If Iraq Becomes a Failed State (From the 911 Commission Report) (vanity before elections)

The 911 Commission Report Authorized Division | 2006 | The 911 Commission Report

[khnyny]

This bi-partisan commission created the 911 Commission Report and it is interesting to note the following:

Part of the Preface:

"All of us have had to pause, reflect, and sometimes change our minds as we studied these problems and considered the views of others. We hope our report will encourage our fellow citizens to study, reflect - and act. Signed: Thomas H. Kean (Chair) and Lee. H. Hamilton (Vice Chair)

From Chapter 12 "What To Do A Global Strategy":

"In the twentieth century, strategists focused on the world's great industrial heartlands. In the twenty-first, the focus is in the opposite direction, toward remote regions and failing states. The United States has had to find ways to extend its reach, straining the limits of its influence.

EVERY POLICY DECISION WE MAKE NEEDS TO BE SEEN THROUGH THIS LENS. IF, FOR EXAMPLE, IRAQ BECOMES A FAILED STATE, IT WILL GO TO THE TOP OF THE LIST OF PLACES THAT ARE BREEDING GROUNDS FOR ATTACKS AGAINST AMERICANS AT HOME. Similarly, if we are paying insuffiecient attention to Afghanistan, the rule of the Taliban or warlords and narcotraffickers may reemerge and its countryside could once again offer refuge to al Qaeda, or its successor.

Recommendation: The U.S. government must identify and prioritize actual or potential terrorist sanctuaries. For each, it should have a realistic strategy to keep possible terrorists insecure and on the run, using all elements of national power. We should reach out, listen to, and work with other countries that can help."

[khnyny]

The bi-partisan 911 Commission Report quite clearly supports current U.S. policies in Iraq and Afghanistan, but it seems the Democrats don't really want to talk about that (at least not to their contituents).

The Iraq policy by the current Bush administration is not "failing". It seems to me, that the Republicans are seriously taking into consideration the threats that face the U.S. and are ACTING just like the 911 Commission Report suggests.

[johnny7]

The Dem's say it's OK to run away... didn't you hear?

[khnyny]

[The Dem's say it's OK to run away... didn't you hear?]

I think the Dems would say anything if it meant one more vote or dollar in their pockets.

[Dr. Scarpetta]

bump

[onedoug]

We should have put a military governor in their as in post-WWII Japan, which seemed like it was going to happen, until the administration got this civilian - Dan Senor/Paul Bremmer - thing going, the upshot of which is anybody's guess.

[LurkedLongEnough]

keep possible terrorists insecure and on the run

Don't forget, for the 9/11 Commission, "America" was in the definition of "terrorists".

[tennmountainman]

This from the 9/11 Whitewash Commission who put Jamie Gorelick on the commission INSTEAD OF IN FRONT of the Commission.

Nothing but a Whitewash.

[khnyny]

[This from the 9/11 Whitewash Commission who put Jamie Gorelick on the commission INSTEAD OF IN FRONT of the Commission.

Nothing but a Whitewash.]

I understand what you're saying, but everyone needs to read what this report says, and what it says is supportive of current policy on the WOT. The Democrats have put into writing a position which many Dem candidates are now running from. Either these candidates don't understand the threats that face the nation in the 21st Century, or they are lying when they talk about "change in Iraq", just to capture votes somehow, someway.

[tennmountainman]

If you want to dicuss the WOT, then open borders with Mexico is a National Security Threat. You can't say that weapons to harm us have not crossed the border. And I can't say that they have. And thats the point. Without much better security we just don't know. I am for the WOT, but that includes securing our borders.

[khnyny]

Apparently, the Dems are telling the Iraqi Gov something quite different...lol. Don't mean to say "I told you so", but yeah, the Dems are not going to change a damn thing substantially in Iraq.

http://news.bostonherald.com/international/view.bg?articleid=166518

From the article:

They all told me that they want the success of Iraq’s democratically elected government and continued support for the Iraqi people to defeat terrorism,” Talabani said about his trip to the United States in late September as many were predicting the Democratic congressional triumph in Tuesday’s midterm elections.

“One of them (a Democrat leader) told me that any early withdrawal will be a catastrophe for the United States and the world,” Talabani, speaking from his northern hometown of Sulaimaniyah, told the Dubai-based Al-Jazeera satellite broadcaster.

[khnyny]

See post #10.

[khnyny]

See post #10.

[johnny7]

I'd suggest you reread your American history... particularly the impeachment agenda facing Richard Nixon in August of 1974 and our formal abandonment(Foreign Assistance Act of 1974) of South Vietnam in December of the same year.

The socialists will use the Nixon/Vietnam template on Bush... and Iraq.

[khnyny]

Thanks for the suggestion to "reread" history. I'm well aware of what happened in 1974. I do understand that there are elements on the left who will try to repeat history, but IMHO, I don't think that will be the case this time around. Comparisons can be made by the left between Iraq and Vietnam, but in reality the situations are vastly different.