Jul 27 2008

Victory In Iraq Is Here – Yet Obama And Surrendercrats Still Crave Defeat Against al-Qaeda

Senator Obama’s position on The Surge in Iraq is quite a stunning one. Even with victory at hand he stands by a failed plan for surrender and defeat to al-Qaeda. Even with the SurrenderMedia finally admitting Iraq is on the path to victory, Obama has decided he still thinks defeat at the hand of al-Qaeda was the better option!?

Why? What possible benefit could America derive from entering a war in Iraq against terrorism and losing? What is better than having those terrorists flood all their forces into Iraq – diverting them from Western targets – only to be decimated, while the Iraq Muslim street determines the future of Islam is not following al-Qaeda but working within the international community and dealing with the US of A as an ally? What would have been the upside to losing Iraq, to losing our new Muslim allies, of supporting the idea al-Qaeda is the future for Islam in a clash of civilizations that could spread across the globe? What would defeat in Iraq provide us?

The only upside I can see is to imbibe a modicum of credibility upon a group of petty and angry liberals who would tip the world into years of war just to get some political pay-back on George W Bush. Appeasing the emotionally stunted victims of Bush Derangement Syndrome (BDS) is probably the worst reason man has ever created to go to war.

Let me violate my ban on AP for one instance so we can savor the SurrenderMedia finally admitting that Iraq is being won, if not already won:

The United States is now winning the war that two years ago seemed lost.
Limited, sometimes sharp fighting and periodic terrorist bombings in Iraq are likely to continue, possibly for years. But the Iraqi government and the U.S. now are able to shift focus from mainly combat to mainly building the fragile beginnings of peace — a transition that many found almost unthinkable as recently as one year ago.

Despite the occasional bursts of violence, Iraq has reached the point where the insurgents, who once controlled whole cities, no longer have the clout to threaten the viability of the central government.

Emphasis mine. The potential for success was only unthinkable to those emotionally committed to the idea Bush could never be right, Bush could never turn things around, that Muslims would rather be slaughtered and tortured by al-Qaeda than ally with America. Only someone who craved defeat as a beautiful confirmation of their own warped views would so completely ignore the potential for success.

Why? Because one short year ago the Anbar model had been proven successful. Last year was the transition from a localized experiment in counter-insurgency tactics to a nationwide strategy aimed at rolling back the terrorists across the entire country. Which leads me to one last story on how much things have changed, which begs the question of why the left cannot let go of their mistaken desires. This story from the NY Times discusses how completely the Shiite communities have also discarded violence and extremism – showing that both the Sunni and Shiia factions of Islam are not as the SurrenderMedia proclaimed:

The militia that was once the biggest defender of poor Shiites in Iraq, the Mahdi Army, has been profoundly weakened in a number of neighborhoods across Baghdad, in an important, if tentative, milestone for stability in Iraq.

It is a remarkable change from years past, when the militia, led by the anti-American cleric Moktada al-Sadr, controlled a broad swath of Baghdad, including local governments and police forces. But its use of extortion and violence began alienating much of the Shiite population to the point that many quietly supported American military sweeps against the group.

This is the essence of the denial that still infects Obama and the Surrendercrat power brokers. They cannot understand how Muslims could ever turn to America instead of rising up in support of al-Qaeda and Mahdi thugs. That was THEIR horribly wrong assumption. That was THEIR disastrous mistake in judgement. That was why THEY still crave defeat and find themselves alone and looking quite foolish as they stand by their hopes for American defeat in Iraq. They couldn’t see why America could, once again, be the beacon of hope and promise for a people ravaged by the hate of a few extremists.

I have a theory that the GOP and far right began to resemble the fanatical nature of the Islamo Fascists, and that is how they lost support in 2006. They are not identical by any means, but the overheated, religious based bashing of one time moderate conservative allies was too similar, even at that distance, to our radical national enemy. Too many wanted a war on Islam, not a war on Islamo Fascists.

Now the Surrendercrats are looking to be the extremists. To hold onto political animosity to the point war and the potential for massive defeat seem like a reasonable option again raises the specter of radical terrorists. I said a long time ago this was an untenable and unforgiving position to be in. If victory came the Surrendercrats would be decimated. It has come, and there is only one conclusion America can draw from their continued embrace to a now proven horrible plan. McCain is right, too many would accept war to win an election. Thankfully, America is not radical, and actually is repulsed by them. What hit the GOP in 2006 is now about ready to swing against the Surrendercrats in 2008.

There comes a tipping point where obstinate views transform into dangerous, radical ideology. Clearly Obama and the Surrendercrats have passed this point, and there is no return unless they accept their views were wrong. This will not be happening.

Addendum: I meant to underscore how insane this all is by an analogy to the last time the world faced down a fascist cult. This regret at success in Iraq would be like someone claiming in 1945, after the invasion of Europe by allied forces had freed most of Europe and Hitler was hunkered down in his bunker in Berlin, that the invasion of Europe was not worth the price paid. It would be like preferring a Europe in the grip of fascist madmen than being on the brink of freedom. Everyone could see the invasion at Normandy cost America and the allies immense costs in blood and treasure. And the Western economies and people were under severe economic stress. But it was worth price then, and it is more than worth the price now. This time we stopped the fascist cult before it became so strong the price was millions of dead and injured. And those who cannot see this are themselves in the throws of cult-think.

11 responses so far

11 Responses to “Victory In Iraq Is Here – Yet Obama And Surrendercrats Still Crave Defeat Against al-Qaeda”

  1. movearock says:

    “What would defeat in Iraq provide us?”

    A partial answer–not mine, but that of some moonba… “progressives” I know is rather stunning.

    They wanted America knocked down a peg. It would show to the world they were right–exactly how bad Bush was. But, as important, it would help dispose of BBush, and discredit the “majority” that voted for him in 2004 (“majority” in quotes because the same set fervently believe that they’re in the majority, and vote rigging and fraud ruled in 2004; again, not my position). Losing Iraq would cause American to be humiliated and humbled, unwilling to engage in “wars of aggression” and force them to be “multilateral” and engage in “diplomacy” not only as a first recourse, but would drive home exactly the extent to which ever having recourse to war, before the first shot if fired, is already a stunning defeat.

    For some, this is the kind of “dissent” they want lauded as patriotism. The exaggerated Iraqi death count, the need to believe that thousands of American soldiers died outside of Iraq and aren’t included in the death toll, all sorts of things, are needed, emotionally and psychologically. The more dead, the less likely the US will fight in another war, and since “we” are the chief warmonger and troublemaker, it will pay dividends in far fewer dead. A US defeat = no more wars for oil. So it makes them only want to see death, destruction, and failure; victory in Iraq would be a stunning setback to their sort of, ah, “patriotism” … is that really the right word? (They’re a bit more, um, “nuanced” on Afghanistan.)

  2. Ray_in_Aus says:

    I haven’t followed Iraq very much lately but I’ve been wondering what the politicians think the terrorists will do when the allies and the U.S. leave Iraq. Do they expect the terrorists to follow the troops back home, or would they be more likely to remain focussed on de-stabilizing the Iraqi government?

  3. AJ: it’s simple.

    Ever since McGovern, the Democratic Party’s Platform, imprinted down into their basic DNA is:


    They can dress it up in any fancy words they like, but its the core of their being, and it’s Obama’s entire persona!

  4. jb_ says:

    The idea is to leave Iraq when the Iraqis are ready to provide for their own security. That day is coming, as the last base of operations for AQI is soon to fall.

  5. Boghie says:

    Can someone please provide some aged links demonstrating abject failure.

    Now that the AP, NYT, and LAT have fallen on Bush’s ‘Sword of Darkness’ the Left will have to link to CommonDreams and DummocraticUnderground and TruthOut as primary sources. The Surrendercrat sites better hide their links to ancient stories of failure and desperation. They can follow LightBringer’s model of Internet etiquette in this manner.

    Too bad we could not shod our special forces with ‘Boots of Silence’, roll a 20, and assassinate bin Laden and Hussein and the Whack Job in Iran. Missed it by that much. We had to do the job without Dummocratic Magic Talk.

  6. Terrye says:


    I wonder if Obama is beginning to change tactics. He is talking about keeping a residual force there that will be condition based. In other words, he is moving toward McCain’s position in tiny steps. If this is true, then the majority of the troops could be brought out by the end of 2010 no matter who the president is. Simply because of the security improvements. The remaining troops would be there as conditions warrant.

    So McCain is saying a timeline could work if conditions were suitable and the military concurred {big ifs} and if this latest report of Obama’s most recent flip flop is true then he is saying final withdrawal would be conditioned based.

    I wonder if the Democrats are starting to think that they can find a way to assume responsibility for success.

  7. Redteam says:

    “but I’ve been wondering what the politicians think the terrorists will do when the allies and the U.S. leave Iraq.”

    Ray, you don’t have to wonder, all you have to do is listen to what they say.  The Democrats want to lose at any cost just to make Bush look bad, and because they think it will help them to win in November.  They want the UN to be making the decisions (one of which was that Iraq wasn’t living up to the terms of the truce, so the US enforced it).  Basically the only freedom they want the US to have is for the libs to have the freedom to make their dumbass statements about how bad the US is.

    Just listen.  You heard Obama say if he had it to do over, he would still be for the US to lose in Iraq. (the subject of this post)

  8. dhunter says:

    I hope Barrack Hussein Obamma is not the 12th Imommy!

  9. kathie says:

    Good one dhunter! Me too.

  10. 2diagnosis says:

    You are absolutely right about the Dems, they were rooting for the insurgents. Remember how they were compared to our Minutemen?

    Disgusting, one man’s terrorist is anothers patriot. They consistently identified with the fighters who were killing us, using lines like “well you would too if someone invaded your country”.

    These so called “patriots” were Al-Queda and other assorted bad guys from around the world and the people of Iraq wanted to be free from their clutches. If we had left when Obama and the rest had deemed appropriate, the common man and woman of Iraq would be under the thumb of sadistic killers and torturers right now.

    We would be seen as weak and defeated, who would stand with us after this in Afghanistan? Those fighters who chased us out of Iraq would make their way to the mountainous terrain of Afghanistan/Pakistan and picked us off, until the dem administration turned tail and ran from there too.

  11. dave m says:

    Obama’s latest comments are only confusing if you see them out
    of the context Obama lives in.

    Though you may disagree, I believe the most likely probability
    is the Obama is muslim and does agree that rise of a new
    world caliphate is desirable. He can’t say that or he will lose so
    we now get all this nonsense.

    It’s an Ummah-Bummah.