May 05 2007

We Want An Iraq Civil War – Duh!

Published by at 7:24 am under All General Discussions,Diyala,Iraq

Linda Chavez made the obvious point many have missed in her article out today: The article is about whether or not Dems are anti-war or anti-troop. But the real question is will the Dems become anti-America? Here is the crux of all this – we want a small civil war in Iraq and we want one side to win and we need to make sure that side wins. Sound strange? Only to those in the surrendermedia and liberal far left echo chamnbers. Here is Chavez’s point:

The problem in Iraq is not the performance or the mission of American forces. The biggest problem is that Iraq has become a battleground in an Islamic jihad against not only America and the West, but non-Islamist Muslims. Al Qaeda targets the Shiite population, while Iran and its puppets in Iraq target the Sunnis. This is not civil war as commonly understood but a proxy war between two radical extremes in the Islamic world.

There is not fighting between the radical Islamo Fascists of the Shiia persuasion and the Sunni (al Qaeda) persuasion. The Islamo-Fascists are attacking the moderate Muslims trying to enrage them into sectarian violence. But so far it has not really worked. This is the war between Islamo Facists and ‘mainstream’ Muslims we have needed to take shape. The civil war is the extremists against the Arab/Muslim street.

For most of the Iraqi forces here the areas they patrol are familiar. They know the people, the area, and who does not belong. This is where they grew up.

“This is my home,” said one Iraqi policeman, who asked not to be identified due to concerns about his family’s safety. “We grew up here and know people here. (Terrorists) need to leave or they die here.”

This is a huge advantage for the U.S. military which has seen its share of conflict spring up in this area.

We cannot change Islam alone. We can ally with those Muslims who are willing to reject and throw off the Islamo Fascists. We see indications ALL OVER Iraq that the brutality of the Islamo Fascists is turning the tide in our direction. Anbar Province is now primarily aligned against al Qaeda and extremists. Diyala Province is following suit. In the broader sense Saudi Arabia is fighting back as is Jordan and Pakistan and Afghanistan. Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain and The UAE are solidly against the Islamo Fascists. We have wanted the Muslims to take up this fight and stand for peace and co-existence and they are.

And this is the ‘civil war’ the Dems claim we do not want? This is the quagmire? No wonder they are known only for the most spectacular loss in America’s history. They are so oblivious they cannot see success when it is sprouting up all around them. The Hagel’s and Kerry’s of the world are known for their failure in Vietnam – and now they want company. They want a new generation of admirers who can claim ‘we failed just like you did’. They are not going to get them. This generation is more like my father’s – the WW II generation. They are smart, savvy, fearless – and for them ‘failure’ is still not an option. Watching the boomers fade is turning out to be a lot worse than I thought (I am at the tale end of the boomer generation). There are lots of great boomers – don’t get me wrong. President Bush comes to mind. But the group has some serious issues as we can see in the likes of Hagel and Kerry. They are so desperate to salvage their reputations that they become dedicated to creating another Vietnam no matter what the cost. Thankfully, they will fail at that too.

90 responses so far

90 Responses to “We Want An Iraq Civil War – Duh!”

  1. lurker9876 says:

    And, the AG non-scandal continues to fade away. The Senate Judiciary Committee is still struggling to keep the candle lit but to not a whole lot of success. Rove will continue to work through early ’09 unless he leaves on his own.

  2. Soothsayer says:

    Bush 41 ended the war early because it would have exceeded the UN mandate.

    Bullbleep. Bush 41 declined to take out Saddam Hussein because George H.W. Bush and Colin Powell understood the perceived benefits simply didn’t outweigh the risks, especially to American lives and treasure.

    the United States had little choice but to go after states that harbor terrorists. Afghanistan was first. Iraq was second.

    And just what terrorists was Saddam Hussein harboring? The mythical al_Qaeda connexion? Or the camp in the north of Iraq the Kurds allowed because of US aircover and the no-fly zone? This is where the delusional part kicks in.

  3. Soothsayer says:

    The biggest problem is that Iraq has become a battleground in an Islamic jihad against not only America and the West, but non-Islamist Muslims.

    Interesting enough, AJ says the biggest problem is Islamic fundamentalists and their jihad, and of course, before Saddam Hussein was deposed, Iraq was a secular B’aathist state and Hussein kept Islamic fundamentalists under his iron heel, just as Hafez as-Assad did to the Moslem Brotherhood in Syria.

    According to AJ’s logic then, Bush’s ill-advised invasion of Iraq CREATED the biggest problem we now face. More good work from the Chimp in the Oval Office. And, show me the figures that Bush’a average is at 35%.

  4. lurker9876 says:

    Thought for the Day

    Anyone read this thread along with the responses? It started out with a Machiavelli quote:

    [I]f you yield to a threat, you do so in order to avoid war, and more often than not, you do not avoid war. For those before whom you have thus openly demeaned yourself by yielding, will not stop there, but will seek to extort further concessions, and the less they esteem you the more incensed will they become against you. On the other hand, you will find your supporters growing cooler towards you, since they will look upon you as weak or pusillanimous. But if, as soon as you become aware of your adversary’s intentions, you prepare to use force, even though your forces be inferior to his, he will begin to respect you, and, since those with which you were allied will now esteem you, they will be ready to help when you begin to arm, which they would never have done had you given up.

    –Niccolo Machiavelli, Discourses Book II, Chapter 14.

    Not bad for a book written in 1517.

    Bush’s number showing the average of 35% with the spread of 22.8 You lose.

    Our invasion into Iraq to topple Saddam was the right and necessary thing to do. Congress supported the invasion. The American public supported the invasion. It was NEVER ill-advised.

    It was bin Laden that wanted to establish Iraq as the capital of the Islam Caliphate. That’s why it became the biggest problem and that’s exactly the way we wanted to happen. We want the Islamic fundamentalists to fight on their own ground. And we haven’t had another 9/11 attack since 9/11.

    Saddam never did keep the Islamic fundamentalists under his iron heel. In fact, he supported, trained, and financed these Islamic fundamentalists to be suicide bombers against the Israeli Jews and Americans.

  5. lurker9876 says:

    Anyone watching the live bloggings of the 2007 MILBLOG Conference?

    Wizbang has a few great posts.

    They were told to show up early this morning because they had a surprise waiting for them. It was a video of President Bush giving a speech, which brought to a very loud applause at the end.

    Do read on for what’s happened all day.

  6. lurker9876 says:

    From the above post:

    8:20 a.m. — Last night I was told there was a really special surprise in store for us to open the conference. I was told it was something I would definitely not want to miss. Andi opened by saying they asked someone to address the conference, and that it was a shot in the dark, but that he said yes. She then announced that the President of the United States would be addressing the 2007 Milblog Conference and many in the room gasped. The President then appeared on the two large screens at the front of the room. He thanked milbloggers for their contributions for telling the story from the field and for the charity work many have done on behalf of those in the military and their families. The room erupted in applause following his statement. Jim Hoft posted video of the President’s remarks. Also be sure to see Jim’s interview with J.R. Salzman. He has an amazing and inspiring story to tell. [Mary Katharine is blogging at Townhall.com.]

  7. MerlinOS2 says:

    Sooth look at the average presidential job approval ratings here

    http://tinyurl.com/25nvhe

    Poll Date Approve Disapprove Spread
    RCP Average 04/18 – 05/03 34.0% 60.2% -26.2%
    Newsweek 05/02 – 05/03 28% 64% -36%
    Rasmussen 04/30 – 05/02 39% 59% -20%
    Quinnipiac 04/25 – 05/01 35% 60% -25%
    CBS News/NY Times 04/20 – 04/24 32% 61% -29%
    NBC/WSJ 04/20 – 04/23 35% 60% -25%
    Pew Research 04/18 – 04/22 35% 57% -22%

  8. lurker9876 says:

    Thanks, Merlin!

    AJStrata,

    How does the performance of the 110th Congress’s 100 days compare to your predictions?

    Powerline has this Less is More

    “The Washington Post notices that the Democratic Congress hasn’t accomplished anything yet. It observes that “not a single priority on the Democrats” agenda has been enacted.

    Readers will recall that during the 2006 campaign, the Dems identified six relatively easy items, the quick of passage of which would ensure them of a flying start. The six were: increase the minimum wage, implement most recommendations of the 9/11 commission, allow federal funding for stem cell research, permit the government to negotiate prescription drug prices under Medicare, cut student loan rates and roll back certain tax breaks for oil and gas companies to finance alternative energy research.

    None has been enacted. The Post might also have noted that earmark reform has stalled despite the efforts of Republicans like Senator DeMint to push it into law.

    Apparently, leading Democrats like Leon Panetta and Rahm Emmanuel have become concerned about this lack of legislative achievement. Panetta thinks the Dems need to turn things around by the fall. However, Chris Van Hollen, who heads the House Democratic campaign committee, says that his party has until next year, when voters start focusing on the congressional races.

    I agree with Van Hollen. In fact, I would go further and question whether the Dems will pay an appreciate price even if they don’t enact much legislation by election day 2008. Parties typically sustain major losses in Congress when they are blamed for what’s considered a major national blunder and/or when the public becomes disgusted by years of bad congressional behavior. In the current environment, one unproductive Congress is unlikely to turn the tide.

    But it’s not to early to start building a record against the Democratic Congress. “

  9. MerlinOS2 says:

    Sooth

    Go back and read the Bush 41 UN authorizations and our own AUMF.

    It was ejection from Kuwait. Show me where he had the authorization to go into Baghdad and take down the country.

    History doesn’t change just because you want it to.

  10. lurker9876 says:

    Merlin, thought that Saudi Arabia allowed Bush 41 access to its bases as long as Bush 41 would push back the Iraqis from Kuwait and would not take over Baghdad (in addition to the UN resolution)?

  11. MerlinOS2 says:

    That too, but Sooth needs to do his homework. He’s still waiting for Truthout’s frogmarch of Rove.

    Also we did not totally wipe out Saddam’s military capability back then , even though we could have picked it apart, because we did not want even back then to weaken him so much that Iran would come strolling in through the door the minute we left.

  12. MerlinOS2 says:

    Even today’s global warming crowd would have wanted Saddam’s head on a pike for the impact of the oil well fires in Kuwait because of the pollution, CO2 generation and waste of oil resources. It took us months to put them all out.

  13. Soothsayer says:

    I guess it’s time for remedial math for Straspheristas: the average of the polls you cite is 34%. Or are you arguing that 34 is the new 35???

    Too bad – I win.

    Plus, you conveniently neglected the WSJ Harris poll of 4/26 of 28%, which further lowers the average to 33%.

    As for Bush 41, I didn’t say he had the authorization, I said the reason he didn’t was the very quagmire we are in now; this has been discussed ad nauseam, and you know it. Here’s an article from February of 2001:

    CONTRARY WISDOM: The U.S. shouldn’t have occupied Baghdad
    By STEVE SAILER

    Ten years after the liberation of Kuwait, almost all Americans seem to believe the U.S. military should have pushed on beyond the terms of the mandate that President George Bush had requested from the U.N. and conquered all of Iraq. Yet, a reasonable case be made that President George Bush and Chief of Staff Colin Powell made the prudent decision in calling off the ground war in the Gulf after only 100 hours.

    First, conquering Baghdad, Saddam Hussein’s capital, would have killed far more American soldiers and Iraqi civilians that the freeing of Kuwait did.

    Second, the post-war era would have been even more chaotic and dangerous if American had occupied Iraq. We like to dream that we could have converted Iraq into a peaceful democracy, just as we did with Japan and West Germany after WWII. The peoples of those two great industrial nations, however, had at least already learned how to work together with trust in the economic sphere. American proconsuls Douglas MacArthur in Japan and Lucius Clay in West Germany could thus extend that heritage of peaceful industrial cooperation to the political sphere.

    Further, occupying Iraq would have presented the U.S. with severe geopolitical dilemmas. Immediately after the war, Saddam’s ethnic enemies within Iraq – the Shiite Muslims in the south and the Kurds in the north – both rebelled. If we were running Iraq instead of Saddam, we would have been presented with the same urgent question: Do we let the Shiites and the Kurds break free and set up their own nation-states? Or do we fight them to keep Iraq whole? It would have been extraordinarily distasteful for us to capture Saddam, only to then take on his favorite pastime of crushing breakaway elements.

    Well, DUH! and Double DUH!!

  14. MerlinOS2 says:

    Sooth

    One article from a lefty and your quibble over a 1 or 2% math average shows how disingenuous you are. Do you mount goal post on wheels?

    There were predictions in the MSM that if we went into Baghdad when we actually did that US casualties would be over 30,000 just to take Baghdad.

    I could work down each and every point you made tonight and document why you are wrong step by step.

    But quite frankly you are not worth the effort. Each time you open your yap you embarrass yourself and you discredit your sides arguments.

    Feel free to continue digging.

  15. Soothsayer says:

    Another source:

    Brent Scowcroft in 2005:

    Scowcroft recalls advice he gave the first President Bush at the conclusion of the first Gulf War, when there was pressure to remove Saddam Hussein.

    “It would have been easy to reach Baghdad”, Scowcroft said, “but what then? ”

    “At the minimum, we’d be an occupier in a hostile land. Our forces would be sniped at by guerrillas, and once we were there, how would we get out? What would be the rationale for leaving? I don’t like the term ‘exit strategy’ — but what do you do with Iraq once you own it?”

    Scowcroft then said of Iraq, “This is exactly where we are now. We own it. And we can’t let go.

    Res ipsa loquitur.

  16. Soothsayer says:

    Geeze, talk about disingenuity! Merlin, do some research so your lies are not so obvious: Steve Sailer is a conservative and a Maggie Thatcher supporter, not a lefty, and if you could read, you’d understand his article was in support of George H.W. Bush and Colin Powell.

    Second, you’re goshdarned right I’ll argue over 2%. Any honest person would – or does this depend on what your definition of 35% is?

  17. MerlinOS2 says:

    Sooth

    I took a look at Sailers website.

    It seems to fit the kind of place you would hang out at.

  18. MerlinOS2 says:

    Yup.

    I mistyped lefty, sue me. It is the kind of place you would try to cherrypick for spin.

    Rave on McDuff.

  19. The Macker says:

    Sooth,
    For a little history, see:
    http://www.victorhanson.com/articles/hanson033107.html

    And the same characters that objected to GHWB not going to Baghdad, now call it a wise decision. Anything to detract from GWB.

    And as has been pointed out, a “proxy” war is different from a “civil” war.

    “quagmire” – I suppose like Vietnam?
    Your side needs fresh ideas.

  20. MerlinOS2 says:

    Macker

    Yup sooth is to easy, but lets just leave him counting paper clips in the freeway and watch the webcam to see how long it takes for an 18 wheeler to punt him through is mobile goal posts.