Posted on 06/17/2014 4:41:32 AM PDT by Kaslin
In 2006, I invited the late General Bill Odom to address my Thursday Congressional luncheon group. Gen. Odom, a former NSA director, called the Iraq war "the greatest strategic disaster in American history," and told the surprised audience that he could not understand why Congress had not impeached the president for pushing this disaster on the United States. History continues to prove the General's assessment absolutely correct.
In September, 2002, arguing against a U.S. attack on Iraq, I said the following on the House Floor:
"No credible evidence has been produced that Iraq has or is close to having nuclear weapons. No evidence exists to show that Iraq harbors al-Qaeda terrorists. Quite to the contrary, experts on this region recognize Hussein as an enemy of the al-Qaeda and a foe to Islamic fundamentalism."
Unfortunately, Congress did not listen.
As we know, last week the second largest city in Iraq, Mosul, fell to the al-Qaeda allied Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS). Last week an al-Qaeda that had not been in Iraq before our 2003 invasion threatened to move on the capitol, Baghdad, after it easily over-ran tens of thousands of Iraqi military troops.
The same foreign policy "experts" who lied us into the Iraq war are now telling us we must re-invade Iraq to deal with the disaster caused by their invasion! They cannot admit they were wrong about the invasion being a "cakewalk" that would pay for itself, so they want to blame last week's events on the 2011 US withdrawal from Iraq. But the trouble started with the 2003 invasion itself, not the 2011 troop withdrawal. Anyone who understands cause and effect should understand this.
The Obama administration has said no option except for ground troops is off the table to help the Iraqi government in this crisis. We should not forget, however, that the administration does not consider Special Forces or the CIA to be "boots on the ground." So we may well see Americans fighting in Iraq again.
It is also likely that the administration will begin shipping more weapons and other military equipment to the Iraqi army, in the hopes that they might be able to address the ISIS invasion themselves. After years of U.S. training, costing as much as $20 billion, it is unlikely the Iraqi army is up to the task. Judging from the performance of the Iraqi military as the ISIS attacked, much of that money was wasted or stolen.
A big U.S. government weapons transfer to Iraq will no doubt be favored by the US military-industrial complex, which stands to profit further from the Iraq meltdown. This move will also be favored by those in Washington who realize how politically unpopular a third U.S. invasion of Iraq would be at home, but who want to "do something" in the face of the crisis. Shipping weapons may be an action short of war, but it usually leads to war. And as we have already seen in Iraq and Syria, very often these weapons fall into the hands of the al-Qaeda we are supposed to be fighting!
Because of the government's foolish policy of foreign interventionism, the U.S. is faced with two equally stupid choices: either pour in resources to prop up an Iraqi government that is a close ally with Iran, or throw our support in with al-Qaida in Iraq (as we have done in Syria). I say we must follow a third choice: ally with the American people and spend not one more dollar or one more life attempting to re-make the Middle East. Haven't we have already done enough damage?
“The closest was an alleged attempt to purchase “yellow cake” uranium.”
Ummm, you do know Iraq had over 500 tons of uranium?
When we invaded Iraq we failed to predicted the Muslim Brotherhood would be elected to two terms and provide arms to Al Quida.
The Democrat Party is the party of treason.
Perhaps you should re-read my post. I actually said that Iraq used chemical weapons not only on the Kurds, but on the Iranians.
Perhaps you are right, I must have misread it somehow
Does Valerie Plame ring any bells?
BTTT
You’re right.
It’s total war or we will never win.
Every time one of their “soldiers” is killed they become a martyr because they were fighting for Allah and were ready to meet Allah.
To win against muslims you have to kill those not ready to meet Allah and that’s the civilians.
We’re not going to win until we drive the population into refugee camps, feed them spam and make them glad to get it.
“It also includes poison gas which Saddam Hussain used against the Kurds. And a stockpile of it was found.”
Where and when?
I’m still perturbed that in a nation of 25 million everyone’s getting contorted over the actions of less than 30,000 militants. It’s a management issue for the Iraqi government. They have to make some reforms.
Let them fight it out. This is why they didn’t want the US to stay. Both the Sunnis and Shia believed they’d be able to take it all and run it all just by themselves. They need to fight it out for awhile before they realize a moderated weak federation of states is better than perpetual battle for the winner-take-all national government.
I will take it a step further and say that short of genocide, until the cycle of indoctrination of islam on their children is broken, victory over these savages will only be a transient condition. Islam is the poison these fools drink up and pass on to their offspring. The sooner their youth see the evil that islam is, the better.
The chickens are coming home to roost.
That’s why I said “feed them spam and make them glad to get it”.
When the population rejects the teaching of islam, then we will win, not until then.
I love the claim “only 10% of muslims are radicals”.
That’s about 150 million we need to kill just for starters or they are going to kill us.
We can kill them over there or they kill us here, somebody better make up their mind what we do.
They are bringing it to us.
I agree...if the man could hide jets in the desert, just think of all the places he could hide WMD.
And, if memory serves, we did find components scattered about/different locations.
To win against anyone, you must destroy their resolve, break their spirit and put their existence into jeopardy.
We have not done this against islamists yet....in fact, nobody has done this. Russia comes closest, but even they get criticized for their war tactics.
“Still, the hook that got me from President Bush was that “we need to offer the people of the Middle East an alternative to radicalism (IE-democracy) because without any, radicalism will win out.”
On that specific point; I agree that it was a valid piece of argumentation but alas, it did not stand up to reality. And, I believe it would not have stood up to close scrutiny.
Acting on this premise presupposed that Muslims have separate compartments in their brains for “their religion” and “the nature of the government that runs whatever country they happen to be in”. I believe this was and is an illusion. “Freedom” is not an aspirational value for these people(s). It is apostasy.
And all evidence I have seen, and people massively more knowledgeable than I should have seen before Iraq 2003, that this is an impossible conundrum for Muslims. They do not separate the two. Furthermore, they have zero tradition of democracy, nor do they have the classic “civil society”, nor do they have the collectivity of morality that our founders had......except as defined by their prophet. This could have also been pondered and discerned in relation to religious Jewish and secular Jewish society, essentially right next door. There, the two co-exist, but it is definitely not friction-free.
How do Israelis overcome the conflict between Orthodox & secular? First, they are far more tolerant. Second, they shun war, versus embrace war. And they have a deep moral sense. I don’t think there is anything but the most superficial of evidence of these cultural or moral factors in *any* Arab/Islamic country. Yes, you have Muslims driving BMWs around and talking on cel phones but somebody will come around and whip their asses if they do not attend a mosque and bow 5x a day. Or drink a beer. They cut your arm off and ask questions later.
For these reasons, I never found the “spread democracy” basis for entering Iraq anything much different than the various utopian fantasies constantly flung at us by the left. Wishful thinking. But to maintain the thought in your head, you have to ignore a steaming pile of contrary evidence.
I have a bad feeling you are correct.
I totally agree with you, and I agree with John Bolton, who said today on Fox ‘Obama squandered an opportunity in Iraq’, and with that said...that opportunity is gone.
It’s time to let the Muslims sort it out for the time being as Sunni vs Shiite. They wanted us gone and now that we are...well they need to ‘man up’, if it’s going to anything other than a terrorist state.
Once they are tired of fighting and their tired of fighting, then we should have been preparing to protect ourselves....why tire ourselves out and use up our fighting men, and resources... just in case we have to fight ISIS....I don’t think we will, because they are a lot smaller in numbers. However, Indonesians are rushing to Syria to fight with ISIS....it might take a while.
We need to address the border crisis first. While Iraq/Iran/Kurds/Syria etc fighs, just keep them out of USA and that takes concentrating on our borders.
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.