Posted on 11/11/2006 12:33:46 PM PST by Clive
November 11, 2006 Many to blame for Iraq
By MICHAEL COREN
Another bloody casualty of the war in Iraq. This time it is a number of Republican politicians who have lost their jobs to a collective of Democrats intent on returning their country to the moral ambivalence and sheer political quagmire of Jimmy Carter.
As for Donald Rumsfeld, the only problem with his departure as U.S. Secretary of Defense was that it was far too late.
I'm proud to say that I opposed the war from its very beginning and also denounced the sanctions that were thrown at the Iraqi people. Unlike the current wave of George Bush-bashers, who seem to have only discovered Iraq when the Dixie Chicks told them where it was.
Afghanistan was a different matter, and was a simple case of retaliation against an aggressor and an act of self-defence. Thing is, the Western allies would have been far more successful in that country if so many American and British soldiers sent to Iraq had been used to destroy the Taliban and the other holy fascists.
The only solution to Iraq is to leave it. Not because of the leftists who oppose anything American and not because of those Muslim hypocrites who said nothing when Saddam was slaughtering his own people, but because it has nothing to do with the Western world.
Put at its most crude, if Arabs of one particular creed want to kill Arabs or another particular creed, we have no right to intervene. They have done so for millennia and will almost certainly do so again. We can pray that they won't and we should help the cause of peace and justice, but our place is here and not there.
Left to its own devices, Iraq will reach a natural equilibrium. Many innocent people will die but many innocent people are dying now. It's a tragedy but it's an inevitable one. We can no more stop it than we can halt the passing of the day.
Saddam Hussein should not have been supported in the first place, by the United States, the Soviets and their successors, Britain, France, Germany and almost every other major power. Also supported, we should not forget, by most of the Arab states and especially the Palestinians.
The greatest American president of the 20th century, Dwight D. Eisenhower, showed us the way. He was a fine general who cared deeply about the lives of his men and because he had seen war he hated it. He warned of the military-industrial complex, he was a social conservative and he preferred to play golf than interfere in the country's affairs.
John F. Kennedy, on the other hand, insisted on playing with Marilyn Monroe as well as interfering with the country's affairs. He began genuine American involvement in other people's business, sent troops to Vietnam and handed a legacy that even the great Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan could not resist.
Yet the people who are most critical of George W. Bush are the very people who still look back with adoration on the liberal Kennedy and his interventionist policies. And liberalism is the key. There is nothing conservative about fruitless attempts to impose democracy, equality or enlightenment on other cultures.
We should want all people to be happy, but not necessarily happy according to our own definitions and expectations. Until we grow up and realize that, we will only spread chaos. Better to play golf.
I was in the military long enough to know COLONELS who couldn't make GENERAL......usually they are outstanding soldiers/Marines however they don't like playing the game and are somewhat bitter towards their superiors who would not promote them despite their superiority over those that played the game and made General.
Hunt is top NOTCH, so was Hackworth and several other Colonels and Lt. Colonels on the air today.......however NONE of them like Rumsfeld.
IMHO todays Lt. Colonels and Colonels are SUPERB. Those that want to move up KNOW what they have to do, those that don't want to play the game, stay where they are.
Patton would have never made it past Colonel in today's Army.
Let me remind you how Vietnam ended.
In the years following the Tet Offensive, the South Vietnamese government with US assistance successfully ELIMINATED communist guerillas as an existential threat to South Vietnam.
The only way the communists could win was a conventional military invasion over the border from the North, in blatant violation of the Paris Peace Accords.
The North tried such a conventional invasion in 1972, and was successfully repulsed by South Vietnam, losing nearly 200,000 troops.
There is every reason to believe that, had the DemocRat congress not pulled the plug on financial assistance to South Vietnam, the South Vietnamese government would have again repulsed the 1975 invasion. In fact, had US financial assistance continued, the North may not even have attempted a conventional invasion.
Also, had the US congress allowed us to use air power to assist South Vietnam, there was no hope of success by the North because their long columns of tanks and troops on the highways were a perfect type of target for our air power.
The DemocRat congress cut off material assistance to our South Vietnamese allies during a time when the Soviets and Chinese were providing billions of dollars worth of support to the North. The cutoff in aid meant the South was unable to maintain ammunition stocks and replacement parts to make use of the weapons they had, much less replace or increase weapons. The lack of weapons and ammunition had a further demoralizing effect on South Vietnamese forces.
Had we continued to give the South sufficient financial assistance to defend itself or deter the North, there is every reason to believe that South Vietnam would have over the succeeding decades become a prosperous and relatively free society like South Korea.
You beat me to it. Because the Administration has not maintained, and never has, that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11, does not mean that Iraq, a country with a history of manufacturing and using WMD had no ties to terrorists...your picture, the public funding of suicide bombers and the open presence of scum like Abbu Abbas (Achille Lauro) and Abu Nidal (Rome and Vienna attacks, complicit in Pan Am 103) is reason enough for me to support the action in Iraq.
The world changed on 9/11 as did the rules, and too many people still don't know it.
Thank you for posting that. What we did to South Vietnam is a stain on our national conscience as bad as our betrayal of the Chinese Nationalists after WWII, as was our stab in the back to the Shah of Iran. I think I remember the lessons of history all too well.
Wash you mouth out with soap. "we suck at nation building ." The fact is that the most successful countries are ones that we helped after WWII. Think Germany, Jap[an and S Korea. The worst problem is that everyone has opinions but they don't know history.
Well put.
Do you know what? there was and is a plan / but as indicated earlier the moral fabric of America is weakening. so is its identity.
did you ever notice the relative proximity of both iraq and afghanistan to the real problem - Iran?????
but the democrats, leftists, european muslims started the " you lied to us about the WMD's" softened the resolve to get something done, matter of fact went on to totally discredit the pres. He has effectively lost control. Worse yet the WHOLE mideast sees America divided in its objectives and support of whatever they choose. Thats why they are so happy. Emboldened. Empowered. They see a victory. I hate the consequences.
The reality? UNLESS america pulls her socks up and gets off her ass, there will be a point (real soon) where a large population will decide """ WE WERE WRONG BUT ITS TOO LATE""".
Be like Canadians, there are no threats out there.
I was with you up to this gratuitous slur.
Nor can they be educated....
IMO, by including Hackworth in your post means that I cannot possibly accept your commentary. Sorry.
I blame the "insurgents".
More like too many people refuse to admit that Iraq is an important part of the WOT. Either the are republicans who have personal animosity towards the President or they're dems.
That we would even contemplate another betrayal is immpossible to consider.
Ya think that'd be obvious, wouldn't ya? And that was exactly where we were heading and what the Duelfer Report stated that Saddam intended.
I know of a fellow in Ottawa (not the brightest bulb on the string) who seems to think there is no great threat from islamofascism. The real troublemaker in the world is GW Bush, etc...
Some of whom have just been elected and re-elected to Congress.
Just the facts, true, but beautifully said!
When in Danang in 1968 I heard LBJ's speech announcing he would not run I told myself the war is lost. At the time, I had no idea the depth of the LBJ/MacNamarra, et al incompetence, micromanagment and misuse of military power. So, I was surprised at the turnaround under Nixon, when all of our strategic and most of our tactical goals where achieved and the North forced to agree to a peace treaty. Something similar could still happen in Iraq, today --- at least, I hope it will --- although I don't see the path.
From living in Arabia for several years I know the depth of animosity between Shia and Sunni, so it is difficult for me to see how they can live undder anything other than a very strong central government. Otherwise, I'm afraid they'll be at each other's throats -- which is what appears to be what is happening now as each neighborhood and village undertakes "ethnic cleansing". Still, if they're at each others' throats at least they aren't at ours.
Do any of the rabid Do Nothing Dincons ever bother to realize every time they played their Neo Isolationist games the NEXT explosion in the ME was worse? You cannot clamp the lid on a pressure cooker forever. Eventually the explosion comes that cannot be contain.
Dinocons are remarkable for the sheer ability to repeat the same stupid mistakes FOREVER. Even Democrats eventually learn a lesson instead of arrogantly demanding we keep following their failed 1930s Isolationists dogmas.
Amazing how this author managed to NOT get even a single intellectually valid, factual statement into the whole thing. Just more rabid partisan bigotry and arrogant ignorance from start to finish. Screaming slogans and insults may make the author feel better, they only expose him as a Know Nothing fool. Would be REALLY nice is the fools who scream so loud would learn at least the BASIC facts about Iraq before writing any more such garbage. If these idiots want to claim a mandate for their do nothing dogma on the bases of a margin of 5,000 votes, I say let them. It is just another proof of their willingness to blind themselves from reality.
They can find the facts easily enough but simply refuse to evolve beyond their Cold War Dogmas. They can read it here at these links. They can read it at any of dozens of posts Freeper Sandrat posts here on Free Republic EVERY day.
http://icasualties.org/oif/
http://icasualties.org/oif/IraqiDeaths.aspx
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_Security_Forces
Rather then mindlessly screaming their Know Nothing 09-10-01 dogmas they should pry open their welded shut minds and learn something ONE time before their rabidly stupid arrogant fidelity to failed dogmas manages to cause the deaths of a lot more then 3000 American Civilians one day. Slapping a lid on does NOT fix the problem, it merely delays and magnifies the inevitable explosion. Wander to the ash heap of history Dinocons. History has weighted you in the balance and found you wanting.
Also, the world is a much smaller place today because of air travel.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.