Just a "snip" of this fine article.
Lando 
Posted on 04/06/2004 7:17:47 AM PDT by Lando Lincoln
The Bush Administration has been predicting an upswing in violence in Iraq during the months leading up to the transfer of power on June 30th. It should, therefore, hardly be a surprise to see that this upswing has arrived. The forces we face in Iraq are not growing stronger overall, but rather weaker. They are desperate, damaged, and disintegrating with only a single, final, hope.
In the last day the internet has been abuzz with stories of a “coup d’etat” in progress in Iraq, discussing how followers of Shiite Cleric Moqtada al-Sadr are taking to the streets in the “tens of thousands.” This is all nonsense. Moqtada al-Sadr, a man with support from no more than a tiny fraction of the Iraqi population, is not about to overthrow the Coalition Provisional Authority. In all likelihood, if he is behind a rising on the scale that is being claimed in some quarters, he is, along with many of his followers, about to be dispatched to Hell. We have, in the West, an exaggerated image of what “people power” can do on its own. Rag-tag militias, armed with AK-47’s, die in great numbers when they attempt to move against well-armed and trained troops. When people discuss the Battle of Mogadishu they focus on the eighteen US Army personnel who were killed. They forget that, in losing their lives, those isolated (and nearly unsupported) soldiers managed to kill about five thousand Somalis. By my reckoning, that’s a kill ratio of about 277:1.
Let’s not kid ourselves. If these people really get out of hand, we won’t hesitate too long before we simply shoot them down. There isn’t going to be a revolution in Iraq. Neither is there going to be a civil war. There may be some degree of internecine fighting, but I’m not even really sure if that’s such a terrible thing. After all, if Shiite and Sunni radicals busy themselves with killing each other and each other’s friends and families, they aren’t going to have much time to spare for killing Americans. In fact, by killing off their most aggressive leaders, such violence might be regarded as somewhat beneficial to both the United States and to the Iraqi people as a whole.
Contrary to what most war opponents seem to think, the Iraqi people as a whole are not stupid. They understand that there’s no real point in resisting the United States. They also understand that they are great potential benefits in collaborating with the coalition. One of the so-called “grievances” voiced by people of Fallujah was that they were not receiving a fair share of reconstruction aide (which they, on account of their hometown being a Saddam-supporting cesspool, they justifiably are not). This, to put it mildly, is hardly the sort of grievance to provoke anyone to revolution. Alas, “international reconstruction and development aid or death,” is a slogan likely to inspire few potential martyrs.
The violence going on in Iraq is not violence being perpetuated by a group which is fighting to win. The so-called Iraqi “resistance” has been reduced to leaving bombs at the sides of roads, murdering the people they claim to defend, and hoping that John Kerry will be elected President. Yes, you can kill American soldiers by destroying their Humvees: but you can’t beat any army with a few dozen bombs a month, most of which end up defused. You couldn’t beat the Ethiopian Army with that, let alone the United States Army or, for that matter, the United States Marine Corps.
Forget the doom and gloom of the media. Instead, let us review what we have accomplished in Iraq in the period of just a single year: the dictator is gone. His torture chambers, rape rooms, and child prisons are no more. Economic conditions in Iraq today are notably better than they were a year ago. The knock-on effects of the invasion have driven Libya, once a leader of the terrorist bloc, into the Western camp. As a result of the invasion the US has been able to take a firmer line with Saudi Arabia which, in concert with the after-effects of al-Qaeda operations in that Kingdom, has resulted in a serious increase in the House of Saud’s effort against terror. Precious al-Qaeda resources are been drawn into Iraq, thereby preventing their use elsewhere. The political turmoil caused by the invasion has destabilized the regimes in Damascus and Tehran. None of this would have happened had we not gone into Iraq.
It is obvious that we are winning in the ground in Iraq. The only large-scale force which our opponents there are capable of assembling is a mob, and we know how to deal with those. As it becomes increasingly clear that Iraq will likely end up with some form of democratic government, a growing economy, and robust security forces the incentive grows for already-inducted recruits to quit the “resistance.” Why spend your life fighting for the lost cause of a deposed dictator?
There are some, of course, who will keep on fighting no matter what: all of these people will ultimately have to be killed. But they will, if it is clear that they are going to lose, have an increasingly hard time finding recruits. In fact, I would argue that there’s only one thing keeping them alive at the present time: John Kerry.
Consider, for a moment, the election of 1864. By the middle of 1864 it was clear that the South had lost the war on the battlefields. Much of the South lay under Northern occupation and, however slowly, the armies of the Confederacy were being destroyed by the forces under the command of Grant and Sherman. Why, then, did the South fight on? While it is true that some of those who fought on were fanatics determined to resist to the death, many continued the fight because it was widely believed that, as a result of severe Northern losses, President Lincoln would be defeated in the November election and replaced by a Democrat more willing to accommodate the South.
The perception is, all over the world, that increased American dead will result in the defeat of President Bush in November. This is the great hope of the resistance in Iraq: they believe that John Kerry will, using whatever political cover he can find, eventually withdraw from Iraq and leave them to take charge. I think (all claims by some about how “tough” Kerry would have to be aside) that they are right.
Now, of course, Kerry wouldn’t order a withdrawal on his first day in office. Instead, he’s use the international good-will which would exist in the first few months of his term to withdraw some of the US forces in the country and see the remainder placed under UN command. Once Kerry was in office, of course, the media would stop focusing on events in Iraq. A year or so after that, once people stopped paying attention to Iraq altogether, he would pull out and, a little while after that, some thugs would take charge. When that happened, he’d blame it on George Bush. The Iraqi “resistance” knows this.
Therefore, every bump in John Kerry’s support in the polls gives courage to our enemies, leads to increased Iraqi resistance, and therefore leads to more American dead. We are beating back our enemies. We are using the triumph to advance the war abroad. Nothing can stop us now. Except, of course, for John Kerry.
Just a "snip" of this fine article.
Lando
|
|
|
 |
Donate Here By Secure Server
FreeRepublic , LLC PO BOX 9771 FRESNO, CA 93794
|
|
It is in the breaking news sidebar! |
|
LOL! Good one!
Justice is trickling down to the little Saddams and they don't like it.
I heard on the radio this morning that since the removal of Saddam, unemployment has gone from 60-something percent to under 10 percent in major cities. And that jobs have come from Iraq's growing private sector.
I don't know the exact ratio, but it is true that the Somalis died in very substantial numbers that day.
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.