Take your pick.
I'm going with "win," myself.
By Moe Lane Posted in War — Comments (21) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
It's nice when you see a photo that sums it all up (Via Michelle Malkin):
So pick your side. But first, take a look around to see who you'll be keeping company with, once you've chosen. It might clarify things for you a bit.
« We need more COIN in the Afghan realm — Comments (0) | Sending a Message in Anbar — Comments (34) »
Take your pick. 21 Comments (0 topical, 21 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
and I'll do it.
“Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it.” Mark Twain
"Treason is working to oppose your government during a war against people who wish to kill your countrymen." -- Neil Stevens
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
I voted Harry Browne in 2000, but will never vote Ron Paul.
“Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it.” Mark Twain
HTML Help Central for Red Staters
I voted Harry Browne in 2000, but will never vote Ron Paul.
“Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it.” Mark Twain
You can stop acting as if it cannot be done.
Next, you can call your congressmen and tell them you want them to stop undermining our military effort by advocating defeat that gives our enemy hope to keep fighting another day. And worse, gives our allies and potential allies pause in supporting us.
Then you can write to your local paper and tell them that just because something is difficult doesn't mean it ought not to be attempted.
And lastly, support the troops by supporting any number of activities that reinforce your intention that they come home victorious.
Are they the Sunnis? Is it Iran, and by affiliation, the Shia? Is it Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia? Who are we fighting? What are we fighting for? What are our goals in Iraq? Why haven't they been achieved? What will it take to achieve them? What is the endgame? When will Iraq reach relative, lasting stability?
The most frustrating part of this whole war debate for me is the lack of honest analysis of these basic, straightforward questions. I've been following this war for a long time, and I see no peaceful resolution in sight. Is this the beginning of a lifelong era of instability in the region? If it is, what is in our nation's best interest? How do we secure these interests?
What responsibility do we have in starting the conflict? Is a stable, dictatorial strongman inherently necessary in a region as volatile as the Middle East? What would the situation be like had we not invaded? Would we be better off? Would the world be better off?
I wish someone had the answers, and I wish someone would ask the questions.
“Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it.” Mark Twain
I've never understood why people find it hard to answer the question "who is our enemy?"
I imagine this is because our enemy is not defined by a typical boundary. We're not fighting "the Germans", "the Japanese", or even "the Iraqis/Iranians/Jordanians/etc.".
Rather, our primary enemy here is defined by an ideology. There are those in each of those nations mentioned and more which adhere to it. There are those in this nation who adhere to it. There are people in every European nation who adhere to it.
And it is the ideology of political Islam -- the ideology that Westernism is insidious and evil, that Islamic law is not only superior but mandated, and that it is their job as the army of God to snuff Westernism and spread Islam.
Now, I say "primary" because there are also plenty among our enemy who, for reasons we'd best relate to realpolitik, may not hold this particular belief but are nonetheless allied with those who do.
Many of these Sunni warlords who were once allied with the jihadists are great examples of that. Their interest has nothing to do with the spread of Islam. Rather, it has to do with their own political lot in a post-Saddam Iraq. They saw (or still see, in some cases) the Americans as threats to their lots and thus took up arms with others who also were fighting us.
Ironically enough, we've got the Shiites mad at us because we're arming and training Sunnis!
In any case, yours really isn't that difficult a question to answer. Yes, there are a number of competing interests at play here. But, ultimately, it's the ones which pose us the threat that we need to defeat. Unfortunately, realpolitik would determine (and is determining) that it isn't that simple.
And, FWIW, that's going to be the case no matter how or where we're fighting the jihadists.
if you ever bother to try and figure them out. First, neither the Sunni, Shia, Kurds, or any group of Iraqi ethnic groups are our enemies in Iraq. The militias that fight under the banner of any of these groups, however, are our enemies. First and foremost, this means AQI. On the Shia side, it means JAM. Furthermore, yes, absolutely, Iran and Syria are also our enemies in Iraq.
"The nine most dangerous words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'"
Ronald Reagan
face extremist jihadists that seek to overthrow same and est a caliphate world wide.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
www.race42008.com
www.hinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
"One man with courage makes a majority" - Andrew Jackson
Losing is easy. To use another overused quote (this one from George Orwell), the quickest way to end a war is to lose it.
So, I can't really tell you how we can win. But I can tell how we can lose.
At this point, I can't say whether or not the Iraqis will find it in themselves to establish a successful government and nation. That's not only out of my hands, it's out of the hands of everybody but the Iraqis. I'm hopeful, but it's hard to be optimistic.
That said, I do think it likely that we'll have established a clear military victory in the coming 16-18 months, such that the interested parties can have a chance at forging this rapprochement. Whether they will or not is entirely up to them.
Whether they have a chance to or not is largely up to us.
exactly who is the enemy that we're fighting in Iraq? What are they doing there? When did they show up in Iraq? What's our strategy for defeating them? What evidence is there that this strategy can work? Has it ever worked before? Is there evidence that its working now?
While you're at it, let me know how you would propose to identify a lost cause in general. What would have to happen in Iraq (or Afghanistan or anywhere else) to lead you to believe that the effort was not just difficult but should be abandoned? Can you give any historical examples of something (especially military-ish) that was not just difficult, but should have been abandoned or never even started?
Finally, in my view what is actually desirable in Iraq is a political outcome to a disaster caused by our military invasion there. Its not always the case that the solution to a problem caused by X is more X ... specifically in Iraq, its not clear that the way to get Iraq to a stable, positive outcome is to "win the war". Part of the problem with the administration's strategy in Iraq is that "winning the war" is the only mantra they seem to have, when winning the war is actually merely a means to an end, not an end in and of itself.
You don't really want to know the answers to any of these (most of them are obvious enough), and you wouldn't care if anyone here did answer. More obvious troll-bait has not been seen in these parts for some time.
Part of the problem with the administration's strategy in Iraq is that "winning the war" is the only mantra they seem to have...
Well, it sure as hell beats, "This is too hard, let's just quit" - a.k.a. the Democrats' mantra since about July 2003.
Go crap on someone else's carpets.
-------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock.
Fortunately, it's easily curable with a mere 1,000 word essay on the history of AQ. We'll think about turning your account back on once you send it in, thus demonstrating that you've gotten up to speed with the rest of us.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
Back in the day. You just blammed me. That's hardly fair.
(disclaimer: This is not to say that 24 months later I am desirous of an essay. Just that I want to gripe...)
"I Will Always Place The Mission First.
"I will never accept defeat.
"I will never quit.
"I will never leave a fallen comrade."
Warrior Ethos, US Army
Well, I do ban a great many people. Did you deserve it?
Anyway, there are fashions in banning, just like everything else. I hardly ever do haiku anymore, for example; although I can't remember why I stopped.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
with Franz. He wasn't aware of the specific incident, but he asked me to tell you he has every confidence that that the "Army Puke" deserved it. (The Prince is very fond of Blue & Gold)
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
...when they see me they'll say, "There goes Loren Wallace,
the greatest thing to ever climb into a race car."
And at least I Think it was you. Look up the Blam logs for "recruiter". Could've been Thomas...
I had to promise to be good to come back.
"I Will Always Place The Mission First.
"I will never accept defeat.
"I will never quit.
"I will never leave a fallen comrade."
Warrior Ethos, US Army
Is the general line reflected by this statement of yours:
What are they doing there? When did they show up in Iraq?
The answer is easy and it's another question: what does it matter?
Implicit in this line of reasoning is that the invasion of Iraq was a mistake. This is what you're trying to argue -- not anything regarding our best path forward is today.
Whether or not the initial invasion was a mistake is, frankly, irrelevant to our decision about what to do now. It doesn't matter. History is what it is, not what we'd rather it be.
I really don't care why al-Qaida is fighting in Iraq. I don't care when they got there. I don't care why Iran is supplying arms, funding and training to those fighting us there.
None of this matters even a bit to the decisions being made today and forward. Heck, if you believe the people pushing the 'flypaper' theory for Iraq, then we intentionally (and successfully) tried to drag AQ into this fight. But, then, I've no idea if this was our intention or not.
What I do know is that we're fighting the mujaheddins of jihad there every day. I also know that it matters whether we basically defeat them or they basically defeat us -- which, BTW, is a different question than whether or not the Iraqi government lasts.
Argue all you want however you want. But at least do it in the present day. The old debate is far past gone.
that's a thousand words we should be spared from by the windbags in Washington. no end but victory, and may those who subvert that end be judged accordingly, in the voting booths and in the hereafter.