Nov 21 2006
Surrendering Iraq Is Surrendering The War On Terror
I pointed folks to Micheal Ledeen’s article on how the Baker ISG could be addressing the wrong issue. It is clear the right question is asked so we don’t destroy ourselves by misunderstanding the challenge we face right now.
Our strategists are constantly asked, how can we win the war in Iraq? But it is the wrong question, and therefore has no correct answer.
…
Instead of trapping themselves in an imaginary quagmire, the commissioners can help us face the real war. What’s going on in Iraq is not “the war,†which is raging over the entire world. The real question — the life and death question — is: How can we win the war in the Middle East, which now extends from Afghanistan to Lebanon, Iraq, Israel, and Somalia?
…
It forces us to confront the terror masters in Tehran and Syria as well as the killers in Iraq. If we ask how to win in Iraq alone, we are led into a fool’s errand of trying to convince our sworn enemies–Iran has been at war with us for twenty-seven years—to act like friends.
Read this and share it with everyone you know, because this was written five days ago, before there was a lot of talk about Syria and Iran getting involved. It illustrates perfectly how good people make serious mistakes – they answer the wrong question. Neville Chamberlain was not pro-Hitler or anti-Britain, he just came to the wrong conclusions. We must win this war and our leaving Iraq will not end the war, it will regenerate it into something much, much worse. If the ISG comes out without an answer to this bigger question, then they will have wasted a lot of time and money. Ledeen gives us a glimpse of the kind of answer we should see forth coming:
But if we ask how to win the war, we can see that we have many good cards to play, and many real allies, from the Iranian and Syrian people to the millions of Kurds in Iran, Iraq and Syria, to several other oppressed groups throughout the region, and even to leaders who today denounce us.
He also clearly demonstrates the damage the Liberal Democrats and media have done to our war efforts – and continue to do:
Take Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki, for example. Several commentators flew into a rage when Maliki went to Tehran to kiss the turban of Supreme Leader Khamenei, as if this were an expression of Maliki’s deep affection for his neighbors. It isn’t, but Maliki knows they can blow him up, kidnap his relatives, and blackmail his friends. He has no reason to believe that we are going to save him from the Iranians, nor indeed that we are going to win this thing at all. From his point of view, we’re bugging out of the real war, and all the talk about negotiating with Damascus and Tehran can only reinforce this belief. He undoubtedly believes — don’t you? — that we are just marking time until we can dump it all in his lap. Very few Iraqi Shiites dream of living in an Iranian-style Islamic Republic, but they all know that if we lose, they will have to come to terms with Tehran. Maliki is trying to save his neck. Who wouldn’t?
Why did Maliki take these steps? The far left and far right abondoned our President and our military. They ran away in a fit of partisan opportunism. Shame on them. But the rest of us still need the right answers. We have been offered plenty of ways to lose this thing. Now we need some ideas on how to win it.
And I know how much it bothers Strata and you that this particular leak exposes a resilient, unbeatable Iraqi insurgency which indeed is rolling in the dough so much it can afford to bankroll other
insurgents….perhaps even some who will come here and prove the case more quickly that the Iraq War has made us UNSAFER not more safe.
Ken, so after you stated that the British Empire crumbled under Churchill, and you can’t name just one country that crumbled under him, you want me to read some nuts explanation of what he thinks Churchill did that caused it to fail way on down the road somewhere. Well, you don’t get any debate style points.
The statement “that the British Empire crumbled under Churchill” can not in any way be read to mean that it failed in some future year ‘after’ Churchill, during someone’s else’s term.
If we can interpret things that way? Can we then say that the (and I’m quoting you) build up of the American Empire and the invasion in Iraq were the fault of Bill Clinton? Is it always the fault of the Man in Charge prior to the event occuring that is responsible?
Well, Ken, that’s a novel approach, but as you well know, that won’t wash.
The statement “that the British Empire crumbled under Churchill” can only mean that it occurred WHILE Churchill was Da Man. And that one country is?
Nice try. Consistent for you. Oh, okay, one style point for consistent. Something you never are.
Yes, we can say that Bill Clinton has some responsibility for the
actions of the American Empire, as when he assaulted Serbia.
In fact,any president after Ike who failed to heed his warning of the MI complex and went on increasing its funding assumes partial
responsibility.
And the reason Strata should ban you ,other than your constant redefining left and right around the war issue, is you feel free to quote
quarter and half sentences, omitting the balance–this is
beyond the pale and I say that as a man with a Journalism degree,
simpleton.
Ken, you’re not worth it. If you ever supply a country that left the British Empire under Churchill, I might respond to you. But your constant babbling just isn’t worth listening too. I won’t be responding to you any more. You and everything you say is a waste of time.
For Enforcement
Your a jackass who believed the KKK was founded in the North.
I don’t respond to kindergarteners asking historical questions
until they graduate to first grade.