Standing Against Evil
Fight the Bad Guys, or Abandon the Good Guys?
By Dan McLaughlin Posted in War — Comments (7) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Mohammed Fadhil, of Iraq the Model, writes in today's NY Daily News about how the Congressional Democrats look from Iraq:
I wasn't surprised when I saw Al Qaeda's second-in-command, Ayman al-Zawahiri, appear on Al Jazeera to announce America's defeat last week, not long after U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid did. Zawahiri claims Al Qaeda has won, and Reid claims America has lost.
Read on...
But from here in Baghdad, I see only a war that's still raging - with no victory in sight for Al Qaeda or any other entity. In fact, I see Al Qaeda on the ropes, losing support among my fellow Iraqis.
In the midst of such a fierce war, sending more wrong messages could only further complicate an already complicated situation. It would only create more of a mess inside Iraq - a mess that would then be exploited by Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia for their own purposes: more iron-fisted control of the peoples and treasures of the region, more pushing the Middle East to crises and confrontations, and more spreading of their dark, backward ideologies.
And so, as an Iraqi, I say without hesitation: the American forces should stay here, and further reinforcements should be sent if the situation requires them. Not only that, these forces should be prepared to expand their operations whenever and wherever necessary to strike hard at the nests of evil that not only threaten Iraq and the Middle East, but seek to blackmail the whole world in the ugliest way through pursuing nuclear weapons.
You know, America went to Iraq for its own national interests; we don't do wars just to benefit somebody else. But once you go in, and your friends on the grounds stick out their necks in reliance on you, and your other enemies pour in to fight you, how can you say you have no obligation to finish the job? And what credibility do you have with the people you will ask for help in the future if you abandon your friends?
It's not like this is a morally ambiguous battle:
Those who prefer to bury their heads in the dirt today, and withdraw from this difficult fight, will be cursed forever for abandoning their duty when they were most capable. I don't understand why someone who has all the tools for victory would refuse to fight an enemy that reminds us every day that it is evil - with all the daily beheadings, torture and violations of all humane laws and values.
Well said. Read the whole thing. In case you missed it, our own Jeff Emanuel had much more from Iraq yesterday in the same vein.
« We need more COIN in the Afghan realm — Comments (0) | One suicide bombing, two divergent storylines — Comments (3) »
Standing Against Evil 7 Comments (0 topical, 7 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
I've felt for a number of months, that if there were some significant battles against Al Qaeda won in Iraq, that if there were say, seven or eight days of relative quiet in Baghdad, that this whole War could really take a significant, positive turn. The Anbar Salvation movement was a huge turning point. Now, Bill Roggio describes another major development in Diyala. It's my feeling, that between the tribes in Diyala and a coordinated offensive by American and Iraqi troops in Diyala, Al Qaeda could see losses in Diyala in the thousands and quite frankly, the entire momentum of "surrender" here at home could be squashed.
Here's BillRoggio's article:
http://billroggio.com/archives/2007/05/the_diyala_salvation.php
The Administration surrendered in all the important battles before the first shots were fired.
Those battles were not Army and Marines v. aQ, they were the Left the Democratic Party v. US national security interests. Bush surrendered at the outset.
He let the NYT and WaPo get away with publishing classified national security programs and AGAG has YET to produce an investigation of either CIA, NSA, or subpoena the media to reveal their sources. The CIA is leaking like a sieve and producing Joe Wilson and Bush is hiding under the desk in the Oval Office.
The Democrats nominate John Kerry and Bush attacks the SwiftVets. And, BTW, if it hadn't been for them Kerry would certainly be POTUS.
Murtha and the leadership of the Democratic Party go on an all out war against the military and the best Bush can do is say they are good, patriotic Americans who just see things a little differently than he does.
We're in this mess because George W. Bush thinks NewTone™ is more important than the guys who are putting their lives on the line every day in Iraq and Afghanistan. We're in this mess because the President didn't - and doesn't - have the courage to confront the real enemy in this war. The Left and the Democrats.
Don't expect to ever again see large scale military action by the US. After back to back wins in Vietnam and Iraq the Democrats and the NYT will make sure that never happens again. Look instead for another peace dividend. There's really no point in spending all the money we do on national defense only to let Democrats be involved in any way in the use of military force.
Glory! It's been an interesting 231 years. Too bad it ends this way.
____
Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't.
(except for your last line. remember the Lord watches over fools, drunkards, and the United States of America.)
"During my lifetime, all our problems have come from mainland Europe, and all the solutions from the English-speaking nations across the world." - Thatcher
The more I see and hear about the war in Iraq, the more it appears to me that this has all the trappings of a classic meeting "engagement or battle". One side enters and area and collides with opposing forces of unknown (unknowable) strength and embarks in an engagement that pulls in unengaged forces and frequently becomes a battle of attrition. For examples see the "battle" of Guadalcanal in WWII or the battle of Gettysburg in our own civl war. These battles are usually won with by the side having the tactical advantage (the high ground at Gettysburg) or the stratigic advantage (Henderson field) at Gradalcanal. In either case noted above sheer determination and a willingness to soak up casualities aided victory. In neither case did the winning side declare unilateral withdrawal. In both cases the eventual losers declared premature victory. Lee predicting a victory with Picket's charge and a Japanese captain's famous declaration that he would destroy the American Marines on Guadalcanal with "One touch of an armored sleve.".
Perhaps these two battles are on both the commanders on the ground in Irag and President Bush.
The last line excluded the words "minds of" between the and commanders. MY bad
Thank you for calling this article by Mohammed Fadhil to our attention. Everybody in the MSM seems to pound away at President Bush, and question his credability or lack thereof. Nobody in the MSM is asking the Democrats the question that Mohammed asks.
"But once you go in, and your friends on the grounds stick out their necks in reliance on you, and your other enemies pour in to fight you, how can you say you have no obligation to finish the job? And what credibility do you have with the people you will ask for help in the future if you abandon your friends?"
I have never heard any opponent even try to give an answer to this question.
You’re a persistent cuss, pilgrim.
John Wayne to Jimmy Stewart in The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance