I Say Again, They Are Cowards and Tucktails
This time, let's get a jump on the action by shooting the refugees before they hit the boats
By Thomas Posted in Cowards | Democrats | Killing Fields | Traitor Republicans | Tucktails | War | Yellow-Bellied Appeasers — Comments (90) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
To the men and women who would do this, I maintain that you are nothing but a group of tucktails. If the Iraq War is so bad, so immoral, do everything in your power to stop it. Allocate no funds. Bush vetoes? Keep allocating no funds. Force Bush to choose between literal force protection and a staredown.
Stupid, immoral, cowardly excuses for human beings, the lot of you. If this war is merely a waste of lives and treasure, you are honor-bound to stop it at all costs. So do it. Relive the 1970s. Show us that you accept the inevitable slaughter of millions as irrelevant so that we can all watch the evening news without being bothered. Prove that refugees dying on boats and in camps are merely pictures, and not men, women, and children possessed of human dignity, being tortured because the United States won't live up to its promises. Remind the world again that we are a paper tiger, and then grieve when another embassy is held hostage.
Heck, why wait? Why don't we go slaughter a million Iraqis in bombing runs, so this time the blood will be directly on our hands, and we can avoid the irritating images of boat people and other refugees fleeing genocide?
That our Party once knew the value of honor, and words kept, and standing for the weak when they could not; and now accepts in its midst those who would spit on all those things, is a shame to the Republican Party. That the Democrat Party -- a Party that once championed the dignity of all Men -- not only slaughters them in the womb, but would abandon them to slaughter ex utero for political advantage; and that few Americans call them the mass-murdering tyrant enablers they've become -- should shame us all as Americans.
Fall on your face in shame, my fellow Americans, because we are giving away our honor, a piece at a time.
I Say Again, They Are Cowards and Tucktails — Comments (0) »
I Say Again, They Are Cowards and Tucktails 90 Comments (0 topical, 90 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
Egypt, Isreal, Lebanon, Turkish Kurdistan, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan, India, Taiwan. There isn't enough red ink in the world to cover the slaughter that will follow a US retreat. [I leave out Syria and Iran because the on going slaughter there is not the result of our retreat, but the result of inaction.]
We will be asking for attacks on the mainland US by running away from Iraq, and we will be getting them good and hard for years.
Our best hope is that ten or fifteen years from now the young men in uniform we are betraying will be home and motivated to lead a reformation of some kind.
Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard.
H. L. Mencken
And to the point.
These are interesting times we live in, when so many of our elected officials (by default, about half of them- and now even some of our own, too) have no problem doing a political calculus resulting in the Retreat set.
How they do the math I don't even understand, but when they look at the answer and do not find it objectionable- that I REALLY do not understand.
And what does this say about our populace, that these officials supposedly represent our values and views? Perplexing to me, it is.
-------------------------------------------------------
"Grant what Thou commandest, and command what Thou dost desire." -Augustine
Though the Republic managed to survive Carter, I have my doubts we will long survive this surrender.
At least not in any form our fathers or their fathers would vaguely recognize, that is.
I really, truly do.
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
They are doing what they can to stop it, albeit slowly. The only ones that seems to think that a grand victory is still attainable with lovely parades and confetti is the White House and a few that refuse to see reality.
Relive the 1970s? Are you seriously implying that Vietnam could have been won? I'll remind you that the main enemy of the United States during the Vietnam War was South Vietnamese in the form of the Vietcong, a partisan organization devoted to the downfall of a weak, impotent American backed government full of corruption and the removal of, what was perceived as, the American military invader. Is this sounding familiar?
Also, you speak of the Iran embassy crisis but, conveniently, omit the fact that it was American involvement in Iranian affairs that led to that event. It was anger at an American backed coup, engineered by the CIA, that deposed a legitimately elected government and imposition of the Shah upon Iran. Again, American involvement and manipulation of world governments caused the crisis. Is this sounding familiar?
Finally, it is the Democratic Party not the Democrat Party. Such elementary insults should be beneath any rational person.
"The interval between the decay of the old and the formation and establishment of the new constitutes a period of transition which must always necessarily be one of uncertainty, confusion, error, and wild and fierce fanaticism." --John C. Calhoun
like most of the Democrat Party, all you learned about Vietnam was the US was bad, we should never have gotten into it, and its all about oil (oops, sorry, that the talking point for THIS battle)
There is so much ignorance in your post I hardly know where to begin.
In fact, I'll not bother, since you cannot be swayed by logic anyways. But YES, the US and the South Vietnamese could have won, and in fact would have won had congress not pulled all funding away from our ally.
Vietnam was won - it was only after the Watergate-emboldened Democrats tossed our allies under the bus in 1974 that the fate of the South was sealed.
Another great moment in the history of the Democrat Party.
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
stated that North Vietnam was considering surrender in 1972. They spent two years after the armistice to regroup and then were astonished that we didn't honor our treaty commitments when they attacked South Vietnam again.
Vietnam was lost only in the sense that winners don't quit.
I think my public school education was adequate. I grew up in a small town in southeast Georgia so there were two choices, the public school and the private school and as my family were poor I attended the public school, but my reasoning is not based upon any failing of the public school system but upon basic established fact. Facts that I learned in high school. Facts that I learned in history courses in college. And, facts that I have learned upon my own reading.
The war was lost long before any funding was cut off. The war was lost in 1945 when the United States said that it did not dispute French claims to the region. With the long history of French brutality to the natives of Indochina this would not exactly endear the United States to those native groups. The war was lost when at Potsdam the United States did not support the idea of self rule for the region, instead supporting a plan of dividing influence/control of the region at the 16th Parallel, with the Chinese controlling the northern region and the British/French the southern. The war was lost when President Truman stated, "My government offers no opposition to the return of the French army and authority in Indochina."
The war was lost with U.S. support of the corrupt Ngo Dinh Diem, a Catholic leader in a Buddhist nation. Barbara Tuchman described him thus, "Rigid in his ideas, unschooled in compromise, unacquainted with democracy in practice, he was unable to deal with dissent or opposition except by fiat of force."
The war was lost with U.S. support of Diem's denial of the 1956 elections that were agreed to previously in Geneva because the vast majority of northern and southern Vietnamese supported the Communist government of Ho Chi Minh. Leo Cherne stated that "the overwhelming majority of Vietnamese would vote Communist." JFK, then a Senator, spoke of the popularity and prevalance of Minh and his Communist Party. President Eisenhower supported Diem's denial of the election and refused to agree to it taking place. The war was over decaded before any funding was even denied.
Then again, that is a public school education speaking.
Also, I wonder if the author of this piece believes that the majority of decent Americans who opposed the Vietnam War were also "cowards" and "tucktails?"
"The interval between the decay of the old and the formation and establishment of the new constitutes a period of transition which must always necessarily be one of uncertainty, confusion, error, and wild and fierce fanaticism." --John C. Calhoun
the answer to your last question is absolutely "yes".
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
it was lost the day Walter Cronkite declared it lost. After a huge US victory at Tet.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
The victory was across the country but primarily centered in and around Hue City. Tet is the Vietnamese New Year ("After a huge US victory at New Years Day")
Wow: your education is woefully inadequate. It is filled with liberal inaccuracies.
The Viet Cong ceased to exist as an effective fighting force after Tet. During Tet, the North Vietnamese used remaining VC as "shock troops" to decimate their numbers so that no one in the South with patriotic dreams of a non-communist independent South Vietnam would be left alive.
America was on the verge of winning the Vietnam War when Democrats in Congress, encouraged by left wing anti-war demonstrators (such as Hanoi Jane) pulled out all funding.
Peace with Honor only comes with victory. There is never Honor in defeat.
Learn to follow links, simpleton.
-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!
Surely there were others that were more appropriate for one with your linguistic abilities.
Well done is better than well said. —Benjamin Franklin
Barbara Tuchman was born in New York City. Her grandfather, Henry Morgenthau Sr., was Woodrow Wilson's Ambassador to Turkey and her father was a banker, who bought The Nation magazine from the Villards when it was on the verge of bankruptcy. Tuchman was educated at Radcliffe College and Cambridge, Mass...Tuchman was the editorial assistent of The Nation, a staff writer of War in Spain, and an American correspondent for the New Statesman in London (1939), with Far East News Desk and Office of War Information (1934-45).
Tuchman was a Socialist who supported the Republican cause in the Spanish Civil War. She wrote for a leftist magazine owned by her father, and her Communist leanings were obvious.
I suppose she would take an anti-American view of the struggle for independence of the people of Vietnam, and probably didn't even notice the death and destruction caused by their takeover of the South.
AND, by the way, the South Vietnamese government NEVER agreed to the proposed elections in 1956.
By the mid-50s it was obvious that all the former French and British colonies would become independent. Trying to keep them free was the tricky part.
It was Henry Kissenger in the Nixon Administation who negotiated the treaty to end the Vietnam War. He knew very well that North Vietnam would violate the treaty as soon as the Americans left. Both Kissenger and the North Vietnamese knew what would happen. We needed to get out, or invade the North, which would be helped by the Russians and Chinese. They wouldn't cease their efforts to capture the South. Both sides knew of the weakness of the South Vietnamese Government and that the South Vietnamese wouldn't put up a fight. We lost the Vietnam War when we signed this treaty and when we didn't retaliate for their breaking it. This was done by both Republicans and Democrats because their was no popular support for the war left.
We have had several wars, going all the way back to the Mexican War and Spanish- American War, up to the Korean and Vietnam War, where it was learned that a democracy cannot fight prolonged, discretionary wars, without the public getting impatient and wanting to end them. If you read about the politics surrounding these optional wars, there is a familiar pattern. The difference is that in our early wars, we relied on nobody else, and we won them in a couple years.
They are doing what they can to stop it, albeit slowly.
Is this with or without the giant puppet-heads? I lose track. Because if we're talking about the crying little girls in Congress, you're not holding them to their words. If every American dollar and life spent in Iraq is wasted, then they are complicit in that waste of gold and blood by not ending this thing now. If American public opinion is so very much on their side, and if the morality of this is clear, then they are just as bloodstained as the man they oppose.
But of course, you're prepared to make excuses for them. So go for it. I can't wait.
The only ones that seems to think that a grand victory is still attainable with lovely parades and confetti is the White House and a few that refuse to see reality.
The only ones who think a grand victory would entail parades and confetti are the one who think the White House does.
Relive the 1970s? Are you seriously implying that Vietnam could have been won?
(1) No, I'm implying that retreating from Vietnam brought on the 1970s.
(2) It is, however, a statement of no controversy that the Vietnam War was effectively won as a result of the Tet Offensive. It was only because of American hesitance to bomb North Vietnamese supply and military centers for fear of dragging the Soviets and Chinese into the war (who were funding the NVA and the VC), and that because of a similarly situated group of tucktails, that the conflict dragged on as long as it did.
I'll remind you that the main enemy of the United States during the Vietnam War was South Vietnamese in the form of the Vietcong, a partisan organization devoted to the downfall of a weak, impotent American backed government full of corruption and the removal of, what was perceived as, the American military invader. Is this sounding familiar?
Yes, I've heard bad history before. Did you have a point?
Also, you speak of the Iran embassy crisis but, conveniently, omit the fact that it was American involvement in Iranian affairs that led to that event.
I also conveniently noted that it was the perception of American weakness that not merely caused it, but perpetuated it. Had major Iranian cities gone missing for violating the single oldest law of nations, the issue would have resolved after the first two glowing wastelands appeared.
It was anger at an American backed coup, engineered by the CIA, that deposed a legitimately elected government and imposition of the Shah upon Iran.
I'd say sophistry ill-becomes you, but you're defending murderers, so it doesn't: Anger at a coup 26 years before, that in fact simply removed a prime minister for a sitting Shah, you mean.
Grow up, or get your facts right.
Finally, it is the Democratic Party not the Democrat Party.
It is not my fault that my opposites insist on continuing a two-century-old mistake. The Party descends from the Democratic-Republican Party; they dropped the Republican and left a nonsensical adjective in its place.
Such elementary insults should be beneath any rational person.
You're in a profoundly poor position to offer advice with that predicate.
-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!
...on the fall of South Vietnam. Be sure to focus on the troop strengths on each side; please also include a 'what-if' scenario discussing possible outcomes if the South Vietnamese military had not been denied the military aid previously promised them by the United States government.
No, you're right: that's a lot for a 2,000 word essay. 3,000 words, then.
As always, send it in via the Contact link and we'll think about turning your account back on.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
Kerry speech from the early 1970s or from the Communist Party speeches, or the Democrats. Hard to tell them apart.
to stir ourselves with a prefabricated anger over Watergate masking then overwhelming our sense of shame and guilt for having abandoned people we knew were human but were simple to dismiss with convenient epithets.
Today, we've cable news and satellite. This slaughter will be beamed into our households, 24/7. The fools can try to blame Bush for eliminating Saddam, but if he was the one thing which kept the Iraqis alive, if you believe that, then perhaps you'll enjoy watching the boats being turned away, the bodies of the collaborators hanging high. But just get ready, folks. We're going to see this slaughter live on TV. We'll know whom to blame, and those responsible will know as well. At what cost electoral victory?
It would be sad to see all that we've created as a country speed-boating out of sight in a river of blood.
Sen Jon Kyl has been persona non grata here b/c of immigration, but check out what he said on the Senate floor earlier today:
<<< leaving now. That would be a strategy for failure. And I ask my colleagues this: We have in this body made pronouncements that we need to help people in places like Darfur where there is genocide occurring. And we have always tried to help people, whether it be in Kosovo or Afghanistan (and, incidentally, isn’t it interesting that in two of those places we’re talking about la largely Muslim countries and in places like Somalia, also a predominance of Muslims).
We cannot as a nation ignore what would happen in Iraq were we to leave prematurely. Almost all of the intelligence – and the Baker-Hamilton report which is cited by many of my colleagues confirms this as well – says if we leave Iraq before the Iraqis can maintain peace and stability, then the kind of genocide and killing and terrorism that would ensue would be almost incalculable. Thousands, if not hundreds of thousands and more, would die.
Many believe that that blood would be on our hands, if we’re the ones who walk out before they have the ability to prevent that kind of violence.
Al Qaeda clearly is the primary enemy now. As I talked about before, the largely Sunni-Shiite violence has subsided to a significant degree, and most of what is occurring against our forces and against other Iraqis today is being perpetrated by Al Qaeda – Al Qaeda in Iraq.
If we leave and Al Qaeda in Iraq is allowed basically a free hand, most predict that it will have created a situation where, like it did in Afghanistan, Al Qaeda will have the ability to train, to plan attacks, and to have refuge from any kind of action to stop them from doing so. They would also have access to the oil wealth of the country of Iraq and to the other resources of the country. To the extent that anybody in Iraq has tried to be a friend of the United States or cooperate with the Iraqi government – all of those people, remember, with the purple thumbs – they would be targeted by the thugs and terrorists who would reign in Iraq. They would undoubtedly be executed. Think of Saddam Hussein’s regime.
Think back when the North Vietnamese came sweeping into South Vietnam and all of the boat people fled and those who didn’t get away were sent to the – quote – “reeducation camps” or killed.
Think of Cambodia; when we left there with 3 million Cambodians killed. Were we to leave Iraq, hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people, will die, mostly innocent people.>>>
Just really, REALLY deep in the doghouse for that brain charliehorse. He's still one of the good ones, and cream will always rise to the top.
It's war -- so when can we start shooting back at the enemy Democrats?
This is one of the best pieces I've ever read at Redstate! Thank you for telling it the way it is.
The Dkats ans the msm play up "Warner & Lugar" as statesmen and they in turn reciprocate with this stupid amendment acting as if they are commanders in the field. Will someone please inform these surrender monkeys and faux statesmen and their colleagues Susan Collins & Olymia Snowe that they renounce their Republican credentials at once. They are in truth Republicans in "Boxer & Feinstein" clothing. These scoundrels would rather curry favor with the NY Times rather than stand up for our country and our troops. The next time you see any of them talk about concern for our troops, pull their mike away from them and stick a rotten potato in their mouths.
Vietnam was a country goaded toward Communism after their Vichy masters, who served the Japs so well, were left in place after WWII.
Iraq was a country stable and at peace before we invaded, no more despotic than Syria, less repressive than Saudi Arabia, no more genocidal than Turkey. It may well be that a bloodbath will ensue when we leave. It may not be worse than what exists today. To you who wish to continue the fight in Iraq, I say this. Arm yourselves, take up your goods and your chattel and go to Iraq. Engage there in fighting as you will.
We that are left will take in the refugees and try to live a productive and peaceful life.
Vaya Con Dios.
Who the hell do you think you are? How dare you speak to this board the way you just have. There is a HUGE difference between dissent and evil, and you are very much over that line. I lost one of my best friends in the war and his family, despite their hardships, knows that what he did was right. So how dare you! I hope that you are not an American because if you are, I pray that you leave and never come back. Good RIDDANCE!
Judging from your current writing patterns.
Alas, I wasn't here to ban you for chickenhawking; but, rest assured, I approve. I would wish you luck in finding some decent place to live where the civilian power is subservient to the military one, but I don't see why I should waste a wish on you.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
From the beginning, I supported a war in Iraq. A war. I was disappointed that we did not wage a war. We waged a "use of force". Overlooking this major problem, I supported the action. I had been told that Hussein was a tyrant. I was told that he persecuted his own people. I was told that he had members of his family killed. I was told he tortured his own people. While I considered these things sad, none of them, taken alone or taken as a group, would have convinced me that the United States should take military action against the government of Iraq.
I supported military action because Saddam Hussein failed to live up to the agreement that kept him in power after the US invasion in the early 90s. The US military, in my view as in the view of most Republicans when Clinton used the military in Bosnia, exists to support the lives and property of American citizens. That is the task for which those men and women bravely volunteered. If they wanted to volunteer to promote human rights and freedom throughout the world, they should have contacted the United Nations.
Americans can and should look to promote human rights, but that is not the reason that we have a military. Human rights abuses take place around the world, in China, in North Korea, in several african nations, in parts of Latin America. If we really want to start basing military action on human rights abuses, we're going to spend the next few centuries invading countries.
We can engage in a legitimate debate over whether it is in the best interests of the United States to remain in Iraq. I, for one, am less convinced than I was this morning that we should remain in Baghdad considering that the Iraqi parliment in unwilling to stick around, but that's a separate issue. We can argue over whether we need to stay until every last terrorist is dead versus whether we are only creating more terrorists by staying put, or whether the answer lies somewhere in between. That is a reasonable discussion and one that is within its proper context, i.e. America's best interest.
If we start acting as the world's police force, we will be guilty of being as arrogant as most of the world claims we are. We also won't be doing ourselves any favors, as we may end up bringing back the draft because men and women will be unwilling to volunteer to solve the world's problems rather than addressing America's problems. We will find ourselves in constant war and with more people who want to kill every last one of us.
It is perfectly reasonable and possibly right to argue that the United States should remain in Iraq. If we do so, though, we must do it for the right reason. "It gives us the warm fuzzies", though, is not the right reason.
Great comedy.
"It gives us the warm fuzzies", though, is not the right reason.
Too true. Too true.
-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!
According to Genocide Watch, there are ongoing genocides in the Sudan, Uganda, Democratic Republic of Congo, Ethiopia, Colombia, North Korea, Nepal, Pakistan, Burma, Sri Lanka, Uzbekistan, Uzbekistan, China, Russia, Iraq, Israel/Palestine, and Lebanon. Are you prepared to commit American soldiers to all of those countries?
http://www.genocidewatch.org/aboutgenocide/genpolmmchart.htm
(1) None of those genocides can be traced to a deliberate action on our part. Vietnam/Cambodia/Laos could be. This one will be.
(2) It discredits you that you cite someone who believes theres a genocide ongoing in "Israel/Palestine."
-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!
The United States didn't bring about the conditions for genocide in Iraq. They were already there, just ask the Kurds.
Unless we plan to either stay forever or carry it out ourselves, it is likely that it will resume - insofar as we can say that we reduced it - as soon as we leave. It may be true that staying to kill terrorists who would later attack the United States makes staying put for a while worth it, but that is incidental to the mission of protecting American interests. If we stay to eliminate most or all of the terrorists and the Iraqi government steps up to the plate, which it has not yet done, and the genocide is prevented, great. That would be a wonderful side effect of protecting American interests. As it stands, though, the only hope for putting off genocide writ large is keeping troops there indefinitely. If the mission was protecting Americans, the mission is accomplished when that is done, regardless of what the domestic consequences for Iraq may be.
Could you perhaps point me to relevant newsclippings?
-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!
Conditions that make a situation ripe for genocide and genocide itself are two different things. Let's take a look at some of the leading warning signs that genocide could be a risk:
- The existence of a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group(s) at risk. Check. Shiites were marginalized under Hussein, as were the Kurds.
- Violations of human rights and humanitarian law. Shiites and Kurds were at best second-class citizens under Hussein.
- Lack of institutional framework for citizens to seek justice. Check. Opposition was crushed under Hussein.
- Concentration of power. Check. Hussein was an unelected (for all intents and purposes) absolute dictator.
- Forced relocations and segregation. Check. Hussein forced Kurds from Kirkuk.
http://www.internal-displacement.org/idmc/website/countries.nsf/(httpEnvelopes)/B1792B59A63EEB80802570B8005A7009?OpenDocument
- A history of genocide. Check. See Anfal Campaign.
Source for Conditions:
http://www.responsibilitytoprotect.org/index.php?module=uploads&func=dow...
Sorry for posting the full URLs. I don't know how to use links within the text.
I assume, perhaps incorrectly, that you will agree that the specific conditions I mention above are true, even if you disagree that those conditions were likely to lead to genocide. If there are conditions that I mentioned with which you do not agree, let me know specifically what they are and I'll dig up more links on them. I just don't want to spend time unnecessarily chasing down links to facts with which you already agree.
But, as Boo would say, sometimes the butts need kicking even after the shoes are off.
Conditions that make a situation ripe for genocide and genocide itself are two different things.
Granted. Generally, however, genocides happen when there is nothing in place to stop them. What was present in Iraq after 1988 to stop one? In the late 90s? Early 2000s?
- The existence of a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group(s) at risk. Check. Shiites were marginalized under Hussein, as were the Kurds.
- Violations of human rights and humanitarian law. Shiites and Kurds were at best second-class citizens under Hussein.
- Lack of institutional framework for citizens to seek justice. Check. Opposition was crushed under Hussein.
- Concentration of power. Check. Hussein was an unelected (for all intents and purposes) absolute dictator.
- Forced relocations and segregation. Check. Hussein forced Kurds from Kirkuk.
http://www.internal-displacement.org/idmc/website/countries.nsf/(httpEnvelopes)/B1792B59A63EEB80802570B8005A7009?OpenDocument
- A history of genocide. Check. See Anfal Campaign.
All of this is terribly interesting, I'm sure, but begs an important question: Why no genocides after the mass-murder of Anfal? Why would the overwhelming majority of the populace be in danger of a genocide? Why didn't a genocide occur among the Shi'i after the Gulf War? Surely there were mass-murders, but we did nothing to stop them; why no genocide?
All of these indicia are terribly impressive, but they miss one more thing: A good reason. That was not present on the ground before we removed Hussein. Now, the law of unintended consequences sucks hard, but we broke it; we leave Iraq now, we will be responsible for removing the firewall that held back genocide before. This time, though, I suspect it'll be hundreds of thousands of dead Sunni and Kurds. The Shi'i will probably be ok.
Sorry for posting the full URLs. I don't know how to use links within the text.
< a href= "URL" > Text < /a >, without the spaces before the first a, after the =, after the second ", before and after Text, and before and after /a.
Put simply, the absence of a genocide, a real, honest-to-God genocide for every year of Hussein's rule is more than suggestive. The idea that it won't happen now is fanciful.
(This is all besides the bit about showing ourselves to be a paper tiger, showing ourselves without national honor and resolve, etc., all of which seem compelling reasons to stay to me.)
-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!
You have better things to do than sit at your computer all day clicking the Refresh button to ensure that you reply to all counter-arguments as soon as they're posted. So do I. Responding when you get the chance is fair game.
The state of genocide in Iraq prior to the invasion was entirely at the President's discretion. It so happened that he wanted to refocus his killing to target Kuwaitis instead of Kurds. He understood, unlike many Americans (I'm not saying you necessarily), that his military could only handle so many thing at a time. His army was severely damaged in the first invasion, which made it difficult to pick up on another campaign of genocide. In particular with the case of the Kurds, the difference in strength between the Iraqi army and the Kurdish resistence closed measurably. Then Hussein decided to support genocide against Israelis by giving money to the families of suicide bombers. I can't say that a genocide necessarily would have eventually happened within the borders of Iraq, but I can say that all of the warning signs, including a leader anxious to slaughter groups other than his own, were present. Whether the group against which that would have been carried out changed is irrelevant.
Also, I never suggested that genocide would not happen if the US left Iraq. What I am saying is that once our military is no longer serving the interests of the security of the United States by being in Iraq, we should withdraw them. (Unlike some others here, you've addressed what I have said rather than what you read into my comments, but for the sake of avoiding having others jump on me, I haven't said that we have reached that point.) The purpose of our military is protecting us, not the whole world.
As to the questions of honor and resolve, I'll address that in three parts since I'm not sure whether you were speaking about them in the context of them being important for their own sake, for how the terrorists view us, or for how the rest of the world views us.
Let me address the last first. The rest of the world, by and large, does not consider us honorable. They consider us arrogant, bullying, and selfish. They don't respect us beyond pure military might, much in the way pitchers respect Barry Bonds. As we aren't about to go to war with anyone other than terrorists, the might factor is minimized. As to the rest, so what? None of us - yes us, not you - considered how the rest of the world viewed us as particularly important before the war and I don't see it as being any more important now.
As to how the terrorists view us, it is a moot point. If we have accomplished the motives relative to the security of the United States before we leave, we can say "Mission Accomplished" and the terrorists will have been defeated, regardless of the impact of the withdrawal on the security of Iraqis. If not, and if we have reason to believe that we can make America safer by remaining there, we'd agree that there is reason to stay.
With regard to those goals in and of themselves, they're all well and good on paper, but I am not about to support a policy of risking American lives solely for the purpose of saving non-Americans, regardless of the surrounding circumstances. If people want to volunteer with aid organizations, adopt Iraqi children, support relief efforts, etc., I give them full credit for doing so - on their own. Such efforts should not be the purview of the American military.
Thanks for assisting the technologically retarded.
we should even consider committing troops over is Israel/Palestine. OTOH, the Israelis are pretty capable of stopping the ongoing attempts at genocide against them by the butchers in the West Bank and Gaza.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
that it's most likely a waste of time to try and change your mind. (I mean, you've already proven that you make up your mind based on shallow thinking in the first place.) But, as it's important to bat down facile reasoning when it appears, I shall endeavor to do my part.
I had been told that Hussein was a tyrant. I was told that he persecuted his own people. I was told that he had members of his family killed. I was told he tortured his own people. While I considered these things sad, none of them, taken alone or taken as a group, would have convinced me that the United States should take military action against the government of Iraq.
Oh, but you left out all the many OTHER things the President--a responsible person---had to consider as well. You make it sound as if Hussein threatened no one outside his own borders. Middle-school students who watch the news and pay attention know this to NOT be true.
- As do the citizens of Israeli towns who were rocketed by SCUDs in DESERT STORM---a war in which Israel was not a belligerent.
- As do the Kuwaitis who survived occupation in 1990/1991.
- As do the fishermen and others who relied on the waters around Kuwait for their livelihood---waters that Hussein deliberately polluted with oil in 1991.
- As do the Israelis who watched families of suicide bombers get regular $25,000 martyrdom bonuses from Hussein.
Saddam Hussein menaced not only his people. He menaced the countries around him, the world's oil supply (and therefore its economy), a key American ally (Israel) and many American vital interests. We had every reason to expect his crazy sons Uday and Qussay to continue the family tradition.
The US military, in my view as in the view of most Republicans when Clinton used the military in Bosnia, exists to support the lives and property of American citizens. That is the task for which those men and women bravely volunteered. If they wanted to volunteer to promote human rights and freedom throughout the world, they should have contacted the United Nations.
First off, if you want the US military to act in according to YOUR view, run for President and assume duties as the Commander in Chief. If you disagree with Bush, and voted against him in 2004...well, sorry Charlie. In our country, majority rules, and you lost.
American soldiers KNOW they are signing up to protect American interests, those of key American allies and a variety of world interests when they enlist. It's been this way since the mid 1990s, when US forces (active, Reserve and National Guard) became the backbone of the Balkans peacekeeping force. Since then, EVERY MEMBER of the US military who was in uniform then has had to reenlist, or has had the opportunity to leave the service. Most of our soldiers in Iraq/Afghanistan NOW have reenlisted since 9/11. NONE of them have illusions about what's expected of today's soldier. Yet, reenlistment rates are great! Why is that, SIConservative. The lousy economy?
It is perfectly reasonable and possibly right to argue that the United States should remain in Iraq. If we do so, though, we must do it for the right reason. "It gives us the warm fuzzies", though, is not the right reason.
SIConservative, you're not doing your job as an American citizen. As a participating member in the populace that picks those who lead this republic. Maybe it makes you feel good to say we're fighting for "the warm fuzzies." But, if that's really the conclusion you've come to, after studying all the evidence that this Administration---and life--has laid before you, then I can only conclude one of two things:
1) You're not that bright...in which case we should all disregard your opinion.
2) You're being deliberately cute and provocative with your opinions...in which case we should disregard your viewpoints.
I encourage you to air your opinions. For my part, though, I've looked at your argument and find it wanting, if not juvenile.
Regards,
smagar
"Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)
On the first point, you mischaracterized my position. I said that I supported the invasion because Hussein failed to live up to the agreement that ended the first Gulf War, which itself resulted from Hussein's attack on people outside his own country. I'd still say that the invasion was the right decision. I'd also say that the rationale used for war has changed. We were supposed to be going because Hussein threatened us and because he broke an agreement that kept him in power. Those reasons are entirely different from anything that he was doing to his own people.
On the second point, I didn't realize that the two options were a) run for President or b) shut up. When did you declare your candidacy?
American soldiers who enlisted since 9/11 did so to kill terrorists. That's what the mission in Iraq and Afghanistan is supposed to be. Even the President is talking about the situation with regard to terrorism, not with regard to the plight of the Iraqi people. I was responding to Thomas's argument that we have to stay to prevent genocide in Iraq. As I said initially, I have no qualms about engaging in a discussion about whether staying in Iraq is in the interests of the US because it would become a staging ground for terrorism should the military leave. That's not what Thomas was talking about.
On the final point, you again mischaracterized my position. I didn't say that we are fighting in Iraq because it gives us the warm fuzzies. I said that that would not be reason enough to stay there. If we're staying, as the President argues, to prevent Iraq from becoming a safe haven for terrorists, that is entirely different from staying to prevent Iraqis from being killed.
I am perfectly happy to engage in a debate about this, but not with you if you are going to continue putting words in my mouth. You grossly mischaracterized what I said. I can only hope that that was accidental and that you will be more careful moving forward.
After their initial enlistment OR the ones that are still to this day enlisting?
Can you claim that they are ignorant or uninformed of the potential consequences of their actions when every day on TV, radio and web the message of doom and death is broadcast?
Rather I believe that they love this country and believe in it, wish for it's continued freedoms and are educated enough to see and understand that this is indeed a battle for the freedom of the world.
I know, this is what my own children have told me and in August when I go to the third one's graduation from bootcamp, he can then join the other two my "children" who are part of what gives me faith in the future of America.
Well done is better than well said. —Benjamin Franklin
I would suggest that you ask them for what exactly they are willing to sacrifice their lives. I don't doubt that they, as you say, "love this country and believe in it, wish for it's continued freedoms and are educated enough to see and understand that this is indeed a battle for the freedom of the world." I don't doubt their intelligence. I'm not even arguing necessarily that we don't need to be in Iraq now.
My concern is over where the priorities lie. I know that your family is willing to die for this country. What I'm less certain of is that they are willing to die for Iraqis. As I have said above, I think there is a very legitimate argument to be made that we need to remain in Iraq for the security of America. My impression is that that is why members of the military enlisted. What I worry about is confusing our priorities and consequently complicating and overexpanding the criteria under which we are willing to employ the use of military force. If we determine that the US military can be used not only to protect Americans and our property, but to protect the world, I think we're going to end up getting ourselves into a lot of conflicts in which we have no national interest.
I am interested in the safety and liberty of all Americans, including the men and women in the military. I understand that there are times when that military must engage in conflicts to protect that safety and liberty. My comments are not made in the "members of the military are stupid" or "surrender at all costs" veins in which the get out now crowd makes their arguments. Instead, I would simply argue that we enter dangerous territory when we start employing justifications for US military action beyond the narrow scope of American interests. That is not at all inconsistent with the position that citizens entered the military with the intention of stopping those looking to harm the American people or the view that it is indeed in the interests of the security of the United States to continue military operations in Iraq.
the current republican party's affinity for "nation building" defies its roots, jeopardizes the ability of our military to respond to future crisis, and undermines the party's credibility, given the critique leveled against Clinton's adventures.
SI Cons Asks "For what are they willing to sacrifice?" I say, for us all.
Your question though is akin to the story of explaining an elephant to a blind man... where do I begin?
First off, my children grew up on the laps of American hero's of many stripes, there was "Grandpa Eddy", WWII vet, who hit the beaches of Normandy in the first wave and lived to tell that tale and that of the march across Europe. (Ironically it was at one of his houses that my kids learned to shoot while growing up.)
Or my Uncle John, veteran of Korea whose injuries he carried proudly through life. My own father, SGT NYPD, who served for over twenty years, shot during the race riots in the late 60's and later was involved in some of the most famous investigations in the following years, this after serving in the military of course.
Cops, firemen, DOD, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Kuwait, Iraq, Army, Navy, Marines, our family been there, done that and more.
If you are familiar with my postings you know that we had a family member, one of NY's Bravest, in the towers on 9/11 when they fell. Americans call them hero's and they are, but for them, it was their job that they were called to do. Other family members continue to do that "job" today.
Growing up my children knew that our flag was more than a colored piece of cloth, at times it was a symbol draped across a coffin, or a proud banner at the head of a band of pipers leading the way to a grave site. It was also a symbol of the freedoms hard fought for and proudly displayed from our porch after the chorus of cries over whose turn it was to hang it there. They also learned that there were times when it serves as a call to action, when it's time to acknowledge those who fought and died for the freedoms granted to us by their actions and sacrifice.
It was a shock for me, growing up, when I learned that not all families were like ours and I imagine it was the same for my children, but through the understanding of what our nation is and it's uniqueness in the world, that it offers everyone the freedom to dissent and the expression thereof.
I taught my children what my parents and family taught me, that it is incumbent upon the strong and able to stand in defense of those who need it. Be that on the playground, in your own home or wherever you walk.
We do not demand of the Iraqi's that they conform to our vision, but as with Germany, France, Italy, Japan and others we offer to them our strength, so that they, can make that choice.
Our family, my children, we are nothing special, simply Americans.
Well done is better than well said. —Benjamin Franklin
One of the reasons why they are re-enlisting is for the pay and benefits. If they re-enlist in Iraq, they get special perks. The armed forces are currently paid much better than I was during the Vietnam Era. It is like a factor of ten.
I reject that I grossly mischaracterized what you said. Now, maybe you didn't clearly, fully or accurately say what you really mean in the first place---but that's not my fault, is it?
I've no interest in debating you. After reading and then rereading your initial post, and then your response to my response, I'm still unimpressed. I see little of my value in either. You may feel the same way about what I'm saying...hey, whatever floats your boat.
I get the sense you want to argue for argument's sake, The time for that is long past.
Now, that's my opinion, which you are free to ignore. As I am here, with yours.
Adios
"Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)
***
“Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't so.” – Ronald Reagan
___________________________________
The CIA has better politicians than it has spies - Fred Thompson
If you really cared so much for the Iraqis then why turn their country into an AQ turkey shoot?
You want the Dems to defund? Why take ownership of the steaming pile that is Iraq? Shoot your own rabid dog if you want it to end. Bush will bring about all your fears without any help.
Take all that anger, ball it up, keep it close and always remember the lefties that stabbed you in the back by giving Bush everything he wants.
If you really cared so much for the Iraqis then why turn their country into an AQ turkey shoot?
They were so much better off being tortured to death and starved for palaces.
You want the Dems to defund?
Figures of speech are not for the slow.
Bush will bring about all your fears without any help.
He can't do a thing without their help. They're giving it. Must suck, huh?
-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!
I agree completely.
I meant what I said and I said what I meant. An elephant's faithful 100 percent.
If they want boat people redux, we should make them say it, out loud.
"Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)
Thomas
You paint a rather stark choice don't you.?
Ether support the President and his continued "mistakes were made" running of the war (his words) or oppose the continued course of the war set by the President by withdrawing funding which is therefore an act of cowards. Binary choice?
There is no middle ground, it's support the President or nothing else?
No going back and considering the Baker Commission recommendation, no considering Senator Brownback's partition and change of mission of US forces to training only proposal, nope just support the President.
Oh while we're stuck on the Vietnam mime's, the current strategy in use in Iraq is called Pacification, it didn't work worth a darn ether in Vietnam ether. The supply of men, material and support coming down from china into Vietnam never got fully cut off, just like the supply of arms from Iran is not being cut off now. By the way, we don't have the forces in country now to do that job ether.
You can pacify territory all you want in Iraq, as long as Iran supplies material and there are radical Islamic extremist willing to fight, and an Iraqi government incapable of governing the country, a military victory is not possible.
Right now, the Democrats have it very wrong, and the President is not doing a lot better.
_______________________________
None of the Above !
You paint a rather stark choice don't you.?
The boat people shown above had to make a choice.
If the choice this country ultimately makes is to abandon another ally, the killing fields will be revisited.
That's the point I believe Thomas is making.
Following the election of 2006 (rightly understood by the President as a repudiation of his leadership and strtegy in the war)and the relief of his Seretary of Defense, the President embarked on a review of possible alternative strategies, including those you mention and others, including a proposal from PM Maliki that is similar to that of many democrats -- withdraw completely from Baghdad. At that time all the possibilities were reviewed. The expectation was that the President would be looking for way out.
The President decided on the current option -- which is not, as you and others seem to think, merely an escalation in troops with no corresponding change in tactics and ROE and goals, etc.
On the contrary the plan was to execute a large-scale (division-level) counterinsurgency strategy in Iraq, as set out by Gen Petraeus, who would be in charge. This was presented to the Senate, which proceeded to unanimously conirm him.
Fast forwad to the present. The surge began to be executed on June 19, so far it is successful and on track. The President indicates that he will continue the course set in January and ratified by Congress. Congress is in a panic mode, spooked by the antiwar base and the lying media, which continues to misrepresent the surge to the American people.
Congress' actions, including the vote that passed the House this week and all of the amendments being considered by the Senate this week and next, are entirely irrelevant to the progress of the war.
Congress' role is limited to declaring war (which they have done through the use of force resolution -- sorry no do-overs), funding the war (which they will continue to do) and advise and consent on the President's nominees to run the military part (sorry Congress but you approved the SecDef and all other civilians, and you approved Gen Petraeus).
Congress does not dictate strategy or anything else. Under our system, with which you appear to be unfamiliar, the President does not have to clear his decisions with Congress, or review them, or go back fro approval, or anything else.
Let me point out a contradiction in your post:
You say
"No going back and considering the Baker Commission recommendation"
Then you say
"You can pacify territory all you want in Iraq, as long as Iran supplies material"
Um, the *major recommendation* of the BH commission was that regional diplomacy will solve Iraq for us, based on the entirely unsupported assertion "Iran has a compelling interest in a secure Iraq". Really? Then it probably wouldn't be stoking and supplying and fomenting the insurgency against us and the Iraqi government, would it?
There are in fact only two options in Iraq: Winning (and then getting out) or getting out now, with all that entails. I prefer the former. Thomas' ost describes the consequences of the latter.
Ether support the President and his continued "mistakes were made" running of the war (his words)
1) Mistakes have been made in EVERY war. A few examples.
a) George Washington did not evacuate Continental defenders from Fort Washington in time in 1776. As a result, the British captured 3000 men and lots of valuable cannon.
b) Dwight Eisenhower failed to prepare Allied soldiers for the hadgerows in the Normandy bocage, and followed that up by getting surprised in the Ardennes.
c) In the invasion of the Phillippines in 1945, Halsey took the majority of the US fleet covering the invasion to go look for the Japanese fleet. The Japanese fleet instead sailed for and attacked---our troopships and their minimal security force. Only through some of the greatest (and most unreported) heroics in American naval history was our invasion fleet saved.
2) Petraeus is running this war now. Do you consider him to be a boob? A Dubya puppet?
No going back and considering the Baker Commission recommendation
No. It's been considered and rejected, as being unworkable. Do you really expect Iran and Syria to be meaningful partners for peace in the region? If so, why? (Seeing as you've apparently endorsed that idea, I think you should defend it.) If Democratic Congressman Neil Abercrombie thought of the ISG report as "theater", then why should we pay it any heed.
No considering Senator Brownback's partition
Iraq is a sovereign country...don't you agree. Do you see them trying to partition themselves? Do you think we should forcibly partition them? If so, how do we explain that to the UN? How do we justify forcibly partitioning a sovereign country, against its will? Please explain.
and change of mission of US forces to training only proposal
Again, we've discussed this. If the US were to pull its forces back into a training-only mission, Iraq would most likely descend into chaos. Similar to that you see in the picture of boat people above; simply clothe the women in abayas as you image it. Tom Friedman's most recent column says there is no middle ground in Iraq, no viable mission for a reduced US force. It's all or nothing.
Thomas is right in being angry at the Lugar/Warner amendment. This isn't a call for more discussion---it's an attempt by Congress to forcibly change the way our President is fighting this war. The easily-foreseeable result of Lugar/Warner would be a Vietnam-style humanitarian and political tragedy.
Feel free to discuss all you want, SteveLA. But, do us the favor of presenting a viable alternative Course of Action that we can actually implement.
OR...and this would be just as intellectually honest...come out and say that you don't care what happens to the Iraqis. That you don't care if America is seen to be validating bin Laden's depiction of it as a "paper tiger."
Go ahead.
"Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)
"BAGHDAD — Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki said Saturday that the Iraqi army and police are capable of keeping security in the country when American troops leave "any time they want," though he acknowledged the forces need further weapons and training.
The embattled prime minister sought to show confidence at a time when congressional pressure is growing for a withdrawal and the Bush administration reported little progress had been made on the most vital of a series of political benchmarks it wants al-Maliki to carry out.
Al-Maliki said difficulty in enacting the measures was "natural" given Iraq's turmoil.
But one of his top aides, Hassan al-Suneid, rankled at the assessment, saying the U.S. was treating Iraq like "an experiment in an American laboratory." He sharply criticised the U.S. military, saying it was committing human rights violations, embarassing the Iraqi government with its tactics and cooperating with "gangs of killers" in its campaign against al-Qaida in Iraq."
You asked if I care about common Iraqis, not if this is how they feel. Let them carry their own water, and soon.
_______________________________
None of the Above !
I'll contrast this one item with the many, many statements from Iraqi leaders and people that they want us to stay.
"Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)
Almost as well as you have the President's talking points down.
Do they email them to you directly, or do you have to go find them for yourself? I also wonder if the taking points come with a packet of "flavor aid" to wash them down with?
But good news, the Iraqi government has been doing such a bang up job, they are taking August off on vacation, so you won't have to defend their statements or make excuses for their incompetency for at least a month.
I know, let's give our brave men and women in country the month of August off too! USO tours for all up at Balad AFB.
_______________________________
None of the Above !
I think you may have me wrong. I am castigating a select group of people who are asserting a specific thing, for failing to act on that assertion.
Beyond that, I believe we have some disagreements on the course of the war in Vietnam that would make for an interesting threadjack.
-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!
Our President's word as commander-in-chief, and maker of alliances, would be worthless. If you were head of state of another country, would YOU feel confident that America would stick to whatever word it pledged with you?
With a Congress full of spineless, nervous nellies who are easily spooked...how could you?
Answer: you wouldn't. And you'd be smart not to.
"Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)
Our President's word as commander-in-chief, and maker of alliances, would be worthless. If you were head of state of another country, would YOU feel confident that America would stick to whatever word it pledged with you?
With a Congress full of spineless, nervous nellies who are easily spooked...how could you?
Answer: you wouldn't. And you'd be smart not to.
"Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)
While the post of Mojo got my blood boiling, I am torn on the question of whether or not he should have been booted. The reason I say that is because I believe that every person we fail to convince of the importance of the mission and the necessity of staying in Iraq until the job is finished is a failure on our part. As hard as it is to try to speak logically to people who refuse to listen, we owe it to the soldiers in Iraq and their fallen comrades to do our very best.
In Vietnam our soldiers won all the battles but our politicians lost their nerve and the people lost the will to fight. History is dangerously close to repeating itself. Perhaps the question we need to ask the antiwar folks is the same question we should be asking ourselves: If we leave now, how can any of us look a soldier or the family member of one of the fallen in the eye and say that we did everything we could to help them achieve victory and ensure, "that these dead shall not have died in vain"? I submit that we cannot say that. Not by a long chalk. If we pull out now, we have betrayed our soldiers again. I don't have the words to express just how much of a disgrace that would be for us all.
He was in over his head, so I took pity on him and sent him out to get the education that his teachers clearly refused to give him. Once he demonstrates that he's up to site standards, we'll let him back in.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
So, we've established that you are young and naive. Not a bad thing, most of us have been there. Some of us grew out of it.
Here's the problem. Our military has a mission in Iraq and Afghanistan. Historically, they had a mission in Vietnam. And in the Cold War. And in Grenada. And in Panama. And in Kuwait. And it was generally the same mission in every case, win and come home.
The Left has had a mission that they wake up with every morning of every day since at least the '60's. Undercut America's ability to project power anywhere in the world to protect our national security interests. The first phase is to deny there is any national security interest in a region. Phase two is to ally with enemy in the region. Phase three is to mobilize the "international community" and the press.
In Vietnam, people stood in the streets of American cities while we had 500,000 men fighting a war and waived NV flags. Jane Fonda went on humanitarian missions to visit the North Vietnamese. Politicians did their level best to undercut the military and Walter Cronkite pronounced the war "lost" immediately after the biggest US victory of the war when the NVA were getting ready to surrender.
In the aftermath of Vietnam, the Congress and then the Congress and President Carter gutted the military and virtually closed down the CIA. Carter was in the forefront of those who saw the USSR as just another government dedicated to serving their people.
When Reagan was elected and it was obvious that he was in the Cold War to win it, Ted Kennedy wrote to the President of the USSR and tried to put together a deal that would strengthen the Soviets and would undercut Reagan and would give the Democrats the '84 election.
When Reagan chose to fight to stop Communism in Central America, Congressional Democrats - led by Kennedy and Kerry - wrote their Dear Commandente Letter to Daniel Ortega and went to Nicaragua to meet with him. They wanted him to know that they were doing everything they possibly could to support his government and undercut Reagan.
And on, and on, and on.
The same people who are leading the fight to get us out of Iraq are the people who've been working every day to undercut the US for the last 40 years. There is no selling them on anything. They didn't give a damn when five million Southeast Asians were slaughtered after they engineered our pull out from Vietnam. They didn't give a damn about the hundred million plus who have been slaughtered in the name of Communism in various parts of the world. They didn't give a damn about Castro sending his mercenary army all over the world at the behest of his Soviet masters to murder people who were willing to fight for their freedom in third world countries. They don't give a damn about the butchers in South and Central America passing themselves off as "revolutionaries" - FARC & friends - who, like Castro, are nothing more than petty butchers. They certainly don't give a damn about anybody in the Middle East, with the exception of the remains of Hamas and the PLO, and they are committed to actually getting them to stop killing one another so they can get back to really important business of killing Israelis.
We don't owe it to anybody, least of all to the fallen and their families, to speak to these people. If we owe them a debt, what we owe them is that we would stand up to these people, call them what they are - enablers of tyrants and butchers and enemies of freedom and liberty in every part of the world - and find a way to beat them on the home front. That includes the leadership of the Democratic Party, it includes Republicans like Chuck Hagel and his cohorts, and it includes the anti-war movement.
Mark my words, if we won't stand up to the domestic enemies - AND WIN - the five million dead in Southeast Asia are just a drop in the bucket. And when that happens, the front page of the NYT will be covered with full color pictures, mostly in red, and with editorials and opeds from the political class, decrying GWB and neo-cons for "starting" an "optional war" that has led us to this point.
When that happens, we might as well take advantage of the "surrender dividend". Remember the "Peace Dividend" that Clinton and Left used to gut the military after the fall of Communism? This time the "dividend" will be from virtually eliminating a military that we will never use again because we've shown repeatedly that we don't have the staying power. On that point, bin Laden is right.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
John
----------
Why would God invent something like whiskey? To keep the Irish from ruling the world of course
post I have read on Redstate. I cannot understand how Americans can fail to see just how much their anti-war, anti-American messages help the enemy by making the enemy feel that they can win. Anti-war Americans were helping kill US soldiers in Vietnam and are helping terrorists kill American soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq.
for a bit that these premises are true:
1) The government of Iraq is such a hopeless sham, that sectarian genocide is sure to happen if we do not remain in force.
2) We have unilaterally made a treaty with the Iraqi people, that they shall have good government - certainly not the chaos envisioned in the first premise. Breaking this commitment is a long-term diplomatic disaster.
Very well. But then why argue for staying the course, instead of the total U.S. takeover of the Iraqi government?
The current government has no hope of providing the people security? Then let's not waste time on it. Exile looks good for a lot of these people, such as parliamentarians too cowardly to meet.
With a generally non-Muslim government, neither Shiites or Sunnis would have to worry so much about sectarian persecution. And we wouldn't be unnecessarily concerned about disarming religious militias and jailing disruptive clerics.
We could arrange governmental institutions as we see fit. Now, we get full governmental cooperation in hunting Al Qaeda. Later, these institutions may have lasting good effects as we slowly transition Iraq to self-rule again in a decade or so.
If the situation really is as bad as made out, then we can't afford frivels like "democracy" right now, when we have to get this turned around by 2008 or leave in early 2009.
If the situation isn't as bad as made out, then maybe shifting the mission towards border guarding, army training, and terrorist killing isn't the end of the world. Elections matter, and it's better to get half a loaf than none.
(This will be my last Iraq post for quite some time. I've said what I have to say by now, and there's no point in repeating it. But I do wish our arguments would focus more on OUR interests in Iraq, instead of hopelessly trying to whip up enough public charity/patriotism to keep us going. It didn't work for Somalia, despite our real need not to publicly lose there; I don't see it working for Iraq.)
Trackbacked by The Thunder Run - Web Reconnaissance for 07/14/2007
A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention updated throughout the day…so check back often. This is a weekend edition so updates are as time and family permits.
That Al Qeada wants us to stay in Iraq. That perhaps we are being baited by their rhetoric.
Every week we remain is the equivilant of a terrorist attack resulting in 5 American deaths, countless civilian deaths, and economic damages measured in hundreds of millions of dollars.
So long as we make Iraq the central front in the war on terrorism, we are allowing Al Qaeda to completely neutralize the strength of our armed forces, speed, manuever, air power, and command and control. Meanwhile we are playing into their strength, assymetric warfare in an urban environment.
...the screaming meemies. They are quite good at that. Taking over contested countries? Not so much.
Moe
PS: As for your first comment: congrats, when it comes to assessing AQ's desires you're about where the average reader of this blog was. In 2004. While this is in itself promising, I suggest that you accelerate your geopolitical understanding. We're very busy here and have gotten out of the habit of slowing down for those commenters behind on their technical reading.
Please note that this is only in the form of a suggestion.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
generally I consider myself pretty well read, at least in the geopolitical. But I'm new to this blog an eager to catch up to your level.
Al Zawahiri was explicit when he said that stage one for al Qaeda was to "expel the Americans". You also seem to be completely unaware of the fact al Qaeda chose Iraq as the central front in its war against us.
I completely agree that Al Qaeda chose Iraq as the central front against us. My question remains however, from a purely military strategic perspective, generally we seek to keep the initiative, and avoid engaging the enemy at the site of his chosing. Where am I wrong?
From a "purely military strategic perspective" we seek to keep the initiative. Correct but what initiative?
Before D-Day in Europe, we engaged in a massive strategic deception plan that convinced Hitler that the Normandy invasion was a diversion. As a result, Hitler refused to release the German strategic reserve force and the invasion was a success.
One of the unstated, but strategically obvious reasons, for going into Iraq, is that fighting AQ in Irag offered better opportunities than were available elsewhere. I, personnaly prefer fighting the "Battle of Bagdad" than the "Battle of Denver."
If possible, it is always desirable to fight an enemy on soil other than your own. Sometimes that is not possible but good commanders always seek to engage the enemy on favorable ground. If you have calvary, you offer battle on the plains and keep out of the mountains. On the other hand, if your troops are light infantry, you keep out of the plains and offer battle only in the mountains.
Al Zawahiri clearly stated that the first stage for al Qaeda is to expel the Americans from Iraq, and you wrote that "Al Qeada wants us to stay in Iraq". So which is it? What you stated as "fact" is in direct contradiction of the expressly stated goals of these terrorists.
From a "purely military strategic perspective", U.S. forces are implementing a counterinsurgency strategy based on established doctrine. The real question is, where are you right?
Thomas, your words concerning our Legislative Branch and its current members put voice to my emotions. This may go down in history as one of (if not) the worst Congress in the history of the U.S. Will they ever come together and do the people's business? Do they really only care about themselves and their careers over the health of our country? I wish it were different.
Winning the campaign in Iraq is so vitally important to America it cannot be stated often enough. I was against invading Iraq from the beginning but we cannot leave Iraq unless it is willing and able to stand on its own as a country. The "democracy" currently empowered there reminds me of all the governments of Italy since WWII, too many factions, not enough really power in a few hands. I despair that they will get their act together.
I also no longer believe our Executive Branch when it comes to the war. Too many mistakes, too many times we have been told "progress" has been made or "This time we have the right plan". They've lost me and most Americans when it comes to supporting their plan. I cannot get behind the President because I feel that he has not been truthful about what is happening in Iraq with his spin on the events there.
My only hope now is that we can hold out in Iraq for the 18 months left in this Congress and this Presidency and get some real leaders in government who have the intelligence and the strength to finish this fight. Unfortunately, we are only offered the same people who got us to this point.
I fear that Iraq will be lost.
Go wee-wee-wee all the way home and leave 60% of the world's oil reserves to chaos, AQ, Iran, or all three. Brillant. Bad enough to be cowards, but the dumbest-a$$ ones that ever lived, that hurts.
This is poignant, the "stuff" that drew me to Redstate and led me to believe that there were indeed there were Americans, clear thinking, forward looking and backed by the power of their convictions that had not been cowed by the PC mantra, in other words, people like me.
This calls out to America's heart and soul and demands of it a response! I'd actually love to see you stand up in front of congress and do a speech akin to this and shame them into being American again, note American, not Republican or Conservative. The people that would foist this upon us are the same that would next be for spending hundreds of billions in aid to avert the humanitarian crisis, although then it would be through the hands of the criminally corrupt United Nations who are in no small way at least partly responsible for keeping Saddam Hussein in power.
Got more Thomas? I'm sure, but next time, don't hold back...
Well done is better than well said. —Benjamin Franklin
But they could surely choose someone less dumpy than I to do it.
-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!
I'm having trouble with IE7 and it keeps crapping on me but I had a great response to this that I will make short here...
Thank you for injecting a little common sense back into the Redstate debate. IMO we have wandered far and wide of late and have lacked "message" as a voice of America. I say America because I believe that people like us DO speak the language of the majority of the nation.
Thomas, speak this loudly, speak it often.
Well done is better than well said. —Benjamin Franklin
I wanted to post this map below it is for the LLL trolls that infested this post advocating that we "withdraw from Muslim lands" and some such BS.
From the Horses Mouth a Map of what Ansar Al Islam aka the Kurdish region terrorist groups with ties to both Saddam and mainly to AQ who also by the way escaped into Iran in 03' during our invasion and then re-infiltrated Iraq in 04'. Point is they are a undisputed terrorist org well connected with AQ.
http://memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=subjects&Area=iwmp&ID=SP165607
That map shows what most of US who have been paying attention already knew, this is just the first time I have seen them not just speak of locals but outright provide a Map that even your idiotic LLL's can understand.
I new it the AQ were in haggin with Saddam Iraq and split to Iran when we invaded.
Thanks for the heads up C Low.
Any moron can see by the map that AQ controls most of the middle east and north africa, just by looking at it.
Good find man!
The map is not of AQ control it is just what AQ considers Muslim Lands. One of the primary arguments for giving up is the round about self guilt that "we should just withdraw from Muslim Lands". The opponents of this never seem to spend the time to research what AQ considers Muslim Lands. A pull out would require allot more than just Iraq/Afghanistan/Israel/ or even the ME. Spain/Ethiopia/India/Philippines/Thailand/ SE Asia/ Balkans/pretty much all Africa.
The map proves that withdrawing from Muslim lands is just not a viable option. And that is not even considering the fact that once they achieve this initial goal why would they stop with that, another thing the Radicals often speak is that its Allah's will for Islam to be spread all over the entire world.
I say we need a de-fund vote NOW...TODAY...else, they all need to go away and never return to Capitol Hill...they are not QUALIFIED to hold the offices they swore to uphold.
I couldn't have said this better myself.
haystack's 12th:
Conservatives (and Presidential Candidates especially) shall offer no aid and comfort to the opposition in times of legislative conflict (and ensuing political campaigns).