Nov 16 2006
Iraq And Afghanistan
The Washington Post notes something interesting that came out of Congressional hearings yesterday (and which I have not heard much about). The consensus is we will need to actively support the Afghanistan Democracy for at least a decade to ensure its long term survival:
Five years after the United States drove al-Qaeda and the Taliban from Afghanistan, Gen. Michael V. Hayden, director of the CIA, told the Senate Armed Services Committee that both groups are back, waging a “bloody insurgency” in the south and east of the country. U.S. support for the Kabul government of Hamid Karzai will be needed for “at least a decade” to ensure that the country does not fall again, he said.
Well there is no doubt we need to stay in Afghanistan – that was the country where 9-11 eminated from. It was command central for Al Qaeda and their Taliban hosts. So that also begs the question – who ever thought Iraq would be easier? There is an active insurgency in Afghanistan and no recommendation to cut and run from there (yet). So I don’t understand why we need or should abandon Iraq if we have the same long term challenge in Afghanistan, and that is considered something we must support? Who is challenging the Democrats to defend their conflicting stances (yes, I know all dem stances are conflicted – many times with reality). But the point to make to the American people is we see a ten year effort in Afghanistan, we have seen nearly a decade in Bosnia. Who ever said Iraq would be done in 3 years? Why should we abandon Iraq to Al Qaeda and hold onto Afghanistan? I am not for bugging out of either place – but if we had to pick one to give up to Al Qaeda, my choice would not be Iraq with all its oil resources, educated populace and WMD expertise.
650,000 civilian deaths since the War in Iraq began, huh? Let’s see, if the War began in March 2003, then we’ve been there for 45 months. That works out to an average of 14,444 civilians dead per month, or about 481 per day. All this because of the 120,000 or so people we have over in Iraq. Somebody want to explain how the dead civilians could pile up in such numbers without CNN, MSNBC, the New York Times, and the other news outlets pounding the table about civilian dead at least as hard, as often, as relentlessly as they’ve been pounding the table about total U.S. casualties???
And this guy is mocking Terrye for disbelieving the 650,000 figure. You might as well mock somebody for scoffing at the idea that leprechauns from Mars secretly rule the world.
It is difficult to believe that there are some who cannot remember what President Bush said in January 2002 about the war on terror. He mentioned that Afghanistan was just the beginning and Iraq, Iran and North Korea constituted an axis of evil. The struggle would probably last for a generation. A generation, for those who don’t know is about thirty years. And he was right. Five years is nothing. Some people have really short memories and I include the Democrats. They have spun, twisted, lied, distorted and said a variety of things that remain total fantasy in their collective mindset. And now they control Congress, much to the detriment of this country. The Democrat party has failed to engage successfully in any war for over fifty years and I suspect they don’t want to. They speak about getting along with everybody, and slap themselves on the back for being oh so tolerant and nonjudgmental. Except of course with their political opposition who they have no problem maligning and lying about every day of the week. They now want this country to get along with fascist murderers whose starting premise is our death. Fat chance!!! The unthinkable has happened and now we have to live and probably die with it.
Ken, it serves no purpose to link to a major member of the formerly MSM to try to prove a point. In the first place, no one believes it, but then if you read that link, it never quotes any of those people it just says what they think the people said. You really are gullible. Lift me a quote and paste it from Pres Bush, my spokesman, on what he said about how long the war would last prior to the war starting. That would be proof. Don’t link to any more liberal rags.
You want a real interesting number Ken. Look this one up. How many active duty military people died per year from 1990 thru 9/11/01 and how many have died per year since that time? You will become enlightened (my apologies to Enlightened) upon learning these numbers.
Ken
Lets do a what if.
What if a new disease wiped out the entire police force in the state of Florida. How long would it take to recruit, train and field a new police department statewide?
Also let us assume for argument it wiped out the entire National Guard. How long would it take to recruit and train and develop the same readiness level?
1. Ken, it is one thing to look to wikipedia to guide you in your research, but to rely on it as fact? People can put whatever they want up there. It could be completely bogus. A person who actually wants a supported argument would know that.
2. I agree with Kristen about what Bush said at the beginning. There is an axis of evil. This is why even though we are fighting and supporting in Afghanistan and Iraq, we are also having diplomatic talks with North Korea and Iran. If we can talk Iran down, then they can help us fight the terrorists and they will help us in Iraq.
3. Just because the actual “war” is over, doesn’t mean that we don’t have a duty to make the countries stable. Think about how long it took us to become stable after we ousted the British. We first instituted the Article of Confederation in March 1, 1781 (ratified and enforced). The Constitution, that we still are governed under, was not in force until March 4, 1789. 8 years later. And it took even more time to for the government to become stable. At minimum it takes a decade after ousting a former government and replace it with a new one, and for that new government to reach stability. At this point, we are only about half way through this. And you can’t count the time it took to catch Saddam. Once he was taken into custody is when the new set up began. which means in the end we are only 2 years into setting up Iraq.
Ken, you said:â€Churchill lost the British Empireâ€
would you please list the countries that were in the British Empire when Churchill took office that were not still in it when he left office?
See, I don’t think you know what you are talking about. So, list ‘em.
To save you a little time, Churchill was prime minister two times and the dates are:
may 40- july 45 and 10/51- 4/55
So just a quickie list of Empire members that bailed out during those two periods would be fine> Happy hunting.
Ken is so out of touch that he does not know that everyone from the Royal Society in Great Britain to Oxford to the Iraq BodyCount to all the professional statiticians have completely discounted that Lancet Study, just like they did the former one. It is politically motivated garbage and there is not one single shred of evidence to support any of its findings.
I did notice however, that the American Nazi party is relying on its findings to help spread antiAmerican propaganda. The commies and the nazis hand in hand.
That tells us everything we need to know about Ken.
How do the dems think we can sustain Afghanistan all by itself if we pull out of Iraq prematurely. We would be fighting all alone in the ME surrounded by hostile forces with only an embattled Israel to aid us. They wouldn’t be much help as they would be fighting for their lives and probably willl be fighting regardless of what we do about Iraq. The terrorists would really be concentrated with fighting us in one country and would put everything they have on the field. The only reason the dems approve of the war in Afghanistan is because NATO is there. The dems think the UN is super wonderful. Which shows how far out in space they have gone.
Has anyone noticed that the only wars where we did not keep troops stationed in the vicinity was the one we lost and the first Gulf War? This is a ongoing policyto stay in the vicinities through many administrations. Only in our times of shame did we not stay and protect the countries we helped. The dems want us to repeat that time. The debacle of the First Gulf War is the reason the Iraqis were slow to trust us. The dems want us to prove to the Iraqis that once again we cannot be trusted.
Ken, like the rest of the left, have lots of critizisms, but no solutions. He doesn’t bother to tell us what will happen when al Sadr and boys have control of Iraq’s vast oil wealth. He relies on Lancet studies that are contradictory in themselves.
Here is a suggestion for you, Ken. Log on to Travelocity or Expedia and book you a flight to Baghdad. Once you arrive, seek out al Sadr and convince him to quit killing Iraqi civilians and coalition forces. Explain to him that the Iraqi people deserve to be free of any oppression and he needs to stop.
Oh, yes, before you go, make arrangements for two caskets. One for your body to be shipped home and one for your head.
Starting with Retire05.
I do not tell Iraqis, Sunni or Shia, secular or religious, how
to run their affairs. Let me give you a tip in political etiquette;
you shouldn’t either. As you finally concede, your advice isn’t
welcomed, nor would an outsider’s be in the event of anarchy
due to an occupation here.
Terrye
The preponderant number of experts have accepted the study
showing the 450,000-650,000 figure is valid and even as
importantly THE IRAQIS BELIEVE IT AND BLAME AMERICA
AND ENGLAND for it.
You lose…as without their faith in us, they will never co-operate
in suitable numbers for “our” aims.
This in turn allows me to segue’ to Merlin’s naeivete….
Merlin
The Florida scenario you gave would only be apropos if those
being trained were sympathetic to us and motivated. So far,
those we HAVE trained are dominantly pro-Iranian Shia
militants who are also members of private militias. Training is
HOPELESS from a political point of view despite the
delusion of Strata, Barabara and Kristen etc.
Kristen
You conflate various compnents of the “war on terror,” to get
your expansive time period. One, most people don’t even
agree Iraq is part of the legitimate war on terror. Secondly,
if Bush believed Iraq would take as long as it has , why didn’t he
muzzle Cheney –Wolfowitz –and Rumsfeld who said it
would take weeks or months.And why didn’t he prepare for the
insurgency he didn’t believe would occasion itself –and why did he order members of his administration to deny their was an
insurgency for many months after he had been advised by
Generals it was ongoing?
Three very interesting elements seem to come together
and I would greatly appreciate comments from scholars
on this list:
1) binLaden is biologically dead– gastrointestinal
infection has caused peritonitis and septicemia to
binLaden and he joins those facing Allah’s judgment,
not as a Jihadi shahid, but as a man killed by a
bacterium, e.coli! At the same time, Salafi Jihadi
websites are calling on Salafi Jihadi fighters to
engage in “alone Jihad.” The tactics taught on these
sites are means to pitiful nuisance done at an
individual level.
Rumsfeld’s whole 4th Generation Warfare and the War on
Terror bureaucracy are in danger of becoming a
collective case of all dressed up and nowhere to go.
Bush is desperate, as he faces public political
judgment now on issues other than the War on Terror.
He is not alone in suffering loss on the issue on
which he built his standing. Zawahiri can in no way
replace binLaden and so the concept of alQaeda is
undergoing molecular dissolution!
2) Jihad was a lot of talk directed at the “near
enemy,” the Arab secular government. Global Jihad did
not mean much until Khomeini brought it into being as
of a real Sharia Government in Iran. I recall the
1980s Sunni honor to this Shia mullah. But, Khomeini
was Shia, not Sunni. FIS and some in Algeria hoped
Algeria would become the Sunni response after the
Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt fragmented into tactical
power models that got nowhere. alQaeda’s 9/11 was
indeed a suicide act, making it no longer a base, but
a small cabal of tired aging men on the run, shooting
only with a video camera instead of a gun. Without
Iraq, thanks to Bush, it would have disappeared. But
Zarqawi and Cheney were a God-sent to alQaeda’s fading
image. Still, American power, again, proved that Fate
was with the Shia, for America turned Iraq over to
them, connecting through Syria, Iran to a “Shia
Crescent” through the Islamic World. Israel’s
ill-considered attack of Lebanon in 2006 has again
brought Iran’s standing in the Arab Street where
Khomeini put it in 1979.
3) The neocon motivation for American interventionism
in the Mideast was predicated on Israel’s prospects at
mastery of the Mideast through American force of arms,
per their proposal to Netanyahu, “A New Beginning.”
But that new beginning was wounded in Iraq and killed
in Lebanon. The funeral took place on Nov. 7th 2006
across America.
What is left now is a fragmented non-state terror
system and a Shia Crescent on which America will
depend in order to extricate itself from its ill-fated
war in Iraq. Thousands of young PhDs are left with an
instant expertise in a field that disappeared though
atomization. They will have to get taxi-driver
licenses, for there are not enough academic posts
available, nor is there any corporate need for their
“expertise.”
A little microorganism normally sessile in the bowel
has ended our glorious and meteoric career-maker War
on Terror into a dud. What are think tanks and necons
to do with their lives now, other than take sides on
“intelligent design”?
Daniel E. Teodoru
Danielet
You are not wholly right, but you are right about the Shia Crescent.
Meaning Strata is lodged in fantasy land when he ridicules Tony
Blair’s urging Bush to negotiate with Iran and Syria. My curiosity is piqued: when the inevitable happens will Bushophile Strata suddenly stumble on a revealed truth and reverse course, akin to the
Mormon’s revelation from God ending polygamy as trade-off
for Utah’s entry into the Union?