And the sooner there are images of helicopters skirting away from the tops of buildings, the outstretched hands of the Iraqi people left behind to be devoured by our common foe, the better.
You will forgive us for suspecting the latter.
« We need more COIN in the Afghan realm — Comments (0) | Haditha Commander To Stand Trial — Comments (5) »
Failure Is Not An Option 172 Comments (0 topical, 172 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
Superb essay - one that should be published far and wide. I think the point that is lost on most of the surrender-monkeys is this:
...our withdrawal would give al Qaeda exactly what they have so often asked for: a base of operations outside of Afghanistan, from which they can carry out attacks on American interests and on our homeland itself.
Exactly. Yeah, we purged Al Qaeda from Afghanistan and Iraq, but do you think they'll stay gone once we bail out? Ah...no.
The Iraq battle is toast! We'll either start witdrawing before January 2009 or we'll start withdrawing shortly thereafter.
Banging your fist on the table stating that withdrawal is a bad idea is futile to your fist and the table!
Whether rightly or wrongly, whether unfairly influenced by the media or not, the US people don't have the commitment for an expensive open ended battle in Iraq. Frankly, four years is a lot more than I thought they'd last. It's a democracy and eventually the majority will get what they want (whether or not they'll live to regret their decision).
"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling
You'd have to ask "why don't they have the commitment level"?
It could be that the general American recalls:
When Bush's economic adviser Lawrence Lindsay said the war could cost between $100 and 200 billion he was sharply rebuked by the rest of the Administration as the argued it would be much less.
"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling
I mean this with all sincerity.
The article starts with this, "The war in Iraq is vital to America’s national security"
A lot of you probably agree with this statement and take it for granted. I don't. Can someone point me to an article that makes the case that the war in Iraq is vital to America’s national security?
I find nowhere in the article a detailed explaination of why the war in Iraq is vital to America’s national security.
Al Qaeda, the terrorist organization which attacked us in 1993, in 1998, in 2000, and in 2001 – and numerous other times – has the dual distinction of being both the highest-profile enemy in the War on Terror, and enemy number one in Iraq. [...]
Only last week, Ayman al-Zawahiri (via video) spoke of the vital role that Iraq currently plays as “the centerpiece of [al Qaeda’s] anti-American fight.” It is safe, we think, to suppose that al-Zawahiri may have a bit more knowledge of al Qaeda’s operations than Ms. Pelosi. [...]
Each place that the coalition openly fights against al Qaeda, the citizens and tribesmen join in, standing side by side with Americans – their differences forgotten – and helping to win back their neighborhoods, their cities, and their country. [...]
There is no “Plan B” to success in Iraq. If we fail there, the Iraqi government and its security institutions will almost certainly crumble under the pressure of widespread sectarian violence, ethnic cleansing, and extrajudicial killing. The chaos, which would spread across the country like wildfire, is likely to engulf the entire region. Even if it did not reach that far, our withdrawal would give al Qaeda exactly what they have so often asked for: a base of operations outside of Afghanistan, from which they can carry out attacks on American interests and on our homeland itself. [...]
Giving in and pulling out of Iraq is exactly what al Qaeda and our other enemies have demanded of us.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
"Al Qaeda, the terrorist organization which attacked us in 1993, in 1998, in 2000, and in 2001 – and numerous other times "
We would be far safer with proper Immigration policy and protection of our borders and ports. Which doesnt' require spending Billions on bringing Democracy to Iraq.
Are we going to go to war with every country that has Al Qaeda in it?
Specious, and yet with a depth of understanding that fairly boggles the mind.
That's like asking if Roosevelt should have declared war on every country that had Nazis in it.
No, we probably aren't. But on the other hand, we should not give the enemy a safe haven from which to build their operations. A secure Iraq will deny them that haven, at least for the moment.
If they move operations to Syria or Iran, I would absolutely consider military action to deny them any safe haven. I also would radically change the RoE.
You obviously missed it Bubba, these guys declared war on us. Of course Bill Clinton was President then and all the Democrats were convinced they were the enemy. Democrats have learned a couple of things over the years, and the first is that the "enemy of my enemy is my friend". That's why they are leading the bandwagon to support AQ's goals.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
Well your good name callers. I'll give ya that, but I still haven't heard or read a coherent arguement for how the war in Iraq makes us safer. They're still coming into our country. Has the war made the UK safer?
We would be better served securing OUR country instead of someone elses.
Now I'm willing to change my opinion, but name calling doesn't work.
FYI, not only is name calling not going to change my mind, it won't change the vast majority of the publics mind either. Wasn't that one of the points of the article? To help educated people about what is really going on in Iraq? I'm asking for an articulate and logical explaination of why a secure Iraq makes a secure USA. And not only that, is there a better way to secure America, that doesn't include going to war with every country that has Al Qaeda within it's border.
Your willingness to walk - run - away from the ME, is nothing more than an example of the complete "head-in-sand" mode of the Left and Ron Paul supporters. Reality be damned! is your bumper sticker. You want to approach this war as a one dimensional thing, have at it. It didn't work out so well for Europeans prior to WWII. It won't work out so well here either.
And BTW, noting that you are utterly stupid is not an exercise in name calling. It's just stating a simple fact.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
If the arguement, for why a secure Iraq = a secure USA, you'd think you would be able to articulate it...
If the arguement is so simple, for why a secure Iraq = a secure USA, you'd think you would be able to articulate it...
If you cannot understand how a more democratic Iraq would help stabilize the region and NOT provide a jihadist training ground, then there is not much sense having any discourse with you. As you know, democracies just don't wage wars on other democracies.
Would the ME be better off if it operated like Turkey or Israel? Or, would it be better off if it operated like Iran or Afghanistan under the Taliban?
It just isn't that difficult to understand.
--------------------
Vista really sucks!
the argument to you. Or to my dead white cat. Or my dead brown cat. Or to Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid or Jack Murtha. You don't care, you're in surrender mode and perfectly happy with the warm wet feeling in your shorts.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
I'm asking for an articulate and logical explaination of why a secure Iraq makes a secure USA.
It won't by itself. We will still face threats from without and within. However, an Iraq ruled by AQ, who would then have access to petro$ would increase the power of our enemy 100 fold. In addition, it would be much more difficult in the next engagement (and there would definitely be one) to convince any population to go along with us.
Think back: We encouraged the Iraqis to rise up under GHWB, saying that we would support their efforts, then pulled back and allowed them to be slaughtered.
If we leave Iraq now, every single Iraqi who has made any public effort to oppose the terrorists trying to take over the country now would have their head sawed off, along with their wives and children.
Now, think ahead: We have to invade Iran because they just nuked Israel (just one of many possible scenarios, but that's what contingency planning is). We tell the population that they should cooperate with us and we will leave them with a free and prosperous democracy. If you are them, do you help us fight the mad mullahs, or sit back and watch our soldiers die in the fight. They answer to that question is what makes this fight so important.
I meant what I said and I said what I meant. An elephant's faithful 100 percent.
Thank you for the polite reply.
First, you make the assumption that Al Qaeda would take over. I think that’s a leap.
Second, if we hadn’t gone in the first place we wouldn’t have had to worry about Al Qaeda take Iraq over. I’m just sayin’…
” If we leave Iraq now, every single Iraqi who has made any public effort to oppose the terrorists trying to take over the country now would have their head sawed off, along with their wives and children.”
I’m more concerned with Americans.
“Now, think ahead: We have to invade Iran because they just nuked Israel” Israel can take care of themselves. They have nukes.
I really think we need to rethink our Foreign Policy. We can be secure without going to war.
how do you do that without the use of force?
" in the end, it's not the years in your life that count. It's the life in your years."
Abe Lincoln
We'll just round up those bad ol' terrorists and throw them into jail. Wasn't President Clinton oh-so-successful in that approach??
I may get bounced for this, but...I'm pretty close to calling BS on our XSEAL....MBeck...I think you had the club last, no?..
" in the end, it's not the years in your life that count. It's the life in your years."
Abe Lincoln
related to you and your "opinions".
All yours jdub...
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
to calling BS on your name...though I'm tending to believe the yahoo part is accurate..
now, are you going to asnwer my question I asked above?...
" in the end, it's not the years in your life that count. It's the life in your years."
Abe Lincoln
How could we be safer?
Secure the borders and ports with people and technology.
Stop allowing Muslims into our country. Some in Europe are already calling for a stop to all muslim immagration.
Pretty simple.
as a warrior, do you think our move into Afgan. (post9/11) was smart?...do you think that move has made the US safer..?..
" in the end, it's not the years in your life that count. It's the life in your years."
Abe Lincoln
First, you make the assumption that Al Qaeda would take over. I think that’s a leap.
A LEAP?!?! I can't believe you said that. Do you truly think that the country will just go ahead and devolve into a peaceful democracy? Or surely you just mean that terrorists and killers will take over and they just won't call themselves AQ.
In either case, we lose.
Now, I'm going to grant that there is some slim possibility that Peace will break out. (I don't believe it, but let's pretend) As a matter of fact, let's just go ahead and be really, really generous and give it 50/50. Should we take a 50/50 shot that a terrorist organization will have access to a bajillion oil dollars, not to mention access to one of the most important aspects to the world economy? Don't you think that's too big of a chance to take?
Second, if we hadn’t gone in the first place we wouldn’t have had to worry about Al Qaeda take Iraq over. I’m just sayin’…
And if I hadn't climbed that fence, the bull wouldn't be chasing me now. But I did. He is. And I'd best deal with it, rather than spending my time wishing I were on the other side of the fence.
” If we leave Iraq now, every single Iraqi who has made any public effort to oppose the terrorists trying to take over the country now would have their head sawed off, along with their wives and children.”
I’m more concerned with Americans.
That sure doesn't sound nice. Do you mean to say that it wouldn't bother you to allow a million or so innocent people to be slaughtered?
Regardless, you can't protect Americans by showing the world that we won't fight to win. Remember what happened when Bin Laden thought we were a paper tiger?
“Now, think ahead: We have to invade Iran because they just nuked Israel” Israel can take care of themselves. They have nukes.
I'm not sure I'd choose you as an ally. You might not stay roostered when needed.
I really think we need to rethink our Foreign Policy. We can be secure without going to war.
X Seal? Now, as I tell my kids, tell the whole truth. Really?
I meant what I said and I said what I meant. An elephant's faithful 100 percent.
I'll grant you we should deal with the present problem instead of Monday morning quarterbacking.
I don't think Iraq will be peaceful if we leave. I think there's a good possibility Iran and SA will fight over the country. I think the whole region will go crazy, but that's not necessarily a bad thing for us. They focus on each other instead of us. Yes we’ll have higher gas prices but that’s the price we pay.
“I'm not sure I'd choose you as an ally. You might not stay roostered when needed.”
It’s true, I prefer the Foreign Policy of the Founders.
“X Seal? Now, as I tell my kids, tell the whole truth. Really?”
Yes, but how will you ever know. We’re on the internet. Anyone can say anything.
I think there's a good possibility Iran and SA will fight over the country. I think the whole region will go crazy, but that's not necessarily a bad thing for us. They focus on each other instead of us. Yes we’ll have higher gas prices but that’s the price we pay.
Do you truly believe that they can't kill us and each other at the same time? You're wrong. There are plenty of bombs to share the pain. And, to tell you the truth, if we abandon our allies now, (meaning the Iraqis who have trusted us to protect them while they try to establish their democracy) leaving them to be slaughtered by their enemies, we deserve the carnage we will get in our nation.
It’s true, I prefer the Foreign Policy of the Founders.
No you don't. They fought wars, they didn't quit, and they fought them to win.
I meant what I said and I said what I meant. An elephant's faithful 100 percent.
you wrote "Do you truly believe that they can't kill us and each other at the same time?"
Isn't that the whole rationale behind fight 'em over there so we won't have to fight 'em here?
No, and I don't believe that you're so stupid that you believe what you wrote. You just think it is a catchy little gotcha. You're wrong.
We are there to kill them. Then we won't have to fight them over here because they are dead.
I meant what I said and I said what I meant. An elephant's faithful 100 percent.
they weren't there in any numbers before we got there and from reading the paper today, the main branch of AQ (the ones actually resp for 9-11) are back to their pre-911 strength.
I gotta believe that the US in Iraq has created thousands of AQ members. Seems like the more you kill, the more you create. I'm just doing the math, 'cause we have been killin' them for years and there is end in sight.
And we aren't there to kill them. That is justification 7.0 for the war. First is was WMD's, then to show Iraq as a flower of democracy for the rest of the ME.
Is your Talking Point O Matic™ a pocket version, or do you have the full size model?
they weren't there in any numbers before we got there
They were there in much smaller numbers. I'm sure that was mostly due to the fact that Saddam wanted to encourage their activities against us, but had no desire to have them take over his little fiefdom.
from reading the paper today, the main branch of AQ (the ones actually resp for 9-11) are back to their pre-911 strength.
Your paper is a liar. They may still have large numbers, but I heard Condolezza today say that they have regained some of their strength in certain areas, but that we have seriously injured their capacity in others.
I gotta believe that the US in Iraq has created thousands of AQ members. I gotta believe that the US in Iraq has created thousands of AQ members.
BS. Zarcowie was on TV the other day crying the blues because they were having trouble with recruiting. The only reason anyone will join is because we (actually - you and your lousy party members) keep making noises like we're going to quit and run away home and they want to be on the winning team.
And we aren't there to kill them. That is justification 7.0 for the war. First is was WMD's, then to show Iraq as a flower of democracy for the rest of the ME.
BS again. Those guns aren't full of rubber bullets. As for justification 7.0; can we help it if there were multiple reasons to invade? The fact that you can only remember one thing at a time just shows you to be less than astute.
I meant what I said and I said what I meant. An elephant's faithful 100 percent.
Yes, but how will you ever know. We’re on the internet. Anyone can say anything.
If the Fastest Squirrel were here, he'd know.
I meant what I said and I said what I meant. An elephant's faithful 100 percent.
so would Sem6...fer chi eye, Strieff, Jeff, even Raven too!! :)
" in the end, it's not the years in your life that count. It's the life in your years."
Abe Lincoln
arse tossed out of McP's in record time
" in the end, it's not the years in your life that count. It's the life in your years."
Abe Lincoln
The poster asked an entirely reasonable question, one which doesn't justify your condescension. If, as you state:
...we should not give the enemy a safe haven from which to build their operations.
...then we should have attacked Pakistan, yes, Pakistan, the most dangerous country in the world, IMHO. This is a nation one heartbeat away from being at our throat, which likely hosts the fellow who actually did attack us on 9/11, which has a growing movement of Islamic militancy, which supported the Taliban, which has nuclear weapons, which proliferates with pride these weapons to other powers, and which frankly despises us.
If we were truly basing decisions on our national security interests, then the frontier provinces of this nation should have been Target Number Two after Aghanistan. Surely we learned at least a little something from dealing with the Laotian-Vietnamese border, and the difficulty of eliminating an infection adjacent to a well of disease.
And I'd also add, both to you and others who engage in this sort of petty verbal slapfighting, that you do a disservice to the cause you supposedly embrace, the desire to strengthen the American people's will to sustain our war effort. Folks are way past tired of being called traitors, monkeys, and cowards for thinking hard and asking questions about a poorly executed war effort. Step up your game and engage thoughtfully if you truly value the outcome.
And helping us. A muslim nation that elected a female primeminister twice.
Brilliant lets attack pakistan. While we area at it we could do Turkey too.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
...then I'd hate to see obstruction. Turkey is a moderate, Westernized nation and, above all, a NATO treaty member whose territory we are committed to protect. Pakistan hosts our enemies, Bhutto is history, and they repeatedly thwart our efforts to secure Afghanistan. And, surely this is of some relevance, since it's likely OBL's lair. Don't we remember him? The fellow who murdered our people on 9/11?
No, we can't likely attack now, now that we've exhausted our blood and treasure on Iraq and have little leverage to end Pakistan's repeated opposition to our efforts to thwart incursions into Afghanistan. I fully acknowledge this is handwringing over "shouldas" and "couldas", regret over the waste of our momentum and credibility five years ago.
Remember also, this is the country who lionized A.Q.Khan, the wretch who gave nuclear technology to Libya, Iran, and North Korea. This is our enemy, who arms our other enemies. And that is desperately important to our national security.
Let me guess you weren't born until after the cold war had ended. You never had to go through a shelter drill. The missiles of October is a rock band for you.
Whats even more amazing is the predictability of your response. Repeatedly thwart our efforts to secure Afghanistan ?? What you mean is the current PM is walking a tightrope to keep the country together. He regularly has assassination attempts originate from the region.
Seeing as you have thought this so far through just what is the upside of attacking a nation that has both nuclear weapons and long range ballistic missile capability ?
Just which cities in Europe, India and America are sufficiently low priority that you are willing to let them go for this adventure ?
For most people that are actually aware of whats happening in that part of the world, a full out exchange between India and Pakistan is a real possibility. You're advocating triggering what no sane person would want. Then there is the possibility of rogue nukes afterwards.
Brilliant.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
I remember the Cold War well. I remember leading a class discussion group about the Soviet threat in sixth grade to educate my classmates. I dissected issues of Soviet Life to understand my enemy. I remember life under a greater threat than this.
But by all means, let's discuss the nuclear threat to our nation. The world's greatest proliferator of nuclear technology is Pakistan's hero, A.Q. Khan. If someone sets off a nuke barge in the Hudson or Potomac, chances are excellent that the technology will have been derived from this man's efforts.
Pakistan cannot deliver nuclear weapons to American soil with conventional systems. India has made its capability of mutually assured destruction quite clear to Pakistan.
Once again, this militant cesspool teetering on revolution likely hosts OBL, and gave nuclear technology to our enemies. If these aren't top priority security concerns, that what is?
If you actually lived through the cold war you have taken nothing away from it. That you can blithely speak of precipitating a nuclear exchange with a country that is cooperating with us to greater degree than many of our other so called allies is patently insane.
Its further indicated when you say things like this
Pakistan cannot deliver nuclear weapons to American soil with conventional systems.
You sir are just talking out of your rear. Pakistan has Missiles, Nukes, and Missile carrying submarines. At the worst they could launch the equivalent of a Regulus at us.
So I ask again which city are you willing to sacrifice to perpetrate this idiocy ?
Just how many loose nukes are you willing to have running around after the war is "won"
By your own description the country is fragmented. Just what do you think the odds are that even with a full scale pre-emptive first strike we would get all the weapons and not take retaliation ourselves ? I can tell you its close to zero.
P.S. I am glad you are so willing to endorse a strategy that will probably kill more people than all the wars of the 20th century put together. Personally I am happy our political leaders are a little more judicious in their use of arms.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
...then let's hear from your rear, specifically how Pakistan would attack us with nukes. Here is the state of their capabilities. And that's as of now, not in 2002, when I assert that we should have crossed the border into territory that the central government of Pakistan itself doesn't even control. Let's hear specifics, including logistics...
Once again, and again, and again, they likely host the guy who murdered our citizens on 9/11 and proliferate nuclear technology to our mortal enemies. How exactly would you propose to deal with the issue?
As our president said of Saddam's Iraq:
Knowing these realities, America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.
Here's a place that we know for sure manufactures those mushroom clouds, and we knew that they did so when we were unsure of Saddam's capability in this respect. So if you regard this threat so seriously, how do we address it, particularly if one man's pulse stops and Pakistan's government suddenly reflects the will of its people?
Seeing as they sold them submarines they could use to launch a counterstike. Agosta 90B Oh gee you forgot its possible to move missiles. I suppose you don't mind losing Honolulu, San Fran and LA and maybe San Diego.
Your lack of analysis is shocking but oddly enough not surprising. Especially, seeing as they have been preparing those subs to handle Nukes since 2001. And, they have been manufacturing their own subs since 2003
So once again what is it you are planning to do ? Attack Pakistan and hope you get everyone ?
As to how to deal with a potential revolution post Musharraf . Try to make certain it doesn't happen now.
Let me ask once again seeing as it has been implied. What is it that you don't understand about attacking to prevent a nation from acquiring nuclear weapons vs Attacking a nation that has nuclear weapons ?
To compare Iraq, a nation that was working on acquiring weapons had absolutely no long range delivery capability and was able to be quickly rolled up. With a nation that has nuclear weapons, would use them to defend itself, and be able to retaliate is idiocy.
I will ask again just how many Americans are you willing to have killed to attack an ally.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
The submarine in question, which the French have decommissioned in their own Navy, fires Exocet missiles, which carry a payload of 165kg. Good luck fitting homebrew nukes on that small a package. And the Pakistanis themselves renounced their intention to make the submarine capable of delivering nuclear warheads. And at 20 kts top speed submerged, we'd have a few weeks prep time to find the thing before it arrived on our coast. But you were spot on with the remaining details: it belongs to Pakistan and operates in the water.
So even though Pakistan aided and hosted and even developed our enemies, was a source of frustration to our efforts in Afghanistan, has a wide array of WMD, is run by a dictator, has periodic pogroms of its religious minorities, fights with its neighbors, and a host of other issues known with certainty rather than suspected, you say that Iraq was the proper country to deal with, not because it was the greater security threat, but because it was simply "low-hanging fruit"?
How about Iran? If it were to test a nuke tomorrow, would you suddenly consider it invincible and all military responses beyond contemplation? This nuclear club is quite an outfit; small wonder countries want to join it if it suddenly grants them immunity and amazing street cred.
What would I have done? Well, I wouldn't have rolled into Karachi or Islamabad or rained nuclear fire on their country, for crying out loud. Give me break.
What I would have done is informed Musharraf in early 2002 that we intended to prosecute limited operations in his northwestern provinces to pursue Taliban and Al Qaeda fighters, including the use of recon teams, special forces operations, and airstrikes to identify and destroy their resources in this area. And that they'd have the ability to select and attack targets at their discretion, not after a day's deliberation (and warning) from the Pakistani Ambassador. General M could keep this silent or public, at his discretion, depending on what he thought would save his neck, but I'd make clear it was going to happen regardless. And further dealings with his regime would depend on its compliance in this regard. Meanwhile, I'd do something that I applaud President Bush for doing: develop strong defense ties with India. Oh, and I'd also send a good portion of the troops that would have gone to Iraq to southeasten Afghanistan instead to prosecute the war we'd already begun. Plus do everything humanly possible to make A.Q.Khan disappear.
At this point, though, I frankly don't know. We've expended the momentum, urgency, and goodwill that we enjoyed five years ago. Unfortunately, it will probably take a tragedy in the form of another dramatic terrorist attack on America for us to regain the leverage needed to lance this boil.
And finally, I ask you right back: how many Americans are you willing to have killed to not attack the territory of an "ally" hosting an enemy regathering its strength to resume the murder of our people?
What I would have done is informed Musharraf in early 2002 that we intended to prosecute limited operations in his northwestern provinces to pursue Taliban and Al Qaeda fighters, including the use of recon teams, special forces operations, and airstrikes to identify and destroy their resources in this area
Yes thats brilliant. Just what do you think any Pakistani citizens response is going to be to the idea their country has been invaded and Musharaf is playing along with it ? You know that civil war you wanted to avoid creating ? You just created it. Hope the Pak C^3 system is adequate to prevent nukes being fired on our troops. (In Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq)
Nice attempt at recovering on the subs butAs I pointed out before the Regulus
or Regulus Thats the Regulus missile. A technology that is 60 years old, is launched from the top of a sub there isn't even a need for tubes. Pakistan can do the exact same thing. They do after all build their own subs and missiles. In the worst case they could just launch a V2 from the sub the same way germany and japan planned to.
Of course if you have a sub with a 10000 NM range, Nukes and suicide bombers, the missile is unnecesesary. Care to go on with more wishful thinking about how we wouldn't be able to struck back at ?
As to making A.Q. Khan dissapear, The man is Pakistan's national hero. He delivered them from the threat of Indian Nuclear terror. You'd have had about as good luck getting George Washington dissapeared from the colonies.
To answer your question back at me, Considerably less dead Americans than your plan would produce immediately. Working with the Pakistani government lets us enhance their stability and at least figure out who our enemies really are.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
...is rather lacking. To launch a Regulus missile from a sub, even assuming that it could carry their type of nuke, they'd either have to mount the thing on the top of the sub and slowly putt putt putt over to NA without submerging, fully visible the whole time, or build an entirely new design of sub with watertight hangers equipped for transporting and launching these things.
Regardless of what you think, this is a dirt poor country with limits on its resources and technology. Yes, they're building a sub, with French tutoring and blueprints (and managed to murder a good number of the French engineers), but the idea that they could build a whole new nuclear-equipped model from scratch is silly. Or maybe you're expecting they'll instead have space-based death rays by next Tuesday?
In the worst case they could just launch a V2 from the sub the same way germany and japan planned to.
Sure! Why, it's just that easy! Never mind the challenge of trying to load fuel and liquid oxygen on a 50ft missile teetering on a sub deck in tossing seas. Even if you shot it off, you're not going to be able to hit anything with it but the ground, maybe, somewhere. You need a carefully surveyed launch site and a stable platform even on land to ensure the inertial calibration needed to establish proper guidance to a target. Otherwise, you're wasting your time, and aren't much better, probably much worse, than Hezbollah using chop-shop junk to hurl concrete hunks into population centers. I really doubt these chuckleheads have SeaLaunch-type capabilities.
So you truly think we're impotent against Pakistan? Again I ask, and challenge you for an answer this time, what if we needed to strike Iran after it tested a nuke and joined the club? Would we simply give up and prostrate ourselves before their tender mercies? They, too, have subs, and planes, and rockets, and suicide bombers, and are next door to our troop concentrations. What if we thought they were about to launch against Israel or were responsible for a major suicide bombing against our troops in Iraq? Nolo contendere?
Its been over 20 years since I worked for a defense contractor.
But your knowledge of weapon systems seems nonexistent.
Seeing as the Nazis did launch a v2 from a submarine
The IJN used submarines as aircraft carriers. The same system could easily accommodate several cruise missiles.
Of course in the worst they could just put the nukes in the subs and smuggle them into cities.
When you speak in such a contemptuous manner and with such arrogance regarding the most deadly weapons ever conceived, I understand the lib characterization of conservatives as war mongering idiots War is not something to be entered into lightly. Blithely wishing your enemy can't do you damage is not a battle plan. Discounting their abilities is not strategy. Write back when you actually understand a little of what you are talking about. For what its worth you can have the last word.
Oh as for Iran. They need to be dealt with before they have nukes. After we know they have nukes it will be too late.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
...at least by your own reference. It stated that the Germans made successful tests with artillery rockets 20-30cm diameter. A V2 is a 200-mile-range ballistic missile with a 1.65m diameter, its launch is a far more complex undertaking, and, once again, it needs an established inertial orientation state to launch with any degree of accuracy. It already had at least several miles circular-error-probability in what it could hit; launched on a pitching platform, its accuracy would degrade tremendously. Even mobile launchers on land have to be parked on graded, surveyed sites and carefully calibrated to local conditions. You could stick a long plumb bob on the capsules in the drawings on your reference, but surface wave motion is still going to create a good deal of torque about the CG; now imagine trying to attempt this in inhospitable weather. There's a very good reason that everyone today places long-range missiles inside large stable submarines for a submerged launch and adapts the rocket's guidance specifically for that environment.
Look...I'm not trying to come across as bloodthirsty. I'm simply trying to establish two points. One, I'm making the technical point that not only are these capabilities not likely to be included in those of the Pakistanis, they take a lot more effort and savvy than you seem to understand.
And two, we must have options for dealing with powder-keg proliferating states like Pakistan that are penciled-in lightly in the "ally" column today and may be otherwise tomorrow, particularly if they play host to folks like OBL with whom we are already in a state of mutual warfare. Their military threat is obviously not comparable to that of the Soviet Union at its height, and we can't base our contingency planning on equating the two threats in severity.
http://www.redstate.com/stories/war/failure_is_not_an_option#comment-486...
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
you would note that a discussion was not on his agenda. He is every bit as open minded as Nancy Pelosi or John Kerry. My regret with him is that I wasn't snotty enough.
I would have no problem going after Pakistan in some fashion, and inserting SpOps to provide support or direct action is a perfectly good idea.
The toad to whom I originally responded, and I suspect you, are totally clueless about what's going on in Iraq and what the result will be if we follow the Democrat's demands and surrender. It's a complete waste of time to make the case to "him" because "he" obviously was fast asleep for the last 30 years contact with Islamic terrorists. We tried negotiations. Doesn't work. We tried running away from them. Just emboldens them. We tried treating them as a law enforcement problem. Doesn't work AND emboldens them. The only thing that will work is to kill them at a place of our choosing.
They are in Iraq in reasonably large numbers, we should kill them in large numbers. How they got there is now of no consequence, killing them is.
With respect to your whine about name calling, I've not called anyone but John Kerry a traitor, and that is related to 1971. I'm reasonably sure Moe would have banned me if I was calling people monkeys. Cowards on the other hand, I would willingly apply to most of the leadership of the Democratic Party for the last 30 - 40 years with very few exceptions.
That the war effort is poorly executed, I think you'll find more agreement to that idea here than at Kos. The difference is that here, most of us want to step up the fight and win it while the Kos crowd - and the Democratic Party want to go hide under a bed and whimper.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
...in negotiating with terrorists. I want our armed forces to kill them. There's scant evidence that AQI existed before we made a vast Mesopotamian summer camp in which they could garner expertise in killing Americans. We hung out our troops as human fly paper there, and, surprise, surprise, AQ followed the scent to expend their limitless minions against them.
As for Pakistan, recall Willie Sutton's famous retort as to why he robbed banks: "That's where the money is." Pakistan is where the terrorists not only were, but are. In 2001-2002, we had enough momentum and global sympathy that that stupid, largely fictitious line on the map between Kandahar and Waziristan could have been breached at acceptable cost. No longer. And now we have to live with the consequences of being bogged down a thousand miles west of the puppetmaster's home. It's infuriating...
There are many in this asymmetric multi-faceted war. Saudi Arabia is another.
The important difference between Afghanistan and Iraq on the one hand and Saudi Arabia and Pakistan on the other is that the prior governments in Afghanistan and Iraq were our inveterate enemies, interested in co-operating with any of our other enemies that they could. In Saudi Arabia and Pakistan the governments are co-operating with us against the terrorists. As much as we would like? Perhaps not. Do the governments there fully control all aspects of the state? Certainly not. Do they speak for every individual in the country? Er, no, does any government?
The point is that regime change is really hard to execute. You need to find allies on the ground and then create a new government. It is likely to be years (longer in Pakistan's case - you do know it has twice the area of Iraq and six times the population, right?) before the new government can be an effective ally in confronting the terrorists. And what is the point? The current governments are already co-operating with us. Trying to create a new government that could be a more effective ally would probably be the work of decades and would be a dubious prospect for success even on that timescale.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
International Editor of
How do we do that?
Do you think Bush has the backbone to call for re-instatement of the draft?
That's what we need. Swarms of soldiers pouring across borders.
Yeeeeee-haw.
Well that's got me persuaded that, against the advice of all military experts, a draft is of enormous relevance to today's asymmetric, multi-faceted war.
You don't think your arguments would be more welcome at Kos or DU?
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
International Editor of
...are you saying the U.S. doesn't get to pick its battles, at least while it still has the luxury of doing so? That if we can't get to AQ everywhere, and all at once, that we shouldn't engage them at all?
And how would "proper immigration policy" and "protection of borders and ports" prevented the following...
1.USS Cole (Yemen)
2.Khobar Towers (Saudi)
3.Riyadh Training Center (Saudi)
4.Embassy bombings (Kenya and Tanzania)
5.Danny Pearl's torture, murder, and mutilation (Pakistan)
all of which occurred before we began spending billions in Iraq?
Take your time.
--furious
"I find your lack of faith disturbing." -- Darth Vader
Are you saying we had to go to war in Iraq in order to fight Al Qaeda??????
1) We didn't have to go to war in Iraq to go after those responsible for the USS Cole.
2) Why the hell do we have to be there?
3) Why the hell do we have to be there?
4) We don't have to go to war with a country to go after those resonsible for the embassies in Kenya and Tanzania
5) Come on????
How could we be safer?
Secure the borders and ports with people and technology.
Stop allowing Muslims into our country. Some in Europe are already calling for a stop to all muslim immagration.
Pretty simple.
>>>Stop allowing Muslims into our country.<<<
You can't be stupid enough to think that'll ever happen. Talk about fodder for the left. Now I'm not saying it shouldn't happen - I'm saying it WON'T happen. Does "internment camps" ring a bell?
You're more than likely correct, but that doesn't mean it isn't the right thing to do. If we realy wanted to secure the homeland we would keep them out. Islam is incompatible with Liberty and Freedom.
Religious bigotry is strictly forbidden here: have fun expressing it somewhere else.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
Do you like the name "Sparky," Sparky? Do you think calling people "Sparky" insults them, Sparky? I wouldn't know, Sparky, but "Sparky" has such nice, sparky ring to it. I think I'm going to like calling you "Sparky," Sparky.
Have a bully day, Sparky! Bully, I say! A good bully day to you all!
full time job. Playing with the online polls for RonPaul™.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
Islam? Not necessarily. I think you're conflating the two, and in process falsely stigmatizing an entire religion.
...war against CrusaderJews, and states that its goal to re-establish the Caliphate there. Better there than aboard another United or American flight or in the New York subways.
Safer? Has there been another mass-casualty attack on American Soil since 9-11? (Hint -- it's a one-word answer).
#1: Answering a question not asked.
#4: Yes we do -- Afghanistan.
#1 and 4: At least reciprocate the courtesy and answer the question as asked.
#2, 3, and 5 appear to be silly non-sequiturs or nervous tics.
You're starting to bore me...
--furious
"I find your lack of faith disturbing." -- Darth Vader
They are ALREADY here. Did you miss the JFK attempt along with many others?
You shouldn't come to intellectual exchanges unarmed.
Now you know why posters believe you are a troll.
--------------------
Vista really sucks!
Yah. Tell me how committed they are to engaging in supporting Petraeus on the Hill. Katherine Jean Lopez exposes in damning detail the risible incompetence of this WH in getting the Republicans on the same page in today's Corner. Money quote:
For weeks now whenever I talk to Senate staff, within minutes, if even seconds, I notice the dread: What are we going to do about Iraq? And how is the White House going to help us with the opposition right here in the Senate? We want to give it a chance, but it's not like the winds are blowing in our favor, in terms of public opinion, in terms of statesmen-like willingness across the aisle, in terms of getting a ton of leadership help from the White House.
This morning one Senate staffer involved in both big fights recently (immigration, war) expressed his alarm: "The White House is not engaging even 1/2 as much as they did on immigration and they are in a hole now, with little capital left to spend."
The biggest strategic move of the entire Iraq Campaign and the President was surprised by Voinovich? He was surprised by Lugar? He was surprised by Domenici?
Get this: in the middle of a critical military campaign in which Bush needed every man in the Senate he could get, he sent a third level staffer to sit down with one of his Republican Senators, instead of doing the Face Time with the Senator himself. I'm sorry, but this is B.S.. Petraeus needs help, big time, and all the time he can get to ward off an irresponsible Democratic "Peace Now" freight train that will be critically bad for the larger war. If Lopez is correct, Bush isn't helping him too much.
If this White House doesn't even care to stay on top of the Republican caucus, to do what needs be done to keep the Republicans on the same page so Petraeus and our fighting men have half a chance to win this fight, then my friends, you need to wake up and smell the coffee: Failure is an option! And you need to demand that this WH get its act together, because the Democrats certainly won't.
George Bush is the only President we have right now. His instincts are, sometimes, very good. Recently, they've been hideously bad. Spending all your political capital attacking your own people on immigration was stupid. Being surprised by your own people about Iraq was even worse.
Folks, don't blame Domenici or Lugar. There's a simple lack of leadership and energy out of this White House on Iraq. Period. When that happens, the Senate reverts to type: Every Man for Himself.
"History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it"-Winston Churchill
to sell the war to Republican senators, let alone the general public, so I can't disagree with you on any point here. Yet today was a good start, and if one-tenth the effort that was devoted to destroy the party via CIR is put into lobbying the Congress to hold off on cutting and running, things still can be turned around. But that window of opportunity almost is shut and the White House had better continue to send the president out as it did today. If needed, even daily.
I cut them no slack at all. Our senators are elected to represent the United States of America and are members of a co-equal branch of gov't. If they can only do the right thing when the President is running interference for them, covering for their sorry @$$e$, they need to pull their panties up over their heads and go home.
We are at war and we need every single statesman to fight. John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, et al didn't cry and run home, they pledged their sacred honor for the formation of this nation. These sorry losers we have now, who have been born and bred into the land of the blood of our founders, can't even stay roostered in a war to the death unless GWB is in front of the cameras for them.
Words fail me. But if these pieces of sheet can't grow some balls, they should beg, borrow or steal some from real men.
I meant what I said and I said what I meant. An elephant's faithful 100 percent.
___________________________________
The CIA has better politicians than it has spies - Fred Thompson
When was the last time the Senate Republican Conference grew a spine?
You argue against history, sir. We voted for Bush because he was supposed to be a leader at the critical hour. It's incumbent upon the WH to step up to the plate, not expect Petraeus and Ryan Crocker to carry water all the time.
"History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it"-Winston Churchill
When was the last time the Senate Republican Conference grew a spine?
And you think that because they are spineless, I'm supposed to blame GWB for not holding their little hands and wiping their little noses? No. Way.
They are 18 and weigh 100 pounds. They are entirely and completely responsible for their own actions. My contempt for them knows no bounds.
GWB may not be in front of the cameras every day, but he has a day job, and it's not babysitting crybaby Senators. He has stayed entirely steadfast in the prosecution of this war, in spite of media lies and distortions and lies by members of Congress. I'll not blame him for their failures.
As a matter of fact, I blame the Senators from our own party even more for allowing their counterparts to appear in front of the cameras time after time after time, lying about the war, its purpose, its progress and its administration, while they hid behind their mother's skirts, refusing to call their opponents on their public statements.
I meant what I said and I said what I meant. An elephant's faithful 100 percent.
There's a reason Congress's approval rating are even lower than Bush's. It's not just a camera trick.
You cannot win wars without public opinion on your side. At the very least, the White House must expend time and effort comparable to the largest domestic issue to make its case daily. It hasn't, and shares a tremendous amount of blame for opposition to the war.
This still can be rectified, and I hope the White House started today.
Al Qaeda's primary tactic is to hit soft targets, both in Iraq and in Congress. Like you said, they have been effective.
soft targets...in Congress.
And as Mae West said, "A hard man is good to find." It's too bad we have Lugers and Hagels instead.
I meant what I said and I said what I meant. An elephant's faithful 100 percent.
but, for national security reasons, both the article and book would be classified.
There is no way to educate the uninformed without also educating the enemy. Imagine if Hannibal had explained, in detail, his plan for the battle at Cannae and Varro had been made aware.
Or if Arthur Wesley had made his plans for the defense of Portugal known prior to his withdrawal behind the famous Lines.
Consider what would have happened if Goering had learned that the British, while deploring the civilian casualties caused by the bombing of cities, were relieved that the Germans were no longer concentrating in elimiating Fighter Command and the radar network.
To explain the strategic thought that shows the reason why fighting in Iraq is important will also give the enemy the opportunity to rethink its assumptions. When your opponent is doing something that will disadvantage him, it is not a good idea to offer constructive advice.
AlQ and its terrorist allies are operating with a set of assumptions derived from National Liberation theory. This set of assumptions governs AlQ's actions. In the long run, these assumptions will help destroy AlQ. Wht we don't want is for AlQ to question its assumptions - it might evolve into a greater threat.
I could probbly sit down with you for a couple of days and give you sufficient background knowledge to enable you to understand why Iraq is significant but, as the old intelligence joke goes, then I would have to kill you.
But a short answer, that AlQ already understands, is that we went into Iraq because of Iraq's strategic location in the Middle East.
that this war differs from Viet Nam as regards our security chiefly in the fact that if we leave it will follow us home. The fear in Viet Nam was of the ‘domino effect’; the sweeping of communism throughout Asia and the Pacific as nations fell to communist insurgencies, backed by the Soviets and Red China. We continued the cold war in other venues, yet there was justification for the fear of the domino effect in SE Asia. Over a million Cambodian could attest to that if they were still alive to speak.
Al Qaeda is fighting for world dominance and the establishment of a world Caliphate. They are actively supported in Iraq by Iran and Syria, and will be supported by any number of other Arab dictatorships and principalities in general once we have ceded influence in the area. Iran seeks hegemony in the area, and they all have in common that they are fascists. If we leave, they are not going to declare ‘King’s X’ and try to get along with us thereafter. They will have substantial Iraqi resources at their disposal and will eventually use them, probably sooner than later. With the economic pressure they will be able to bring controlling half the world’s oil, holding an effective coalition together against them will become difficult at best. Probably beginning with Israel, expect fighting to massively increase, but expect also massive increases in terrorism in Europe and here. These guys are not rational. They embrace death. Expect it to go nuclear if they get the opportunity to infuse that particular variable into the equation.
I happen to believe that the major reason we have not had another 9-11 is because Iraq is the battle front. AQI effort has been primarily there for some time. Aside from concentrating their logistics in Iraq, I think they view it as politically counter-productive to attack here in a major way. They are winning in Iraq from a PR standpoint, not a military one. They don’t want to galvanize the American public (which is on the verge of demanding US withdrawal). All the 'plots' that we have interdicted have been home-grown, not AQ operations.
Once we leave there, that all changes. Once they are flush with victory there, it just becomes a matter of when and how they attack here..... not if.
The bottom line that few seem to want to recognize is that the insurgency in Iraq is the forefront of a world-wide movement. Its soldiers are from everywhere BUT Iraq. Its tactics, training, and much (if not most) of its logistics are imported. Victory for them there is not an end.... it’s a beginning.
Really excellent article feeding this thread by the way!!
For a long time, I thought Bush was immune to the idea of a premature withdrawal from Iraq. I believed his sense of history had led him to the conclusion that he was destined for the Harry Truman role -- mid-20's approval ratings for doggedly sticking to a fight against an enemy America didn't quite understand yet.
I hope he continues to stand his ground. A lot can be accomplished in the next 18 months -- perhaps enough to curtail a catastrophe.
And critically important to the people here to consider is this:
If this essay is in fact sincere, the President and the Republicans should stand their ground even if it means a Democratic sweep in 2008.
Yes, it's that important.
--
We would also like to know your advice for somebody like my daughter, who's going to graduate in two years, advice that you would give a young person.
SEC. RUMSFELD: Advice for a young person. Study history.
Upon releasing the Iraq update to congress:
When we start drawing down our forces in Iraq, it will (be) because our military commanders say the conditions on the ground are right, not because pollsters say it'll be good politics.
Godspeed, Mr. President
--
We would also like to know your advice for somebody like my daughter, who's going to graduate in two years, advice that you would give a young person.
SEC. RUMSFELD: Advice for a young person. Study history.
What is needed is for the American people, and their leaders, to put politics aside in favor of presenting a united front against those who, regardless what concessions we make, will do their utmost to kill us.
If you want to put politics aside and present a united front then you may want to stop taking pot shots at Speaker Pelosi. Four years after the war started it should be obvious to everyone that the war critics, including Pelosi, were right about a great many things. If your goal really is comity then it would behoove you to admit that the war supporters were wrong about a great many things and then both sides can move onto solving the problem that is Iraq.
if I believed Speaker Pelosi was at all interested in solving the Iraq problem. I don't. I think 100% of her concern is advancing her political agenda, as it has been for the past six years. Her STATED policy of countering everything Bush has done or advocated, whether it was bad or dangerous for the country to do so, (with about a month-long respite following 9-11) has seriously undermined our national interests. I think her intent is to pull the plug on this thing five minutes after she thinks she can get away with it politically.
If "putting politics aside" is that important to succeeding in Iraq, and I agree that it is, then that means putting all politics aside is important not just Democratic politics.
About which "great many things" regarding the war were Speaker Pelosi and other war critics correct?
Perhaps this Nancy quote, from December 16, 1998:
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
If she wants unity, she ought to stop playing a political game with the lives of our soldiers and those in the Middle East.
...of an action is directly proportional to the likelihood that a Democrat can take credit for it.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
replace virtually all of the elected Democrats in Washington.
Your party voted to go to war. And from virtually the next day has been doing everything politically possible to undercut the mission in Iraq. There has been a constant drumbeat from the Left and the media (but I repeat myself) over this war for five years. And in that regard, the Democrats are right, it is Vietnam redux.
The Democratic party declared defeat and pulled out of Vietnam, to the tune of several million lives that they could have cared less about. They are setting the stage to do the same thing Iraq. The only question - that really doesn't matter - is how many millions will die in the Middle East because of their fecklessness.
The Left in this country, and the Democratic Party in particular, have spent the last 80 years or so promoting and propping up leftist dictators, thugs and murderers. Hopefully one day history will catch up with them.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
I want us to keep Joe Lieberman. He gets it. Oh wait. I forgot. He's not a Democrat anymore. They threw him out.
All of the major presidential candidates on the Democratic side in 2004, and Bill Clinton himself, were on balance supporters of the war. Then Howard Dean's criticism of the war made his numbers shoot up dramatically, causing the Democratic leadership to develop new deeply-held convictions.
The interesting part in all of this was the behavior of then non-candidate Hillary Clinton. She saw the early successes and attempted to carve out the pro-Iraq-intervention space for herself. The left has never forgiven her for this.
--
We would also like to know your advice for somebody like my daughter, who's going to graduate in two years, advice that you would give a young person.
SEC. RUMSFELD: Advice for a young person. Study history.
The Democratic Party surrendered to the far Left a generation ago. They know of no other course than to put their quest for political power above all things. The fact that once again they have freely chosen political advantage over support for the mission in wartime is not an event driven by Howard Dean. It's the core of their party.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
And I would never expect men like John Kerry, for whom treason is a way of life, to support this war. On the other hand, a small number of Democrat Senators and Congressmen standing with a united Republican Party could win the day.
With regard to the media, I've written them off. The NYT was weaned on printing lies in support of Stalin and has never backed off that lesson. They've not met an anti-American group or government they couldn't find a reason to support. Maybe our next President will appoint an AG with the courage to investigate national security leaks and the Publishers and Editors of the Times will have the opportunity to reap what they've sewn.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
What is the President doing to win over the small number of Democratic Senators and Congressmen? To date, his efforts do not seem to be working.
Democrats who were American patriots first and democrats second. He misundersetimated.
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
backbone to confront them publicly. If he had stood up to Murtha initially and laid waste to the worthless piece of crap, many of the problems we're experiencing right now would never have developed.
I'm not sure there's anything he can do now, even if he had the inclination to do it. Heck, he let the Press Corps - and especially Helen Thomas and David Gregory - take clean shots at him today with only a polite response.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
I happen to agree with the Directors that the way to succeed in Iraq is to put politics aside and doing that requires finding some common ground with the other side. If Bush continues to do whatever he wants in Iraq, without regard to the opinions of the public or his political opponents, then he is paving the way for failure.
Why would the Commander in Chief care about "the opinions of the public or his political opponents"? It seems to me that his job is to win the battle in Iraq and continue to fight the GWOT as best he can. The general public and many (most, all?) politicians know little to nothing about how to win a battle or war. This war cannot be won "by committee".
AzHat
In your view Congress has no role in providing oversight, no say in the matter. Just write the check and let the President run things?
_______________________________
None of the Above !
And their opinion in the other, and see which hand remains full.
Congress has a duty to see that (that, not how) the money is spent on the correct matter (i.e. the war), but they have no role in commanding the Commander.
If Bush can win the war before he leaves office then he doesn't need to care about anyone's opinion. The Dems can't get 67 votes to override a veto so Bush pretty much has the ability to run Iraq any way he chooses. The problem is, winning in Iraq is going to take years and years. If Bush doesn't leave office with the American public invested in winning then it is quite likely that the next President will not be able to continue to ignore the opinions of the public or his political opponents.
Regarding the war, he needs to be concerned about public opinion on at most two occasions precisely 4 years apart. I am quite confident--and was bolstered in that confidence during his feisty presser today--that the current CiC is concerning himself more with the fight that matters most at this point than with those in the peanut gallery, and I for one am glad.
soli Deo gloria
He tried to bring some of the more reasonable ones into the administration: Breaux and (Ben) Nelson, for example. I will admit he had his eye on control of the Senate, too, as both would have been replaced by GOP appointees. Right now he has not much to offer.
Will the next President, if Republican, offer cabinet roles to Nelson and Lieberman? Maybe. It could swing the Senate as well as bring decent people into the GOP tent.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
International Editor of
After you've been told for the umpteenth time how the war was a vicious premeditated attempt to kill Iraqi babies by putting an oil pipeline to benefit the Jews, hide our relationship with Saddam, and distract the US from how the chickenhawk neocon fascists lost bin Laden while covering up the stolen election and looking at everybody's library accounts, you lose interest in paying attention.
And oh, yes, then there's the 9/11 Truthers' opinion to consider, too. Can't imagine how I could have forgotten them: they're almost a plurality of the Democratic Party these days.
I'd say 'clean house', but that hope died just before the 2004 elections.
Moe
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
My family's been Democrats since we came off the damn boats. Four generations of solid, working-class citizens. My Party was Truman's and Jackson's and, yes, FDR's. Now it's not, and it's thanks to the scum [in the antiwar movement] that decided to replay their salad days opposing [the Vietnam War].
So why don't you just do yourself a favor and leave this thread before I remove you from it? - Because I am under no obligation to tolerate your antics, and I shan't.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
I responded in kind to your snarky comment after making a reasonable point about the actual diary we are supposedly discussing. If you don't like being treated the way you treat others I suggest you research the Golden Rule a bit.
Your response was an unsubstantiated claim about the wonders of America's Mother-in-Law. You said nothing to document your assertions, other than to say that she was right and we were wrong. Well, nyah nyah to you too. If that's all the substance you have to offer, then you're no different than the rest of the Kostards we deal with here every day.
In many cases, she was right in assessing the situation in Iraq. Her "solutions", however, have been completely and fundamentally wrong.
The point in the diary that resonated with me is the idea of uniting the country behind a reasonable Iraq policy. If that means getting Pelosi onboard with that policy, and I believe it does, then it is incumbent upon the Bush Admin to admit their mistakes so we can all stop arguing about what has happened for the last four + years and try to find a solution to Iraq. I don't believe that is ever going to happen while Bush is in office but it was good to see the Directors make the claim that unifying the country is necessary to succeed in Iraq.
...was unclear?
Go ahead, be outraged again. I'm really looking forward to it. That bit with the Golden Rule really cemented it for me, seeing as you belong to a group that apparently wants to be rounded up by Baathist / Islamist fanatics and gassed to death. Although I suppose that those particular Others don't count, at least [not] until you can get an appropriate President to do unto them.
Go ahead. Answer that, too. Let's save time all around.
Moe
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
Blam.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
To quote Blue's first post in this thread:
"If you want to put politics aside and present a united front then you may want to stop taking pot shots at Speaker Pelosi. Four years after the war started it should be obvious to everyone that the war critics, including Pelosi, were right about a great many things. If your goal really is comity then it would behoove you to admit that the war supporters were wrong about a great many things and then both sides can move onto solving the problem that is Iraq."
I agree with you, Moe, that Pelosi never had good intentions. But that shouldn't stop us from reaching out to the Dems. If we think winning the war in Iraq and Afghanistant is the single most important thing, then Republicans can't demand support for every single security policy they prefer.
I don't think we should any disagreement about Guantanamo and wiretapping and so on. But if it would help bring at least SOME Democrats on board with the war, even just a few
Senators and several Reps, then it would be worth ending those programs.
Reaching out means making painful compromises. We don't have to reach out so far as to attract Murtha, but we do need majority support for the war. The consequences of losing the war are much greater than the consequences of making these kinds of compromises to please some of the Democrats.
Join the Win the War campaign, joshlevy@yahoo.com, www.win-the-war.com.
Our leaders waver, but we can give them the courage they need.
The Democrats practice party discipline in a way no Republican will EVER be able to figure out. They will allow individual members to stray from party line votes occasionally if they don't NEED the vote.
If they need the vote, there will be no swaying from the party line.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
The only time a dem will reach out is because you aren't close enough to bite.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Franz was digging around in his back yard a few minutes ago. He found your brain. Should we ship it or just bury it?
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
Reason #287
Press conferences. President Bush just gave a long explanation of the progress in Iraq and a summary of the importance of winning. Helen Thomas gets first question and asks why he doesn't just end it now. Send in UN peacekeepers. Thousands have died. Yada, yada, yada.
My answer: Are you deaf? Did you hear anything I just said? Next question, and it better be more sensible than that one, or this little presser is over.
I meant what I said and I said what I meant. An elephant's faithful 100 percent.
The President's credibility is pretty near zero. Not just with the media, but with much of his own party.
I've lurked on this board for a long time before posting my first message. Two years ago, you'd have a hard time finding someone on RedState questioning Bush's message regarding Iraq, much less in Congress. Today, that clearly isn't the case.
I, for one, applaud people like John Warner and Pete Domeneci who have the courage to say "We've had enough - let's bring our brave men and women home" instead of continuing to follow a blind drunk into a fire.
...you activated this account a week ago in prep for the time when we gacked your other two. I was hoping that you'd not realize that we were on to you.
Just noting this in case you were mistakingly impressed with your own cleverness.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
Trackbacked by The Thunder Run - Web Reconnaissance for 07/12/2007
A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day...so check back often.
What Do Congressional Opponents of the Surge Acually Think? [Mario Loyola]
And do they really think anything at all?
Yesterday, I asked a trusted Capitol Hill source about the Republican senatorial defectors (Lugar, Domenici, Snowe, Hagel, etc.). Do they think that the surge has no chance of success? Or do they think that even if it is succeeding, it's not worth the effort? His response was: "Probably both."
And my question is this, in the CIR debate the President personally twisted arms of Senators. So far, he's AWOL. Where is the commitment to support the mission from this Administration?
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
It's here...
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
Beware the temptation to attribute self-serving motives exclusively to your political opponents. Doesn't it seem just a little odd that one party could be the repository of all virtue in America, and the other the repository of all vice? If you think that Bush was not being self-serving in his actions following 9/11, and yes, in the runup to the Iraq war, you need to look at the historical record with a more jaundiced eye. I agree that Democrats in Congress are guided more than a little by a desire to see their party (and themselves personally) succeed electorally. No more so than any Republican, though. Self-interest can be wrapped in the flag as easily as it can be wrapped in anything else.
So -- what I am trying to say is that posts like this serve only to reduce your credibility in the eyes of people you are trying to convince. It amounts to a transparent attempt to bully Americans into supporting the war by (selectively) impugning the patriotism of politicians who oppose it. Sorry, doesn't wash.
THIS again? Provide some links upthread and show specifically where anybody has impugned anybody's "patriotism". Just to head you off on one point, I think I mentioned that John Kerry was a traitor. That comment is in reference to his visit to Paris in 1971.
It's not their "patriotism" we give a rip about. It's their judgment.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
Then you strongly disagree with the Directors that Nancy Pelosi "has become an eager fan of American defeat". She is a loyal, patriotic American who is selflessly doing all she can to help her country; she just has bad judgment.
Right?
For that matter, there are people who legitimately believe that losing the Iraq War would be the best thing for America.* That would be the 'fool' contingent of the fools, dupes and knaves that is the modern American antiwar movement. But you're quite right: you can be a unconsciously bigoted, shortsighted incompetent fool without being actually technically unpatriotic.
Glad we cleared that up.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
*And never mind all those dead Iraqis. It's not like the antiwar movement really believes that they're real, or anything.
The "options" proposed by the Directors and you (Pelosi: fool or knave?) are a false dichotomy. All politicians are guided by a strong component of self-interest. (By the way, they're all pretty smart, too. It's rare for a genuine idiot to get elected to high office.) My point is that, by training your laser-like gaze on the self-centeredness of your political opponents exclusively, you are killing your credibility with everyone who is not an extreme partisan.
Here's something else that may be food for thought. What's the biggest overall offensive strategy of both parties? Wedge issues. Iraq has been a useful wedge issue against the Democrats for some time -- witness Kerry's and Hillary's feckless attempts to satisfy two opposing camps at once -- and it was clearly designed that way by Bush and the Congressional Republicans. The party driving the wedge has little interest in making it go away, until conditions change. Now they have changed and Iraq is splitting the Republicans as much as, or even more than, the Democrats. Which means that, pretty soon, Iraq is going to go away. All of the hair-tearing in this thread over why Bush doesn't "stand up" for the war is thus given a rather neat explanation.
..boils down to it is nothing more than a political tool to be managed. When it is no longer advantageous politically, it will be abandoned for something more advantageous.
Wow, and I though it was stopping people what to kill us. I must have really missed something.
Wubbies World, MSgt, USAF (Retired):
public static void main(String[] args) {
System.out.println("An argument is a sequence of statements aimed at demonstrating the truth of an assertion.); }
Politics is extremely important. Often life-or-death. You'd never hear me deny that.
What I am trying to point out, probably with little success, is that you have to understand the actions of politicians in terms of both convictions and political calculus. On both sides. Without exception, even (probably especially) on the big issues like war. If you think Bush is a selfless crusader for justice while his opponents are idiots or America-haters, you are fooling yourself. Big time. And that helps no one.
You are a fool. I have known too many people like her. You don't just wake up one morning that way. It takes work and lots of hard work to remove what most people would call human qualities.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
but many on the left feel the same way about Bush and Cheney. If either of you were right, we'd be in real trouble.
We are.
The clocks are ticking and the left is obstructing all efforts to stop them.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Bush has aligned his self-interest with the success of the United States.
Pelosi has aligned her self-interest with the humiliating defeat of the United States.
I know which I prefer.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
Not Pelosi and Reid, at any rate. Victory for the nation would be a humiliating rejection for them.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
Pelosi's constituents are as bad as she is; in fact, worse. Take a look at her district some time.
Reid didn't face a serious challenger in 04, which is sad, but he would have been booted out in 1998 if not for the libertarian candidate. Itwasthisclose. I suspect he will get dumped in 2010, as Daschle was, for straying too far from his constituents.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
The convictions of Democrats have no merit at all?
They have changed their stance on the war to the point of being a few votes shy of cutting off funding for troops they claim to support. The same troops they voted to send to war.
The RS Directors have presented an article that should chill people to the core. It is predictable to say that their words will fall mostly on deaf ears.
If the worst case scenario ever befalls our country, the ones who are presently complaining the loudest will be the first to appeal for protection. That is my opinion.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
It's just that some don't think it all the way through. Rarely is the easy, emotional response the correct one. But it does seem to get votes.
Partisanship is the enemy of critical thinking. And rhetorical questions like the ones posed here (is Pelosi evil or merely stupid?) are the enemies of America. Pelosi is a politician; she has convictions and she has self-interest, and she pursues both intelligently -- often together, sometimes the latter at the expense of the former, and (more rarely) the former at the expense of the latter.
Just like George Bush. Or Dick Lugar. Or Chuck Hagel. Recognition of this fact makes us intelligent political consumers. Too often, forums like this one and DailyKos are hijacked by people who see politics in terms of a cosmic struggle between good and evil, instead of what it is.
Perhaps you should look up youtube for Zell Millers speech at the republican convention.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
That is exactly what I am.
Zell's speech? I remember it from 2004. Seemed like a pretty typical example of "let's find a prominent party member who hates their candidate".
Wendell Wilkie was willing to take a position that he knew was important for his nation but would be politically difficult for him.
Pelosi and Reid are willing to take positions that will be difficult to disastrous for the nation but will be very beneficial for them.
Its amazing that you could watch that speech and take away that Zell Miller was upset with his party but none of the reasons why he was.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
who is meeting with and (IMO) feeding intelligence to the person in charge of a border into Iraq
"200 suicide belts found in lorry at Syria-Iraq border"
How many Americans can 200 suicide belts kill?
Sen Rockefeller, and every leftist Congressperson feeding US Intelligence to Syria, including Rep Pelosi, are not just showing bad judgment (IMO), they are helping our enemies.
When will we see an end to leftist Americans helping those who are trying to destroy us?
Beware the temptation to attribute self-serving motives exclusively to your political opponents.
I didn't. I also (loudly, if you could have heard it) criticized our own spineless losers and crybabies.
If you think that Bush was not being self-serving in his actions following 9/11, and yes, in the runup to the Iraq war, you need to look at the historical record with a more jaundiced eye.
That doesn't take a jaundiced eye. That takes Bush Derangement Syndrome and a Blind Eye.
I agree that Democrats in Congress are guided more than a little by a desire to see their party (and themselves personally) succeed electorally. No more so than any Republican, though. Self-interest can be wrapped in the flag as easily as it can be wrapped in anything else.
Waaayyyy more than a little. More like exclusively. And though we certainly have some pieces of crap like that on our side, you have more. And we might get rid of ours. That's all you've got in primaries or generals.
I meant what I said and I said what I meant. An elephant's faithful 100 percent.
Some on here have seen my "Good News Iraq" weekly report. It is undeniable that we are making progress everyday in Iraq. To withdraw in defeat now, would literally be pulling defeat out of the jaws of victory.
It would grant Al Qaeda a reprieve from the hammering we are giving them now. Just when Sunni tribes in Anbar have formed an effective Awakening Council to fight their fellow Sunnis (those in AQI), just as Diyala and Baghdad are forming Awakening Councils to fight AQI, just as the 1920s Revolutionary Brigades are joining the Iraqi governmental forces and turning on the Islamic State of Iraq- the libs want to run away.
One more year should be enough to consolidate our gains, get the Iraqi Army able to exist on its own- and the police in full control of all territory throughout the country. We must not suffer defeat in the heart of the Middle East!
United States Air Force
http://airforcepundit.blogspot.com
Since the mainstream media and the liberals would like to only show b-roll footage of bombings from last month, if you would like the truth about daily life in Iraq you should check out Michael Yon, Mudville Gazette, Iraq the Model, and Bill Roggio Fourth Rail. Or you could go to the website below where I have all the best on my blogroll and then add them to your favorites list. That is the only way we can win- by getting the truth out there for the American people to see we are winning.
Why would the Sunnis in Anbar, Baghdad and Diyala be joining us now after FOUR YEARS if they thought we were being defeated?!!
United States Air Force
http://airforcepundit.blogspot.com
...they know it's in their best interest to back a winner. What a shame it would be to both...
1>throw away a perception dearly bought from a tough audience by the blood, toil and gallantry of our soldiers.
2>have said audience essentially sign their names on the dead-enders' death lists for no reason. A repeat of the Shi'ite mistake ("you f*cked up, you trusted us" -- Beaver, Animal House) of 1991.
And good luck America ever winning allies in the Arab world again.
--furious
"I find your lack of faith disturbing." -- Darth Vader
here, and contribute to getting some up-close-and-personal real news from a super-duper trusted source :-)
for at least 24-48 hours.
Your strong stand will help stiffen the spines of our Senators, and raise the spirits of the general public.
Join the Win the War campaign, joshlevy@yahoo.com, www.win-the-war.com.
Our leaders waver, but we can give them the courage they need.
You state: "What is needed is for the American people, and their leaders, to put politics aside in favor of presenting a united front against those who, regardless what concessions we make, will do their utmost to kill us."
You never offer an answer to the question that statement begs: What can be done to unify American citizens and their elected leaders around this cause?
After 4+ years the ranks of the disillusioned have swelled, and your answer to them is in essence 'You're stupid, now shut up and get in line'.
As this line would seem illustrate: "Today, the majority of Americans have access to instantaneous reports from Iraq. Yet still they harbor misconceptions, borne out of what we can only assume to be purposeful ignorance."
You fail to acknowledge that at one time Americans weren't plagued with 'purposeful ignorance' when the majority did support this war.
"If we fail there, the Iraqi government and its security institutions will almost certainly crumble under the pressure of widespread sectarian violence, ethnic cleansing, and extrajudicial killing. The chaos, which would spread across the country like wildfire, is likely to engulf the entire region. Even if it did not reach that far, our withdrawal would give al Qaeda exactly what they have so often asked for: a base of operations outside of Afghanistan, from which they can carry out attacks on American interests and on our homeland itself."
First off, I question that Iraq is going to crumble under pressure by militants. See Israel/Palestine for an example of how unstable countries can survive.
Second, even if it does completely crumble, I don't see a national interest in this. Suppose the Shiites, who outnumber the Sunnis, war against them. It may be nasty, but I don't see how this benefits Al Qaeda, a Sunni organization. Frankly, from a ruthlessly pragmatic perspective, it's an arguable improvement.
Third, Al Qaeda already has bases of operations outside Afghanistan. Iran and Pakistan immediately leap to mind; I'd be surprised if they didn't have a decent orgainization in Europe by now.
I definitely don't want to imply bad motives to anyone, despite this example, but this all reminds me of the "magic wallet" con game. The actions of our soldiers will somehow unify Iraq, which will otherwise self-destruct. I question whether Iraq will be stable if we stay there a dozen more years. Again, see Israel/Palestine.
This is not an argument for retreat, which is not in our interests at the present time. But I don't see Iraq as a do-or-die struggle for the United States. I do not think the war can be sold to America on such questionable ground.
How about keeping it simple? We're killing Al Qaeda members over there, so we don't have to worry about them here. If the mainstream media is keeping a list of American casualties, we should be publishing numbers of militants killed or incarcerated.
Who knows? Maybe we'll get enough time to build the Iraq of our dreams, while we're getting the real job done. But I think America's opposition to the war has had more to do with its seemingly blank-check nature, than with its casualty list.
It is also stunningly naive, and shows that you - like too many Americans - have allowed stereotypes and generalities ("conventional wisdoms"?) to take hold, and have tuned you brain out to the reality of the war, the situation on the ground, and the penchant of opponents to create alliances against common, larger enemies.
that there are many people who know much more about Iraq than I do. New knowledge is always welcome.
However, I would point out that I get my political information almost exclusively from RedState and various links found here. I don't own a TV, and I don't have a bird to put the local fishwrap under - about the only other good use I could think for it.
If you're having such trouble convincing me of the "reality of the war", how much luck do you expect to have with the American people in general?
those that favor withdrawal, is their use and belief in the "end the war" theme, with suitable variations.
It's not out war to end, the enemy won't let it end, whatever the battlefield or tactics an end is not in sight, till I'm hoarse in saying it, Iraq is not the war, it is only, only, one theater of operations, one stage, depressing as that may be, in a war that has no foreseeable end.
As Bush had said repeatedly, this will go on for years. What is there not to accept, to realize? Conversely what is there, and what is it grounded in, to provide hope for an end when we pull out? Do some of us not know, is it impossible to grasp, the nature of the enemy? Did some fool say "secure the borders", during the immigration debate and all that implies?
Better to have a belief in Santa Claus, emotionally and in the long run it will be more satisfying and certainly less dangerous.
"a man's admiration for absolute government is proportinate to the contempt he feels for those around him". Tocqueville
Nuclear weapons if used against civilian populations don't need a great deal of sophistication. As a matter of fact I understand its possible to use propeller driven aircraft, unguided bombs and optical bombsights.
The large circular error probabilities only matter when going after hardened targets. If you are targeting a city with a 20 KT nuke the difference will be between 100000 dead or a million dead. Either is too large a price.
Targeting San Francisco and Hitting Oakland is not a failure in this scenario.
Your technical point is insane. To Make it you would need assert that we would be able to achieve a high probability of stopping the delivery of a nuke to a city. We gave up on that in the 60's. Remember M.A.D. ?? even the BMDO is scaled back to preventing just missile attacks and that from range.
Oh P.S.
There's a very good reason that everyone today places long-range missiles inside large stable submarines for a submerged launch and adapts the rocket's guidance specifically for that environment.
The polaris and trident missile series are launched from underwater and self stabilize after being propelled from their tubes. The stability of the submarine has nothing to do with the surface conditions. The size is so more missiles can be packed into a boat.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
I've gotten a late start into the world of blogging, but dangit I'm glad I've finally arrived. Though there was a fair share of partisanship, this was the most comprehensive and logical discussion I've heard/seen about the war. You've made my insomnia quite enjoyable.
Thank you for your sanity
was and is. . .
most comprehensive and logical discussion I've heard/seen about the war. . .
now good night to you all
Thank you for your sanity
Regardless of how someone felt about the initial mission, to withdraw now would be complete insanity. The world in general and the United States in particular would be left vulnerable to these jackals. Genocide would happen throughout Iraq and eventually the region. Israel will be on borrowed time. Iran and al-Qaeda will be the key regional players, something that should give anyone pause.
It has become apparent that victory is not an option for most Democrats and a shameful number of Republicans in our Congress. The rush to leave now isn't because of our failures but because of our recent successes and the September report which probably will reflect the same.
We also need to encourage the White House not to cave to congressional pressure. After some initially disturbing signs the Administration would capitulate, it appears the president finally has put his foot down. Now he needs to go out and convince the public of the wisdom of what he has done--something he has failed to do up until this point.
No one expects and open-ended commitment, but everyone should oppose a premature withdrawal.
Again, congratulations to the Directors.