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.
AJ:
I usually agree with you but there is no reason to compare Baker to Chamberlain and Ladeen has a point in regards to the larger war, but he has also been saying for years that Iran would crumble from within and it has not and the politcal will is not there to go after them.
I think you nailed it here AJ. There are a lot of manuevers in middle eastern politics that are not always what they seem. Most of the time, they put a lot of effort into appearences while they toil away to do the exact opposite of their seemingly friendly gestures in the background. I don’t think Americans have any idea of how true the parable of the turtle and the scorpion is.
I think the democrats played a cynical political game to win this last election. They were against war, well damn, who isn’t. I don’t like war either but I spent over 20 years in the military because it’s a job that has to be done. The cynical part is that they KNEW the idea of pulling out all of our troops in a short period of time and miraculously having peace on earth was a canard. But they could play on those anti-war emotions of liberals and uncertain angst of conservatives to change enough votes to win. As far as the ISG goes, I think most of them view the world through rose-colored blinders. but when they sit down and actually try to have an intelligent discussion about what will happen if we just quit, they know it could lead to a meltdown in the middle east, and they are not going to take the responsibility for it. For one thing, it might just prompt Isreal, who would seem to be left out to hang, to attack Iran on its own. Lebanon could break hard with Syria and the Hizzbolah over recent assassinations and the using of their country as a proxy to fight Isreal. Those possibilities and several more we can’t even contemplate have the potential for ratcheting up a relatively medium size war into a major one with a lot more players.
“Or consider Michael Ledeen, who in the mid-80’s was classified by official CIA documents as an “agent of influence” of Israel. Michael, it seems, has a long history of discomforting his co-workers by hanging around when documents he wasn’t cleared to see were present and even asking for those documents by the classified names of then he was not even supposed to know.”
excerpt pasted from American samzsidat…
Ledeen has been trying to embroil America in a war with Iran
for many years. His assertion implying the US would have broad
support among Iranians is lying propaganda of the type his fellow
neocons were assuring us waited in Iraq.
Strata should be far more concerned about this coteries’
motives than the CIA crowd he complains about, though I
believe both that the CIA should be abolished and the neocons
driven from influence in the foreign policy arena.
Bikerken let Ken set you straight on Lebanon. Hezbollah and Syria
are popular there now with many if not most Christians, repelled by the recent barbaric Israeli invasion. No chance of their “breaking”
with either.
Well Ladeen has a point abou Maliki being between a rock and hard place. He is, but I think the Democrats are already backing off their plans to redeploy to Okinawa.
As for people looking at things with blinders, I think we all do that to a certain extent but I don’t think the ISG is going to call for a pull out and in fact there have been other indications here of late that there might actually be a big push coming.
We do however, have to deal with the reality that a lot of Americans are not only disappointed with Maliki, there are a lot of Iraqis who are beginning to doubt their government’s ability to protect them.
So tell me Ken do you have a problem with that man being murdered in Lebanon or do you think it is aok since your heroes the mullahs are probably behind it?
http://www.victorhanson.com/articles/hanson111706.html
VDH reviews the options and offers that our troop numbers are sufficient but need to be given more tactical freedom. He argues for more Iraqification.
Iraq is an important part of the GWOT. To think of it in isolation is reductionist thinking of the worst kind.
Ken,
Many of the Christians have already abandoned Lebanon.
Ken, Hizzbolah and Syria are popular in Lebanon like the street gangs are popular in Los Angeles. When someone parks a tank in your front yard and ask’s, “Are you fur us or agin us?” you’re likely to see the most positive side of the situation as far as they know. I have close friends with family in Sidon Lebanon and the situation there is not so simple. Syria damaged it’s relations with the Lebanese when they killed Rafik Hariri, and they’re still assassinating popular Lebanese politicians, even today. The Lebanese are NOT happy with this! I spent a few years in the middle east, I don’t know where you get your info from.
And Nobody needs to push us into a war with Iran, they have been on the warpath with us and a few others since the late seventies.
One more thing, the CIA doesn’t need to be abolished, it’s nothing but a bunch of left wing bureaucrats now anyway. It was effectively nuetered by the Church Commision during the Carter administration.
Bikerken
Opinion polls of Lebanese show both a dramatic decline of positive attitudes about America and rise is approval of Hezbollah after
the Bush/Rice encouragement of and refusal to rein in Israel’s
invasion. The popular Christian Maronite Aoun is even aligned
with hezbollah now.
And certainly many Arab Christians have left the Mideast because
America’s policy has brought Christianity into disrepute among
otherwise friendly Moslems, that policy of course being subservience to whatever Israel wants.
Ken, I would agree that Lebanese are also angry at Isreal because they feel they are being punished for Syria’s actions. That being said, “America’s policy has brought Christianity into disrepute among OTHERWISE FRIENDLY MOSLEMS??????? What color is the sky in your world Ken? You obviously have a visceral hatred of American and by your previous posts I would assume the same attitued toward anyone to the right of Noam Chomsky. I can’t imagine how it would make me feel to hate my own county so much that I saw the rest of the world’s actions as a result of our own foolishness and despicable motives.
I suggest you ask those millions of christians in Darfur about the Otherwise friendly Moslems who seem to take such great joy in raping and slaughtering them. Otherwise friendly Moslems seem to be causing much mischief in places that you would really have to twist some logic to blame the U.S. for. But I’m sure you could.
Christian-Moslem relations in Palestine and surroundingareas
were much better in the hundred years before the advent of Israel
and particularly before the Reagan era ushered in the Israeli practical control of US government policy, which Moslem Arabs associate with Christianity.
Christians were protected under Saddam’s Baathist rule;they
have been attacked roundly, being seen as potential US collaborators since its fall and are leaving in significant numbers.
Ken,
A hundred years before Israel, there was no Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, or Iraq. The Ottoman Empire chose to side with Germany in WWI. Bad choice!
“Christians fleeing Labanon” is unrelated to Saddam, but related to Hezbollah aand Islamic intolerance.
From “counterterrorismblog.org†is a must read—
On Iraq: Listen carefully to General Abizaid
By Walid Phares
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/11/21/eveningnews/main2204339.shtml
looks like Strata’s vaunted “training” of Iraqis is a flop….
Ken, what’s a neocon?
If one were to believe that all of the violence in the world is due to American actions, I have to ask: What did Clinton do that so enraged them? 9/11 was conceived, trained for, and positioned for under Clinton’s watch. Only the final few months were under Bush’s watch. And what about our embassies and the Cole bombings? All on Clinton’s watch.
Just exactly how was Bill Clinton so terrible that he precipitated all this hatred against the US and are we sure we want another Democrat in the White House if the last one caused this much trouble?
Hey Ken, re our earlier exchanges on Lebanon, headline Drudge:
Rage against Syria fuelled by minister’s assassination
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2465224,00.html#cid=OTC-RSS&attr=World
you people are talking way, way over Ken’s head.
Enforcement
Why do I have the image of a one legged man in an arse kicking contest?
Sort of like Forest Gump without the humanitarian insight.
Perhaps his commitment will be turned to something positive when he grows up.
In a way it doesn’t matter, we will progress even if he is wanting to be a sea anchor to slow progress.
Well I gotta go have about 150 guests for Thanksgiving coming and I have preps to do.
Amazing how capitalism works, Turkeys are not native to my vacation home here in Maui, but I have enough of them to support the celebration.
Who would have thought!