Feb 16 2007
When The US Shows Up In Force, Our Enemies Leave
If there ever was a better indication that (a) the Bush plan to surge forces into Baghdad and Anbar Province was correct and (b) Murtha, Pelosi and the Dems plans to run away were abysmally wrong it is in today’s news:
U.S. and Iraqi forces are meeting little resistance as they sweep through Baghdad, a U.S. officer said on Friday, a day after Iraq’s president said a Shi’ite militia had ordered its leaders to leave the country.
The head of al Qaeda in Iraq, Abu Ayyub al-Masri, was wounded on Thursday when Iraqi forces intercepted a group of al Qaeda militants heading to a volatile town north of Baghdad, an Interior Ministry source said.
…
In Baghdad, Iraqi and U.S. troops were out in force on Friday, manning checkpoints and searching vehicles for weapons under a new crackdown that exhausted Iraqis hope will stabilize the city after four years of war and worsening sectarian chaos.
U.S. Major Steven Lamb, a spokesman for U.S. forces stationed in Baghdad, said the offensive was going well.
“I wouldn’t say there has been a high level of resistance. I mean if you take a look at the stuff that was going on yesterday, we had relatively few incidents, but that may change today,” Lamb said.
Granted, one day is not going to make a trend, but the fact we found, attacked, wounded and nearly captured al Qaeda’s leader in Iraq coming with the news the Mahdi army has decided to blow town and hide out of country is what we needed to change the dynamics in Iraq. And we are still weeks away from full strength.
Actually, I am not surprised and I doubt the military is either. As more and more of Iraq became stable (and something like 14 out of 16 Provinces are fairly peaceful) there would be a time when the US would try and move forces to focus on the remaining hotspots. Up until now they tried to do that with forces in country, which allowed the insurgents and terrorists to move to the peaceful areas. So we adjusted by holding what we had and applying a surge of external forces. Not all that complicated – if you are looking for ways to win.
But the media should (and it won’t) be asking Democrats how retreating to Okinawa would have created these results? It is a simple question and one the begs the issue – why run away when our enemies do all the running when we show up in Force? If the Dems had their way, we would have been out of Iraq last year, and al Qaeda in Iraq would be a strengthening danger. Now its leader is injured and on the run. We are making our enemies redeploy – and someone needs to point that at to that clown Mad Murtha. If the Shia Militia have left Iraq, why should we leave and let them back in?
This goes beyond surrender. These insane ideas from the left seem more about helping our enemies survive to fight us another day, if not just letting them win without a fight. The Dems need to be pressed: why leave Iraq when our enemies our now leaving?
you will find a ABC news vid discussing AQ-Iraq connections pre Bush admin.
Let me try again:
here
STRATA BOOMS! “If the Dems had their way, we would have been out of Iraq last year, and al Qaeda in Iraq would be a strengthening danger. Now its leader is injured and on the run.”
This makes the fifth, sixth? “turning point” for AJ, some others
featured also ACTUAL KILLING of an al Qaeda leader.
Strata confuses guerrilla redeployment with “losing,” but also
praises a “strategy” now which he had never suggested until
Bush did, but which he now infers was obviously necessary years ago!
STEVE LA
You hurt a perfectly good comment by calling the Iraqis
“incompetent” and “cowardly” as there is no reason why they
should assist ANY AMERICAN IMPLEMENTED plan for
their country.
PMII
And I guess you believe Strata’s “14 of 16 fairly peaceful Iraqi
provinces ” “misjudgement.” Closer to the exact OPPOSITE is
true.
JACQI
Zawahari could have said the same in early 2004 when in the
first of a series of polls showing the same general results,
the dominant majorities of both Shia and Sunni were found
to be inalterably opposed to US occupation and approving
of the insurgency attacks on it. There never were going to be
significant numbers of Iraqs enthusiastically co-operating with
the invader.
MERLINOS2
The Iraqi military is itself pervaded by anti-American militias.
Any peace will not be an American-friendly peace.
ROONENT1
you said to Soothsayer
“You understand we were winning in Vietnam but lost the war, yet lefties like yourself play the same song again to assist the enemy and cause defeat of our American soldiers.”
Rather, you cannot assimilate his point-we were not winning the
broad guerrila war, ..nor did we have enough Vietnamese in our
camp to form a stable pro-American anti-communist government.
And there was no sign of it ever forming.
This applies to Ivehadit’s remark also, and by the way, many more than 40% of Americans oppose the war. Pagar also should get it right-there was no popular pro-American stable government to be formed in Vietnam, nor is there in Iraq.
Here’s a final Pagar quote…
“The fact that we have American service members under investigation for complaints filed, and evidence provided by the very enemy they are fighting is sickening.”
Pagar defines the “enemy” as the victimized Iraqi people.
No better example can be found of imperial hubris.
If we had never gone into Viet Nam, there would be ZERO (0), that’s ZERO Americans KIA in Vietnam.
And our national security would never have been threatened by Vietnam. Just as our national security is not NOW threatened by the Vietnamese.
What is it about: “Beware of foreign entanglements” you don’t understand?
Carol_Herman asseverates as a solipsistic mystic, but if you check her comments elesewhere she is not always right. She was all enthused about Israel trampling Hezbollah under in the recent Lebanon clash, for example–and it never happened.
“Just as our national security is not NOW threatened by the Vietnamese.”
But our national security is threatened by Islamic terrorists. So is the national security of a number of other countries. And they don’t go away if you just ignore them. We did that for thirty years, and wound up being attacked in our own country. Three thousand civilian deaths on one day is not something you can easily avoid. These terrorists have learned to expect some reward for their actions. You have to beat the crap out of them, show them they won’t gain anything, in order to get them to stop.
Al Zawahiri has already said he expects the U.S. to abandon the people of Iraq and Afghanistan, just as we abandoned the people of Vietnam.
Lassoo – The only person who booms in these comments is you. Nevertheless, you don’t seem to say much.
DennisA
” You have to beat the crap out of them, show them they won’t gain anything, in order to get them to stop.
Al Zawahiri has already said he expects the U.S. to abandon the people of Iraq and Afghanistan, just as we abandoned the people of Vietnam. ”
When you fight foreign jihads in Iraq, after you opend the door for them to enter, against the wishes of native Sunni Iraqis, you add to jihad ranks both there and worldwide. And you misquoted Zawahari in such a way as to justify your own fascist views. He referred to abandoning Iraqi collaborators, not to the Iraqi “people,” most of who would want your hide if you set foot there. I wouldn’t blame them.
Re Viet Nam and its importance:
The ASEAN countries, Philippines, Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore and Thailand stayed free of Communism because of the U.S. commitment to Vietnam. The Indonesians threw the Soviets out in 1966 because of America’s commitment in Vietnam. Without that commitment, Communism would have swept all the way to the Malacca Straits that is south of Singapore and of great strategic importance to the free world. If you ask people who live in these countries that won the war in Vietnam, they have a different opinion from the American news media. The Vietnam War was the turning point for Communism. (Westmoreland)
When the US Congress defunded the South Vietnamese Government (reneging on Nixon’s pledge to them) it fell.
We are repeating the same immoral political mistakes today that led to over a million deaths.
Read some history, Macker:
This is bullcrap. What’s your source? Whoops – wait – it’s www. miltary.com – and by the way , your post violates US copyright law.
When the US Congress defunded the South Vietnamese Government (reneging on Nixon’s pledge to them) it fell.
Nixon extendeed the war; and got no better terms than he would have gotten in ’68, for partisal political purposes and personal pride; in exchange, the US got an additionaly 30,000 names on the Wall.
Read Sideshow – by William Shawcross – if you want to know about deaths in Cambodia as a direct result of the illegal incursion of Spring 1970.
As for the Domino Theory – the predicate rationale for Vietnam – if the Domino Theory was true – then how come Laos, Cambodia, Thailand, Japan and AUstralia haven’t fallen under the wheels of the Commie juggernaut? Cause it was a myth all along. The Vietnamese were nationalists first, and communists second. For crying out loud, they’re capitalists now.
The entire was was a stupid and unnecessary waste of American lives and treasure – just like Iraq – which served only to divert resources AWAY from the war on terror and bin Laden.
Fascist views? LOL.
I think Soothie and Lassie got into some bad peanut butter…
Fascists? huh?
What do you call it?:
A philosophy or system of government that is marked by stringent social [anti-gay marriage, anti-abortion, warrantless wiretapping, search & seizure/law and order operations] and economic control, a strong, centralized government usually headed by a dictator [Bush/Cheney], and often a policy of belligerent nationalism [Invasion of Afghanistan, Iraq, threats against Iran, Syria and N. Korea]. (From The American Heritage Dictionary)
‘Fascism’ is derived from the Latin fasces, which means a bundle of rods with a projecting axe – the symbol of authority in ancient Rome. The term was first used by an Italian anti-socialist militia, the Fascio di Combattrimento, in 1919, and was applied by Mussolini to his movement after his rise to power in 1922.
The ideological basis of the movement was vicious anti-Communism and anti-liberalism. Communists were seen as unpatriotic traitors and liberals as weak muddlers. Fascists praised the strong bellicose leader [George W. Bush], exalted in dreams of national glory [We’re #1, Courtesy of the Red, White and Blue] and had a nostalgic vision of the past [Reagan’s mythical Morning in America].
Once in power, Fascism relied on an authoritarian state apparatus [NSA spying, warrantless wiretaps, control of electronic voting apparatus, the Patriot Act, No Child Left Behind, Military Commissions Act, attacks on free speech and habeas corpus] , and directed discontent against marginal groups [gays, illegal immigrants, minorities and artists]. Its main appeal was irrational, using emotive slogans and ancient prejudices to bolster the leader’s strongman appeal [Mission Accomplished].
It’s a friggin textbook case, dude, and like a fish in water, you can’t recognize the matrix you swim in.
Macker is correct. We withdrew from Southeast Asia, defunded the South Vietnamese government, and it had disastrous consequences. Some people who make appeals to history don’t seem to remember much of it.
What do you call it?
A philosophy or system of government that is marked by stringent social [gay marriage, abortion, warrantless wiretapping, search and seizure, attacks on free speech and habeas corpus] and economic control, a strong, centralized government usually headed by a dictator [Bush/Cheney], and often a policy of belligerent nationalism [invade Afghanistan and Iraq, threaten Iran, Syria, and North Korea]. (From The American Heritage Dictionary)
or
‘Fascism’ is derived from the Latin fasces, which means a bundle of rods with a projecting axe – the symbol of authority in ancient Rome. The term was first used by an Italian anti-socialist militiato his movement after his rise to power in 1922.
The ideological basis of the movement was vicious anti-Communism and anti-liberalism. Communists were seen as unpatriotic traitors and liberals as weak muddlers. Fascists praised the strong bellicose leader [the Unitary Executive: Bush the Texan], exalted in dreams of national glory [We’re #1 – Courtsy of the Red, White & Blue] and had a nostalgic vision of the past [Reagan’s mythical Mornign in America].
Once in power, Fascism relied on an authoritarian state apparatus [NSA spying, warrantless wiretaps, Patriot Act, Military Commission Act, attacks on habeas corpus, free speech and the Constitution], and directed discontent against marginal groups [gays, immigrants, welfare queens, liberals]. Its main appeal was irrational, using emotive slogans [Patriot Act, Homeland Security, Mission Accomplished] and ancient prejudices to bolster the leader’s strongman appeal [I’m the Decider!]. Fascism was a direct influence on Hitler’s Nazism, and on several other right-wing movements, including the Falange in Franco’s Spain and the Ustase in Croatia.
Please pardon the double posting. I hate it when that happens. Mea culpa, mean culpa, mea maxima culpa.
Al Jazeera, quoting Al Zawahiri, February 13, 2007:
He also said US-allied governments in Iraq and Afghanistan should consider their future.
“These traitors in Iraq and Afghanistan must face their inevitable fate, and face up to the inescapable facts. America … is about to depart and abandon them, just as it abandoned their like in Vietnam.”
Curious that people can post defenses of theocratic totalitarians, like al-Zawahiri, and then call people of no fascist leanings fascist. Makes you wonder about their judgment.
Can you point out any pro-al-Zawahiri posts – I must have missed them.
Soothie – trying to find examples that fit a dictionary definition does not make this a fascist government.