Nov 25 2006
Democrats Face Test In Iraq
The terrorists and insurgents are acting as I and many predicted, they are becoming much more violent as they try to make sure the Democrats make good on their promise and surrender Iraq to Al Qaeda. The problem for the terrorists and insurgents is the American people will not accept handing Iraq over to the Islamo Fascists. The Democrats claimed our departure would force the Iraq government to stand up to their task (as if they weren’t doing so???). So here is the result of Democrat promises to date on Iraq – bloodsher and disorder as the terrorists plan for the Democrats to fulfill both the dreams of liberals and terrrorists allike:
The Bush administration charged yesterday that the escalating violence in Iraq committed by both Shiites and Sunnis over the past two days is a “brazen effort” to bring down the fragile government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.
The White House also said President Bush has no intention of backing out of talks next week with the Iraqi leader, despite threats yesterday from a powerful Shiite militia to pull out of the government if Maliki goes ahead with the meeting. The talks, set for Thursday in Amman, Jordan, have suddenly taken on the air of a crisis summit, as Iraq slides closer to all-out civil war.
The Democrats never said they would pull out so the country COULD devolve into bloody civil war and the democratically elected government would be overthrown. There was no election promise to accelerate the fall of Iraq. The truth is the current hope for US surrender can be and should be laid at the feet of the Democrats here in the US who gave the world the impression they would run from the Islamo-Fascists if elected. Sadly there are enough ignorant people across the world who actually believed the Democrats. Or at least believed they had the power and will to force a surrender on Bush. But the Democrats have neither will, nor power nor intentions of surrendering. They made things worse and now they will be held accountable.
As unfair as it seems, the current situation is now owned by Bush and the Democrats. They have sufficient political power right now to start to form the debate and set the expectations. They are doing nothing. They are like deer in the headlights. They won, and as predicted, they have no clue what to do right now.
Bush is right, as is Maliki. If we show no sign of folding (got that Dems – no sign, as in unified front, as in one American policy, as in standing shoulder to shoulder with our men and women in harms way, were politics should end at the shoreline of our country) then the Iraqis will hold firm. They will only crumble if the US is sure to depart. Al Qaeda is on the verge of losing its fantasy Capitol City of their Modern Caliphate – Ramadi, Iraq. And they hope and optimism now flowing through the insurgents can be squashed easily by Democrats coming out and standing firm that they will not allow Iraq’s democracy to fail from a simple lack of will. Yes, if things blow out of control that is one thing. But simply having to stand up and say “we will support the democratically elected government of Iraq as it gains control of the entire nation” is not a huge price to pay to actually crush the Islamo Fascist movement. Is it Dems? You won’t even have to institute a draft to be seen as taking a winning position. These are just words, I am sure Dems can find the stamina to get past the gag-reflex and spit them out with some modicum of conviction. One thing dems are good at is spitting out words with faux conviction!
One other thing to keep in mind with all great wars – the fighting and dying hit a fevered pitch right when the pivotal test of wills is occurring. As with WW II and the Battle of The Bulge, which was Hitler’s last gasp, the death tolls during these periods can be the most intense of the entire war (see my previous post here). This has been true throughout time – from the Battle at Antietem in the civil war to the Road To Iraq in Gulf War I (where there was a massive killing of the Iraqi’s as they feld Kuwait) there fighting hits a fevered pitch right at the point the final outcome is decided. If we are at that point we simply need to stand firm and behind the less than one year old Maliki government. And if the Maliki government survives this test, it will be stable for quite some time to come. The press and the left is simply panicking (or some who are rejoicing in the bloodshed). Don’t mind them, they never grasped the situation and understood how to succeed.
Update: Something to consider from Pierre Legrand concerning the common threat we all face and how to understand what it represents. And it represents this question: Is America still ascending through history – or are we declining?
Chief “Cut and Run”…
Chuck Hagel comes to a conclusion about the Iraq war:
“There will be no victory or defeat for the United States in Iraq. These terms do not reflect the reality of what is going to happen there. The future of Iraq was always going to be determined…
Strata should take a cue from Hagel,who is at least halfway to Realism, being a small “r” realist,whereas Strata is intransigently,willfully ignorant about the Iraq war, as his above post shows.
Let’s dissect. First Strata shows a glimpse of realism-he hints at a
difference between “terrorists” and “insurgents.” Immediately he ducks for muddle cover,however, failing to grasp, or want his readers to, that the “terrrorists” if not the “insurgents” are intertwined
WITH the Maliki government.
Blithely moving on and hoping you don’t notice ,he says if we
hold firm so will the Iraqis, following this with a reference to
al Qaeda…Problem is, al Qaeda is only about 4% of the “insurgency,”
and more than half of all Iraqis sympathize with at least the
non al Qaeda sectors of it. Too complex and pessimistic for AJ
to dilineate for the sheep.
Continuing, the “democratically elected government” is rent
with inner turmoil,to the point of making the word “government” farcical, and has marginal power outside the Green Zone. yet it
becomes to AJ a simplified “government” versus al Qaeda battle
for the duration of the post. A farce, intertwined in reality with Shia death squads of its own vs. one-twentieth of the true insurgency.
I’ll go with Hagel. You can have Strata who is to the War what
Candyland is to chess.
Sadr only has about 28 seats out of a 275 seat Parliament, the problem is of course that is a pivotal 10%. Some people say Sadr should be killed, but I am wondering if that will do more harm than good. He sees himself as a new Nasrallah and while might have some support from the more radical elements in the Shai population, the militias are not supported by most of the people of Iraq. Right now however, Sadr is doing his best to make things as difficult as he can. The little ingrate. If not for the United States he would still be hiding somewhere in fear of his life from Saddam.
The socalled Arab Sunni could be AlQaida or some other off shoot like them. The Baathist deadenders are not likely to be suicide bombers but they have been known to force others into such acts.
Overall the number of people in the country who support the violence on either side is a minority, but it does not take a lot of people to reek havoc. However, it does not really fit the pattern of Civil War. The Sunnis are outnumbered four to one and without Saddam’s military to protect them it won’t be a civil war, it will be a massacre.
If the US just up and abandons that country we will never be trusted by anyone again. Our word will mean nothing and anyone who believes that AlQaida and Hezbellah will not be using that strategic country and its oil to launch attacks around the world is dreaming. They are refusing to face the reality of what happened here on 9/11 and what it means.
Now people like Ken can wallow in their paranoid fantasies all they want, but even if you do not believe that the terrorists are a threat, there is no denying the humanitarian disaster that would ensue if we surrendered.
Iraq has always been a violent. When Saddam was ruling the country he routinely slaughtered his own people and threatened his neighbors to maintain power and when he was removed from the scene the resulting power vacuum was not filled by someone like Karzai, instead it was filled by the old religious and tribal friction that was always there. I read that in the early 20th century the British used to have to seperate the tribes all the time with the use of military force.
But only time can make this better and yes I am sure that the Democrats have lift the the terrorists and the Islamists with the impression that any day now we will be leaving and the people like Ken here are keeping hope alive among the terrorists by making them believe that all it will take is the mother of all car bombs and we will run away.
BTW, even with the terrible attack the other day the over all violence is down in November compared to October and Ramadan and the lead up to our election here. So hopefully the attack we saw the other day will not be followed by another as bad.
Below is a quote by Ken from an older thread. I feel since it was old a lot of regulars might miss it. I wouldn’t want Ken to mis an opportunity for
everyone to know how he feels about America.
Anyhow here is his quote:
“in why the US Empire deserves to suffer heavy losses, military and political, in the Middle East”
So folks there it is. He wants the insurgents and terrorists to inflict heavy losses on American Military.
Strata should ban the dishonest For Enforcement immediately for slicing quotes to suit his own barbarian tendencies.
The quote reffered to those tendencies and followed with the opinion that to the degree they reflect American attitudes and policy, is the degree Americ would deserve heavy losses and specifically this cretin had just declared he did not care how many Iraqis killed each other
under US occupation.
Ban him Strata.
Terrye
I see that nothing in your comment offered redress to Chuck Hagel’s realistic insistence that the US must help relieve the Palestinian
oppression at the center of regional enmity for America.
You say
“The socalled Arab Sunni could be AlQaida or some other off shoot like them.”
However native Sunni nationalists are overwhelmingly NOT
members of any group qualifying as advocating international
jihad. They are NATIONALISTS and they compose the bulk
of the insurgency. And the majority of all Iraqis express
approval when polled ,of insurgent attacks on US troops,
provided the attacks do not risk collatoral Iraqi life.
So Terrye you are victimized by paranoia re future “al Qaeda”type threats to America from Iraqis and delusions regarding insurgent support from Iraqis.
As for those that want to “cut and run” and “forcing the Iraqi government” to take on more responsibility, needs to read the history against the Ottoman Empire or they will suffer the consequences of defeat.
I take AJ Strata and Mac Ranger’s side on this. We need to stand up to those terrorists, also called “insurgents” without a time frame. We need to force them to fight in their own land.
Ken:
Do not talk to me.
Did I fall asleep for a month and a half and wake up in January? The Dems have yet to spend a minute in the majority and already everything is their fault.
It is utterly ridiculous to relate anything going on with the Democrats, Bush and the GOP have been running things from the beginning and until the Dems actually get a piece of Iraq legislation past the White House, it will still be in the laps of the GOP. Even with a small Democratic majority in Congress Bush will still own everthing that happens as he has the veto power and the Dems do not have enough votes to override unless members of the GOP cross lines.
Enough of the sky is falling BS. It is Bush’s war and will continue to be until he leaves office in ’08 and nothing that happened in the mid-terms is going to change that.
Will this still be Bush’s war when we are victorious?
AJ, unlike Ken, I would never call for you to ban him. I hope he keeps posting forever so he continues to display his ignorance for all to see. We don’t have to wonder about him.
There’s some saying that applies to Ken, something about better to keep your mouth shut so we wonder about you than to open it and remove all doubt. Something like that.
Just for the record, I lifted the quote exactly as he wrote it, even leaving the word “in” instead of the “is” that he intended.
My statement was I didn’t care how many Iraqi’s killed themselves as long as they don’t kill Americans.
Ken would find that inconsistent? I thought he wanted us to get out immediately so they could go ahead and kill each other there without our interference. Jeez, Ken, at least be consistent.
SDMODERATE, you realize you are not consistent with both history and the facts.
For example any legitimate economist will tell you that the economic boom during Clintons terms were due to Reagan and Bush 1 tax policies, but the Dems give Clinton credit. You know the tax increase in ’98 started the dot com bust and recession that started just before Bush 2, but everyone wants to blame it on Bush even tho it was all Clinton’s
You know this war is blamed on Bush, (excuse me but my version is he get’s credit for it) and if a Dem gets elected in 08 and war ends good, he (the dem) will get credit for it, but if it ends bad, Bush will.
The Dems made a lot of promises to Al qaeda if they would help them get elected. They did and now they are raising the violence levels, demanding payment. Anything from this point on, Dems get credit. Both good or bad. They got in demanding we run up the white flag, and they are offering to ship the flags over. Who would you say we should credit that to?
My statement Bush gets credit. It takes a strong President to make the decision to take the country to war. A decision Clinton wouldn’t make when he should have. So if he was strong enough to do it. He gets the credit.
For Enforcement
Also remember , this was the timeframe of the GOP Contract with America and the line was held on spending that Clinton wanted.
sdmoderate
You claim this is Bush’s war.
I seem to remember several votes that were bipartisan that supported the war. Yes I know you will refute those with whatever the current revisionist history is, but it still is the past no matter how you like it.
The out of power dems with their sniping from the peanut gallery established their position over a long term trend. You can try to minimize it if you wish, but their choices of action along with the mantra of the MSM somehow never established the vile indignation that was drummed up during the VietNam war. The probable cause is that now we have blogs like this one and countless others where debate and facts can blunt the blatent bias of the MSM.
To characterize a war as an ownership of a President is less than realistic. Yes GW led the issue, and rightfully so. Somehow you forget America was attacked. Reps, Dems, Jews , Catholics, Mormans, Greek Orthadox, Gays, Lesbians, Cops, pickpockets, Illegal Aliens and whatever other groups you wish to think up all died on 9/11.
This is not a partisan war despite how many wish to make it so.
That might be a nice leverage issue to shift balance of power during elections, but it misses the bigger picture.
Right now you have Chirac in France getting ready to throw his own party under the bus to support the opposition, because he realizes the Muslim issue is on the verge of an explosion and he doesn’t want his party to be in power and tarred with the issue for generations to come.
The opposition candidate is calling for the British to abandon the US and Israel to come into the Euroweany fold.
Yes politics are local for your representatives, but I think you are missing the forest for the trees.
sdmoderate
Please understand , I am not trying to diss you or your opinions here, I am just trying to express that we have larger world realities beyond our partisan issues.
I respect and value your positions, as I do most people here.
I hope you take my concerns in the spirit they were intended.
Yes, this is Bush’s war and will continue to be until it is actually won. Then the Democrats will take credit for it.
WASHINGTON POST GETS IT WRONG, AS USUAL
read where as of today, we have been in Iraq longer than WWII, and that is from the formerly MSM pillar WaPo.
Well, let’s see. They say 3 years, 8 month, 7 days. And according to what I can determine, it started Mar 19, 2003. So that’s 1342 days, So yea they got that part right, ummm…. now let’s see
WWII starte Dec 7 1941 and ended…..ummm 2 Sept 1945
Alright, got that captured. Now, let’s do a little calculating and see if the WaPo people can get a simple math problem correct. 25 days in Dec +365×3 +8 months in 1945 plus 2 days in Sept. Hmm….. that adds up to 1361 days. Well, I’ll be damn, they got it wrong, imagine that. Now I can certify them as being 100% wrong, kinda like someone else I know.
Typical of all the Formerly MSM, if they can print BS to make the Bush Admin look worse, then it’s no holds barred.
Just look at NYT the other pillar. Today I read info about Rumsfield approving harsh interrogations and they get this from a “classified” report. There they go releasing classified info again. Is there no end these damn treasonous Dems won’t go to illustrate their hatred of America.
Actually, the global war against terrorism has been going on since the days of Muhammed, the Prophet (praise be upon him).
And I still don’t see that this is Bush’s war. It was also Clinton’s war (e.g., 1998 Iraqi Liberation Act) but Clinton did very little. It was also Reagan’s war as well as Carter. It will also be our next US president’s war. It will continue until our own country finally understands the reasons for this war, develops the right goals and objectives, and fight to win against Islamfascism. The world will never be safe if it becomes an Islamic Caliphate.
What is Vietnam like these days, btw?