Jan 08 2007
What To Do About Iraq?
Update: The fiasco has begun, and it is Dems against Dems as some Democrats see the danger of quitting Iraq without good cause and without trying to win first:
Some of the other leading Democrats in Congress aren’t ready to echo House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s suggestion that lawmakers might hold up funding for additional troops in Iraq.
…
But Pelosi’s second-in-command in the House Democratic leadership, Steny Hoyer, told Fox News he doesn’t ”want to anticipate” that possibility. And the Democrat who chairs the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Joe Biden, says Congress doesn’t have the power to second-guess Bush’s military strategy — because lawmakers had voted to authorize him to wage war. Biden appeared on NBC’s ”Meet the Press.”
…
When asked about Pelosi’s remarks, a White House spokesman said Bush welcomes any ideas on Iraq that ”lead to success.”
Like shooting dead fish in the bottom of an empty barrel. Dems need to explain why they cannot find a winning solution. That should be fun to watch. And Biden, for once, is showing what it means to think things out. The Dems authorized Iraq in greater numbers than they did the first Gulf War. They cannot go back on that now. And Pelosi is pulling a Clinton – by not supporting our troops. People may recall that the entire reason the Black Hawk incident happened in Mogadishu was because Clinton’s Sec Def refused to authorize sufficient support for the mission. They tried to do the mission without heavy armor on the ground – and people died brutally because of that decision. And the decision cost the new Sec Def his job. Pelosi is making a bush league mistake. Clearly she did not mastermind the win of Congress as much as the Reps gave it away from their bad decisions. Right now there is not a huge resevoir of good will towards DC pols. So if the mistakes keep coming at this pace 2008 will not even be close.
– end update
In a word: “win”. The Democrats and the left are truly misguided. Dangerously misguided. Today Michael Barone (ever the gentleman) applauds the Democrats’ sincerity in calling for America’s defeat. Sincerity doesn’t equate to “correct” or “wise”. Most people are absolutely sure of themselves when they make mistakes. Why else would they make them?
Iraq is very winnable, and is actually being won. We have established the Democratic government through high turn out elections. And the ugly process of consensus (vs armed progroms) is working its way as the Islamo Fascists do what they can to tear the country apart. Personally I think, if Iraq is still together after all of the bloodshed and the election of a defeatist party in the US, the democratic country of Iraq will no doubt succeed. Many do not share this view – but that is also typical.
Too many people live in the “now” and become obsessed with their views having to be 100% right. I tend to the long view and I know nothing will transpire as I think it will – never has and never will. I can navigate and prepare and plan for a lot. But in the end fate rules and rarely exposes what is to come. Few understood the power of the world wide web (www) when it first appeared around 1990-91. Few ever thought the iron curtain would fall. Few ever thought 9-11 would happen. The fact people do not see something coming is not a good indicator it is not there.
The Democrats do not grasp the danger of giving Iraq to Al Qaeda. In their insane world of upside down obsession, it is now OK to give Iraq’s weapons technology, natural resources and highly educated population over to Al Qaeda – because Al Qaeda was never in Iraq when Saddam was in power. Try and wrap that kind of thought process in logic and you will hurt yourself. Al Qaeda was not aligned with Iraq, so we should never have gone into Iraq, and so we should now give the country to Al Qaeda – which is the reason we went into Iraq: to keep Al Qaeda out of Iraq. That is painful just to type.
But that is Democrat ‘logic’! I really did not expect them to push for something in the majority that they were afraid to push openly all those years in the minority. The Democrats were afraid to tell the public they wanted to surrender Iraq to Al Qaeda during the election because they would, rightfully, be seen as pulling the rug out form all our heroic men and women in the military. They would be seen as throwing all the lives lost in the conflict into the trash can of political expediency. If the Dems cannot stand up for the Iraqis who are striving to be free and democratic, they will not stand up for anyone.
So why is it the Dems are emboldened now? Do they think the title ‘majority’ (as razor thin as it is) is some kind of special cloaking device that will fool the masses? Does Speaker Pelosi somehow think her historic position has bequeathed her with omnipotence and protection from ridicule? That seems to be the case. That which they dared not speak publically for years they now say openly because they think their new roles will protect them. Sort of pathetic really.
So let’s recap the Democrat surrender plan. Since Saddam was not in league with Al Qaeda (who are clearly trying to find a way to repeat 9-11) we should not have freed the Iraqi people and developed the first Muslim Arab democratic state. The logic here is also astounding. The only reason we would help establish democracy in Iraq is if Saddam had allied with Al Qaeda – otherwise no need. That is strange logic right there. And because Saddam was not aligned with Al Qaeda, we should surrender Iraq to Al Qaeda now and betray all those Iraqis fighting to be our ally. It truly is a wonder, that kind of thinking. A wonder this country will survive the next two years of Democrat ‘thinking’. Of course this all begs the question: if we surrender Iraq to Al Qaeda, will the Dems finally feel justified in having the US in Iraq and supporting the fledgling democracy? Will we then go back in to protect Iraq from Al Qaeda as was the original concern?
And we know more is coming from the Democrats (heaven help us). To protect us from terrorists Dems plan to stop listening in on terrorists as they make their plans, because we may accidentally listen in on an innocent American talking innocently to Bin Laden. And they will protect us by supplying enemy combatants with lawyers and trials, so we can never interrogate them on what bloody plots are in the works. And the Patriot Act will be repealed, so that terrorism is once again less of a threat than drug and crime lords.
Sadly, this upside down logic is all consuming for the Dems, since its genesis is anything Bush is for the Dems are against. Bush is for protecting this country from attack – he has said so many times. Therefore, the Dems are against his efforts. Which brings us back to what America will think of all this. If the Dem’s nifty logic pretzels don’t worry them, the fact the Dems are fighting our President and his efforts to protect us will surely be noticed. It seems the Dems are pushing to do more for Al Qaeda than for America these days. And they have sincerely come to the conclusion this is best for America. Winning in Iraq is best for America and anything else is a disaster.
It’s been said that “all military planning, ahead of time, meets chaos, as soon as the battle is met. (Still? Victor Hugo, no fan of Napoleon’s, drew the conclusion that in napoleon’s “last battle,” at Waterloo, the man of calculus won. Napoleon’s genius was defeated for lack of an exit strategy.)
And, as FATE would have it, we all have to guess at what future outcomes might be.
On the other hand? The ISG report (Iraqi “didn’t study enough” Group)’s findings; turns out that it could be Bush’s TROJAN HORSE. And, it was welcomed into the media’s showplace. And, adopted by the donks.
Which means, engaged or not; the donks are on the elite’s path. Not one ever taken by Bush at all.
And, it’s been a long, long time since the press has gotten anything right about this war. (Well? WW1 didn’t get its conclusions drawn up so quickly, either. It took about a decade for All Quiet on the Western Front to show up. And, then the First World War’s conclusions brought rank pacifism to europe. When it needed to follow another course.)
I’ll gamble and say that the Iraqi PEOPLE, themselves, know there are benefits to being rid of Saddam. And, that in Iran, those who embraced the Ayatollah, and what followed, can only regret the path the religious nutters led them down upon. And, then those mad mullahs stole the government’s riches. By divesting the people, themselves, of running their own country.
So you can pretty much assume russia’s not the only place on earth where centralization ran things into the ground. No matter how rich putin became. It’s a meaningless index when millions of people are involved.
So, up ahead? Baghdad’s coming under control. And, Maliki, even after he had “his day in Jordan,” which more more a slap in the face as the jordanian kinglet, than anything else, seems to be back on board the train with the American label on the engine.
Does it mean things go well for the Saudis?
Ya know, I actually think the Saudi’s are facing Ken Lay’s dilemma, after Enron ran into it’s OWN troubles! Bush isn’t into “bailouts” of failed leaders. Business, or otherwise. He trades away whatever fails to amuse him. Remember Barry Bonds?
So, up ahead? I think to the surprise of the donks, and the PLEASURE OF MAINSTREAM AMERICA, Bush will set a pace that the iranians won’t be able to keep up with … And, if Bush says Reagan is his hero, then it’s worth knowing that Reagan wasn’t in fear of congress. And, he did what he had to do while he was president.
Fooling the donks with ISG? Brilliant. Who knew?
By the way, “if” Iraq’s at war, it sure has an interesting way of showing it. Because the value of their money RISES. Usually that happens only after the war is over. And, progress is in reconstruction.
While what did the media buy recently? The AP is stuck out there on a Captain, whom they say “really, really exists.” Only problem is, this Captain doesn’t work in the town that came up with the burning imam reports.
So, there ya go. Jason Blair really, really exists as well. But the New Yuk Times couldn’t afford to keep him salaried. (Or was he fired because he was Black?) I really don’t care.
Which democratically elected Shia-government allows ethnic cleansing of Sunnis, while supporting Hamas, Hezb’Allah, and aligning itself with the fundamentalist Shia government of Iran.
Al-Qaeda is a Sunni organization. The majority Shia in Iraq are not going to allow Al-Qaeda to take over. What may happen is a proxy war between Al-Qaeda and the Sunni – bankrolled by Saudi Arabia – versus – the Shia majority – financed by Iran – and the Kurds. In no case will Al-Qaeda become the dominant entity in Iraq. That’s poppycock.
The Democrats are emboldened because 70% of the American people now realize that the neocon/Bush solution in Iraq is doomed to disastrous failure, AND, as conservative columnist Robert Novak reports, Bush can find support from only 12 REPUBLICAN Senators for his crack-pot scheme of Surge and Accelerate.
Bush will try to sell his new Iraq plan with benchmarks the Iraqi government must meet along the way to standing up for itself. Problems?: 1) Bush can’t make the benchmarks clear without reversing his opposition to “arbitrary timelines”; 2) anything short of “or else” benchmarks will parrot the “stand up, stand down” rhetoric we’ve all heard before; and 3) no matter what Bush says about his plan, it isn’t what the American people want – out of Iraq.
This weekend Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno, the new commander of U.S. forces in Iraq said even after a “surge” it’s going to take “two or three years” for the United States to accomplish even limited goals. “The mission now is to defeat the … insurgency and to train Iraqi security forces,” Odierno said. “Over time, we can accomplish this over two or three years.”
It’s pretty clear that what Odierno meant by “speed it up” was not “send more troops” but “bring them home.” “Unfortunately what we’re starting to show some lack of is patience,” he said. “I think it’s too important not to have patience.”
But back to the president’s predicament. If his “surge” were really a “surge” — a plan to send a force to Iraq so huge that victory would be inevitable and quick — there’s a chance that the American people might get behind it as some kind of last best hope. But that’s not what Bush has in mind. Instead, the president is reportedly looking at sending something like 20,000 more troops. Even John McCain says:
And the 20,000-30,000 Bush envisions is not going to cut that mustard. Lord help the Republicansif there are still troops on the ground in November ’08.
Lewis,
You willing to guarantee on the life of your loved ones Al Qaeda will not take over Iraq? And please don’t be so silly as to claim you will. Derangement does not equate to superiority!
And 70% of the people want us to win in Iraq. It just defeatists like you who want America to lose. And why should we lose? What is happening there that would make us turn tale? Is it hard? Yes. But I repeat – we lose more people on our highways in one month than we did in three years in Iraq. Should we also stop driving since it is killing Americans and a rate of over 1000 times higher than the Iraq effort?
Whinge all you want Bobby – but that is exactly why the Democrats are screwing up their big opportunity. Just like Clinton did – only faster.
This is more a proxy battle against the Iran/Syria axis. The Syrians offer support to the Sunni insurgent groups and the Iranians mainly to the Shiite groups but some recent evidence shows Iran supporting both sides. Basically the idea is to generate persistant mayhem until the US Congress pulls the plug on US operations. Iran and Syria then effectively split Iraq possibly leaving a Kurdish “autonomous” region, or possibly not.
Also Iran is really feeling the pinch of lower oil prices and is taking desparate measures to jack the prices up. Today they threatened to block the Straits of Hormuz to all oil flow if the West continues with their sanctions. I don’t believe they CAN block the Straits but this is designed to create jitters in the oil markets and drive the prices higher.
The Democrats either do not understand the nature of what we are dealing with or they are banking on the fact that the majority of their voters don’t.
Lord help the Republicansif there are still troops on the ground in November ’08.
We still have troops on the ground in both Germany and Japan, 61 years later.
It seems to me there are only two ways to truely win the war in the Iraq theatre. Both ways seem unpopular, but one or the other must be done.
1. Take on Iran and Syria Militarily. Not popular, but certainly is a logical option. After all, the vast majority of the Terrorists, their bombs and weapons, are coming from those two Countries. If you don’t stop more Terrorists from entering the Country, how will you ever win?
2. Secure The Border. Also very unpopular. If you don’t want more Terrorist coming in, then use most of the likely “Surge” in troops to keep people from entering. If you have a hole in a ship, and your taking on water, shouldn’t you first plug the hole? But that also has problems. Because if you can secure the borders of Iraq, then wise people back home will think, hmmm… why can’t we secure our own borders? So, I suspect that wont be tried either.
I’m all for this war, it is at least as important as WWII. But I have my doubts that we will stop the flow of terrorist into Iraq, because the best two options are politicaly unpopular. And if you don’t stop the flow of Terrorist from entering, I don’t see how we can actually quel the Violence.
Off to work, enjoy your day.
You also have to understand that our perception of the events there are likely skewed by fabricated news reports. For example, how can Iraqi and MNF troops and Iraqi police arrest dozens of people every day and yet the violence level has stayed basically the same for the past three months? How come we break kidnapping and killing cells yet the number of kidnappings and killings doesn’t drop … neither does it increase. It stays about the same. I suspect that while a good number of the news reports are genuine, enough phony reports are given to the media to keep the appearance of the violence higher than it actually is.
Part of this also has to do with how the media words their stories too. As Iraqi forces gain control and take the lead in more areas, we can concentrate on the other areas. This means that we will take more casualties while at the same time take out more of the trouble makers. The media reports this as an increase in violence or increase in activity by the insurgents when it is actually an increase in activity on our side in getting to them and rooting them out.
Afghanistan is a recent example of this kind of reporting. NATO forces are now operating in areas that had not seen an Allied troop since the initial defeat of the Taliban. We are locating local Taliban cells and taking them out. The media reports this as stepped up activity by the Taliban and some kind of evidence that they have gone on some sort of offensive when the truth is the opposite.
Be careful of what information you use to draw your conclusions about what is going on there. The media is being played like a fiddle.
wow, strata. if you’re going to present what “the other side” thinks, maybe you should come up with a version that actually reflects what real liberals advocate. i see a lot of stereotyping, but not much even analysis.
al qaeda is in iraq because of the u.s. invasion. they came there to fight the u.s. aside from a small minority of the sunni arabs (who are themselves a minority in iraq), al qaeda is not welcome there, except to the extent that they are fighting the american occupiers. if the u.s. leaves, it is not at all clear that al qaeda will stay. in fact, the opposite is quite likely instead.
furthermore, the longer we stay the more entrenched al qaeda becomes in iraq. islamic fundamentalism was alien to afghanistan back in the 1970s. but the protracted fighting against the soviet occupiers radicalized the populace and the misery of war made the taliban and the order they represented more popular among the afghan people. the best way to assure that iraq follows afghanistan’s 1990s model and becomes a permanent haven for terrorists is to keep our forces in iraq.
it’s weird that you guys think you’re in the majority on this issue. some 90% of iraqis want u.s. force to leave, and almost 70% of americans want some kind of pullout as well. the surge is only supported by 11-12% of the american public, almost as many people who believe the moon landing was faked. what you’re advocating here is really the far fringe of american discourse. or it would be if not for the fact that our president is currently on the fringe as well.
so that’s what a real liberal thinks. just so you know.
CP,
Banking on the voters to not care or know is always a losing gambit. The Reps made the same mistake on lost Congress. The Dems seem happy to go full tilt and repeat.
BTW, the hearings are going to be a disaster for the Dems. The administration’s response to all criticism will be “sure it is hard, and there are no easy asnwers. Any who suggests there is an easy answer is demonstrating naivete, not leadershiop”.
The Dems now own Iraq and must find a way to win because it is trivial to expose the fallacies behind surrendering to Al Qaeda. They will soon be seen as the empty suits they truly are.
Upyournoz,
I am an independent – not a republican. I used to be a democrat. All you did was post what one liberal – yourself – thinks. Now who is being egotistical in thinking who they represent????
LOL! Too funny.
Leave, it’s a barfight now – let them go until their done. You can call in the neighbors and local police to straghten things out, but they’ll tell you the same thing. Bad neighborhood, time to pack up and move on, take our money with us. Too bad we can’t leave behind those macho-poseur leaders/idiots in our group that provoked the whole thing in the first place.
Jerry,
That has to be the lamest argument I have heard yet. It isn’t a piece of cake so we better walk away before someone gets hurt. It’s okay for Iran and Syria to take a chunk out of Iraq, that’s fine.
What crap.
Omigod – ROTF – things were sure screwed up with Clinton – record surpluses, booming economy, things were so bad we impeached a president because he had a dick and somebody sucked it.
If you think we’re going to defeat al-Qaeda in Iraq you’ve been smoking too much crack.
Right you are, Jerry – it is a bar fight – and they’ve already had “last call.”
Robert,
Are trying to claim Clinton invented the internet boom? Who are you – Al Gore’s sock puppet?
Clinton was handed a good economy from the Reagan/Bush years and for most of his term had a Republican congress so it didn’t get screwed up right away. There was the big tech boom during that period too with an “irrational” runup of stock prices that began to fall apart in March of Clinton’s last year in office. By the time Clinton vacated the White House in 2001, the economy was already in recession. My company had their first wave of “tech bust” layoffs in December of 2000, before Bush took office.
Clinton’s SEC helped fuel that runup on Wall Street by having an SEC that looked the other way at securities fraud. Such scandals as Worldcom and Enron were cleaned up under the Bush administration and the individuals involved prosecuted. These people built those houses of cards under Clinton’s watch.
CP
Jerry is a closet liberal it seems!
Runaway from Al Qaeda in Iraq? Just so they can come here?
Where does this craziness come from?
Also … I consider myself more Libertarian than Republican but lately the national Libertarian party has been rather nuts. I registered Republican because I wanted to get the sample ballots and notifications of polling places … I never got those when I was registered Libertarian.
I would never consider registering Democratic because I believe the Democrats are destructive to our way of life. I can not understand a party who would have us walk away from a fight with people who would install governments run by thugs who would execute homosexuals and rape victims. But that seems to be what the Democrats want. They say one thing with their words, but do something completely different in deeds.
Al Qaida already did come here … twice. Once with the first WTC bombing and then with the 9/11 events. I can not understand this nonsensical thinking that somehow if we just walk way, they won’t hurt us. Clinton tried that in Somalia and got the embassy bombings for it.
I am an independent – not a republican.
did i ever say otherwise?
I used to be a democrat.
again, relevance?
All you did was post what one liberal – yourself – thinks. Now who is being egotistical in thinking who they represent????
you’re right, which is why i ended my comment with “so that’s what a real liberal thinks.” get it? a real liberal. i never was claiming to give the opinion of all liberals, i was only speaking for myself.
you, on the other hand, wrote stuff like “The Democrats and the left are truly misguided” which sounds to me like you’re the one painting with the broad brush, not me.
since you were talking about “democrats and the left” in general, i just wanted to point out that what you described bore little or no resemblance to what many liberals think, using myself as the single counter example because i know my opinions better than some other person’s.
i don’t think there was anything necessarily egotistical about it. you were generalizing, i was providing a specific example to show that your generalization does not apply to everyone.
The new Iraq strategy…
We lack the ruthlessness to prevail in Iraq….