Is the US really interesting in winning Iraq?

This is a hurriedly written piece on which I plan to elaborate in the near future.

First of all, let me state I am an Americanist patriot. I am not a Republican, Democrat, Libertarian nor any party person. I have come to realize over a number of years -- especially at the national level -- that a person who hopes to get enough popular support to win has to appeal to and placate many interest groups. The result of all this is that one has to stand for virtually everything, and by virtue of that very fact, one actually stands for nothing. In other words to stand FOR something, one must stand AGAINST many things.

George Washington warned of party spirit during his lifetime and today's patriots -- or far too many of them -- will defend their party no matter what. It is as if their support of party A or B somehow sanctifies it.

So my criticism of George W. Bush could just as well have been against Clinton, Reagan, Carter, etc.

If one closely examines our foreign policy -- apart from the baloney put out by the Council on Foreign Relations and their ilk -- one can only conclude that it has been one of supporting financially and otherwise virtually every tin-pot dictator in the world. Then we come back months or years later having to fight them in one kind of war or another. That is, unless they are Russian, Chinese or Cubans -- Korea and Vietnam aside.

Now to the main point. I don't believe we are interesting in winning in Iraq. Forget the fact that the CIA propped up and helped to finance Saddam Hussein years back.

Consider how we have allowed the continuation of the murder of hundreds of American soldiers, American civilians, Iraqi policeman, civilians and military. We have been warned by several military generals and colonels that you cannot fight a defensive war against terrorists (insurgents). We lost that battle in Vietnam and other places in between as we are now.

If we were serious about winning in Iraq, we would recognize that Russia, China, Iran, Syria and other Marxist (yes I said Marxist -- Communism is not dead) have been the financers, supporters and source of much of the terrorism going on in Iraq.

When first we went into Iraq we used the Navy Seals (remember how the rescued the off shore oil rigs South East of Iraq) when terrorist were fixing to blow them up and how we used Army Rangers to create chaos in Mozul before the "regular" troops came from the South.

You cannot fight professional terrorists with inadequately) trained (no offense against) US troops. They simply are not able to fight this kind of warfare.

Further when our government allows civilians and send GIs and Marines into this environment without giving the latter all they need to win (i.e. special forces training)then that is criminal action, if not murder. In effect, that is giving a "kind of aid and comfort" to the enemy by offering little or no solid resistance and that, my friend, is tantamount to treason.

Do you think the president would allow this second-rate strategy if his daughters were in Iraq? I doubt it. I imagine he would have NOTHING BUT THE BEST to protect them -- and well he should.

Point is that in reality every innocent American life is as important as the President's daughters.

I am livid about this. I want to grab those responsible for this milk-toast military policy in Iraq by the scruff of the neck and... as we say in Texas, "teach them how the 'cow eats the cabbage'."

Either properly train our troops how to fight these Communist butcher and kill ALL of their leadership or get the heck out and bring all of our troops home.

Lastly, my fellow Americans, we get the kind of leadership we deserve. Until we stop following the idea of electing "politicians" and turn back to electing "statesmen" we shall continue to get the 2nd rate, deplorable leadership we have had for decades. And the key is Congress. That is where the real power resides; not in the Executive or Judicial branch. Get a copy of the U.S. Constitution and read Article 3, Section 2 for example.

In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. "In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make." i.e. note the 2nd part that is in quotes above.

So the solution is to relearn our Constitution, start electing statemen to office and put a complete stop to our self-defeating foreign policies which includes diplomatically recognizing and financiing brutal communist regimes and those of their ilk.

There is no substitute for righteous indignation. And we have lost far too much of that.

Just a few inline comments:

If one closely examines our foreign policy -- apart from the baloney put out by the Council on Foreign Relations and their ilk -- one can only conclude that it has been one of supporting financially and otherwise virtually every tin-pot dictator in the world. Then we come back months or years later having to fight them in one kind of war or another. That is, unless they are Russian, Chinese or Cubans -- Korea and Vietnam aside.

Guess what? From the end of WWII until the Berlin Wall fell, there was this little thing called the cold war that the United States was engaged in. We supported tin-pot dictators, and the Soviets supported tin-pot dictators. We were more interested in basing rights and keeping out communism than we were about strictly enforcing Jeffersonian democracy. I suppose it would have been better if all of Central and South America went the way of Cuba?

Now to the main point. I don't believe we are interesting in winning in Iraq. Forget the fact that the CIA propped up and helped to finance Saddam Hussein years back.

We supported Hussein while he was at war with Iran. It was the opinion of the United States that it best served the peace of the entire region to have Iran and Iraq so preoccupied with each other that the rest of the area was left alone. Look at what happened when the Iraq/Iran war ended. Iraq got bored and invaded Kuwaiti. Something that may have happened a decade earlier had it not been for the U.S. supporting Iraq to continue their war against Iran.

Consider how we have allowed the continuation of the murder of hundreds of American soldiers, American civilians, Iraqi policeman, civilians and military. We have been warned by several military generals and colonels that you cannot fight a defensive war against terrorists (insurgents). We lost that battle in Vietnam and other places in between as we are now.

Allow? How are we allowing the continuation of the murder of our Troops? Are we not trying to hunt down and kill or capture the terrorist cells? Are we not trying to rid Iraq of these vermin? I suppose you would also say that Great Britain "allowed" British soldiers to be killed by the IRA in Belfast, too? It takes but a handful of bad guys to set off a car bomb, and even if we were to place the entire United State Army in Iraq we would be hard pressed to stop a single car bomber. It is insulting to use the term "allow."

If we were serious about winning in Iraq, we would recognize that Russia, China, Iran, Syria and other Marxist (yes I said Marxist -- Communism is not dead) have been the financers, supporters and source of much of the terrorism going on in Iraq.

Syria I can buy, but Russia sold arms to Hussein's Iraq, not to the insurgents. Ditto China, France, and Germany. Which is why those countries opposed the Iraq war. They wanted to be paid for what they already delivered to Iraq, and the sanctions were preventing this. They didn't care one way or the other about the internal politics of Iraq.

When first we went into Iraq we used the Navy Seals (remember how the rescued the off shore oil rigs South East of Iraq) when terrorist were fixing to blow them up and how we used Army Rangers to create chaos in Mozul before the "regular" troops came from the South.
You cannot fight professional terrorists with inadequately) trained (no offense against) US troops. They simply are not able to fight this kind of warfare.

Guess what? We cannot have an army of 150,000 Navy SEALs or or Army Rangers. The definition of an elite unit is that is ELITE. Do you think if we flood Iraq with 150,000 commandos with their faces painted green, that they can slink through the streets of Sadr City and find all the bad guys overnight? HELL NO. What we need is intel. Do you think a Navy SEAL who grew up on a farm in Kansas can blend into the street scene in Baghdad to gather intel? NO. We need to build up an Iraqi intelligence unit that can blend into the local groups to uncover terrorist cells. It is happening, but it won't and can't happen overnight, which is what you and the rest of the clueless Liberal Press thinks should happen.

Further when our government allows civilians and send GIs and Marines into this environment without giving the latter all they need to win (i.e. special forces training)then that is criminal action, if not murder. In effect, that is giving a "kind of aid and comfort" to the enemy by offering little or no solid resistance and that, my friend, is tantamount to treason.

What special forces training would save a road convoy from being hit by a camouflaged roadside bomb?

Do you think the president would allow this second-rate strategy if his daughters were in Iraq? I doubt it. I imagine he would have NOTHING BUT THE BEST to protect them -- and well he should.
Point is that in reality every innocent American life is as important as the President's daughters.

Take your argument to the absurd extreme: We should have an M-1 Abrams tank for every single soldier, sailor, and airman in Iraq to tool around in? Ridiculous.

I am livid about this. I want to grab those responsible for this milk-toast military policy in Iraq by the scruff of the neck and... as we say in Texas, "teach them how the 'cow eats the cabbage'."

If you're so livid about the loss of American life, then go do something more useful. In the year 2003 there were 43,220 traffic deaths, with 40 percent alcohol related. Go do something about drunk driving and save 17,000 lives a year, instead of your self-righteous indignation over 1,100 combat losses in Iraq. Yes, every life is precious, and yes we should do everything possible to save each and every soldier's life. But in war bad things happen to good people.

Either properly train our troops how to fight these Communist butcher and kill ALL of their leadership or get the heck out and bring all of our troops home.

What's your plan? Round up every 5th family in Sadr City, Mosul, and Falouja, line them up in the street, and shoot them. Then announce that another group of women and children will be shot every day until the roadside bomb attacks cease? Tell me what training our troops need to shield them from random roadside bombs?

Lastly, my fellow Americans, we get the kind of leadership we deserve. Until we stop following the idea of electing "politicians" and turn back to electing "statesmen" we shall continue to get the 2nd rate, deplorable leadership we have had for decades. And the key is Congress. That is where the real power resides; not in the Executive or Judicial branch. Get a copy of the U.S. Constitution and read Article 3, Section 2 for example.
In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. "In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make." i.e. note the 2nd part that is in quotes above.
So the solution is to relearn our Constitution, start electing statemen to office and put a complete stop to our self-defeating foreign policies which includes diplomatically recognizing and financiing brutal communist regimes and those of their ilk.
There is no substitute for righteous indignation. And we have lost far too much of that.

What do you propose the Congress to do? They voted for the use of force in Iraq, and they vote periodically to continue to fund the effort. The Supreme Court is ruling on how we must treat our detainees, and if you re-read your constitution, the chief executive is also the Commander-In-Chief of the armed forces.

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.