Go away.
I'm positive this is an objective analysis.
The rest of the world wants to give up !
de Borchgrave has always been a Iraq and Afghanistan policy critic. Now he's trying to justify himself. You got any better ideas, Arnaud?
I think the situations will change once GWB is reelected. Much of the insurgency in both Afghanistan and Iraq is geared toward affecting our election here at home.
Quite a few of the insurgents are being paid, with the real terrorists organizing and recruiting cannon fodder. As usual, the terrorist leadership aren't in it for the ideologies they espouse, but for political power and gain.
After Oslo, one can logically conclude that no Palestinian entity is being seriously considered by the Arabs to coexist with the Jewish Israeli state. Only the conversion of the what is now Israel into an Arab dominated Muslim state will be acceptable.
Being that this is not acceptable to Israel, one can conclude that the only peaceful solution to the Middle East problem is the elimination of the Jewish state from the region.
I've spent 21 years to date in the USAF - never have been impressed by 'intelligence' chiefs. They are weenies who offer 20 opinions at once, and always counsel against doing anything until the data is more certain.
Any reader of military history knows nothing worth trying is ever free from the possibility of failure - and there is never enough data to be certain of any decision.
They are probably right that the insurgency is growing, and will continue to grow while we maintain a strong military presence.
Here's the real question: can we keep Iraq stable enough long enough for their own government to take over, with minimal help from us?
If yes, then the insurgency will fade away.
If no, then Iraq will be better off than under Saddam, but we will have failed in our strategic objectives.
It is certainly possible that we will fail - inserting a democracy into a country whose religion is opposed to freedom (Islam is about submission, not obedience by choice) is a difficult thing. But frankly, the middle east is such a s%&#hole that you can shake it up, and almost anything that falls out will be better than what is there right now.
No one ever won anything by waiting for a certain bet. This is a gamble, but it is worth taking. Listening to intel weenies is a certain recipe for failure.
The Euros in these inner intel circles on the continent don't want American victory, they want American defeat.
As with Vietnam they want to make money off the other side while pretnding to be for freedom and want to keep up their tax systems based on our not winning.
They like the Terror because it keeps them in a position to block us. Only when their own people stop being duped and catch on to their game will they change.
If we win their neo-colonial empire of Eurosocialism through the U.N. and other such bodies will be gone and will be replaced by nations in New Europe and outside Europe emulating the American experience of a constitutional republicanism rooted in indigineous culture and context but with the opportunity to graft on it that which can be learned from emulating America and other similar successful entrepreneurial market-states. This old Europe fears, and they should.
Dopes like you have no idea how disastrous it will be if we cut and run from Iraq. Nor do you care because you are as emotional as a woman with PMS. Why don't get the heck out of here and post your garbage at DU? You will get a great reception over there.
"The 'war on terror' is a misnomer that is tantamount to rhetorical disinformation. One can no more fight terrorism than one could declare war on Hitler's Panzers in World War II or Dreadnoughts in World War I. Terrorism is a weapons system that has been used time and again for the last 5,000 years. The root causes are the problem, not the weapon."
Tell THAT to the Israelis. They cannot solve the root causes of Islamic terror, and where would they be today if they had not developed tactics for fighting a war against terrorists. This is a poor article, filled with the usual European hypocrisy and geopolitical folly. And nobody really knows how many hard-core terrorists are in Iraq. They slip in and out of that country with the shifts in the wind. If we take away their incentive for being there and their support system, they'll go home and terorrize their local police.
We have begun to focus on kill ratios, a sure sign of impending disaster.
Victory is achieved only after the enemy's will to resist is broken.
I am literally amazed at the attitudes and responses of many Freepers on this subject. They remind me of the koolaid drinkers over at DU, blindly swallowing anything that "our side" has for foreign policy, and inviting all dissemblers to head for the exits.
Look, I was doing the conservative thing when most of the folks here were in diapers or not yet a gleam in their father's eye.
We need to face up to the fact that this is a bad war, not because we removed Sadaam, but because we have NO damn idea what we are supposed to do now that our kick ass military has WON the war. We are engaged in trying to impose a political structure based on independence, personal integrity, freedom, and other virtues on a culture of moon god worshiping, lying, cheating, fatalistic goat rapers. The west has to get it through our skulls that as much as muslims love the idea of freedom and prosperity, they hate the west even more, because we are infidels.
President Bush is a GOOD man. He believes that the Arab/Muslim world will respond to the values above because (though he won't say this in public) they are made in the image of God. He believes that freedom is branded into the souls of men by their creator. On that I agree with him. He is also privy to MUCH more knowledge of the world than I, but he is also naive in one huge aspect. Our western democracies and democratic republics were forged in the furnace of a religious conviction that emphasized individual freedoms, courage, personal responsibility, integrity, and a fear of centralization of power. THE MUSLIM WORLD SHARES NO SUCH WORLDVIEW. It is folly to attempt to appeal to the "better angels of our nature," to a whole nation, while they vehemently reject the platform that gives those better angels a venue to operate.
The sad alternative seems to be to declare victory, pull out, and watch as Iraq descends to chaos. Unfortunately, that is going to happen anyway (so I believe), whether we stay or not. The only difference is the number of body bags we bring out before that happens, and how disillusioned our soldiers are when they come back.
They fought like MEN. They are heroes all and there are none better. Get them OUT of that rat's nest while they can still be (rightly) proud of what they have done, removed a brutal tyrant and potential nuke thrower and given Iraq a CHANCE to determine its own destiny. What they do with that chance should be their concern, not ours.
On 11/3 Bush will come down on them with a ferocity that will take the world's breath away.
We will cut a Sherman-like swath of scorched earth through the Sunni triangle on our way to Iran.
BUMP
"The neo-con objectives for restructuring Iraq into a functioning model democracy were a bridge too far. They were never realistic"
You find that the term "neo-con" implies a Jew and that there is a further assumption this war was for Israel; hence, it lacked merit and has now failed.
The simple fact is we do not consider ourselves occupiers. Our strategy is really quite simple. First, we remove Saddam. Second, we disband the Sunni and Baath control of the armed forces. Third, we train a new army, police and internal security group. Once these three are done, we hope the Iraqis are like everyone else in that they prefer an open, self-determining society and not rule by fascists or Islamascists.
Another connotation of "neo-con" is that this war was not only wrong but we deserve to lose it. Whether it is the Buchananites or the Nadarites the opposite poles of the political spectrum wants to declare this war a failure. Indeed, it is now the chief RAT talking point--we have failed and it is not worth it. Again, they have concluded this failure and if you disagree you are to disprove a negative (something no one can do) In actual fact, it is up to Arnaud de Borchgrave to prove his thesis.
Once the election is over, it will be harder for terrorists (not insurgents)to find people to die for either Saddam or Allah. After all, sooner or later the everyday Iraqi is going to rebel against being killed by IDE's and suicide bombers who are notoriously not selective in their murders.
Arnaud de Borchgrave is a self important nut case.
We will be in Iraq and surrounding areas beyond the lifetimes of most of us because we have strategic interests there. The Euro-nitwits have been out aced and know it.
I hate it when people do this.
Even if the 10 times the strength ratio were valid, "strength" does not necessarily equal raw numbers. Just to illustrate the very basic point, does it take more strength to suppress an insurgency armed with fully modern U.S. equipment, or guys armed with bows and swords?
In determining "strength", you've got to consider all factors, firepower, mobility, intelligence, armor/air assets, etc. Saying "they have 20k, so we must have 200k" is overly simplistic and inaccurate. The real number may be less or more, but the process they used to determine that number is flawed.
The Romans used to solve problems like this with one tenth the rebel strength, but then the Romans were not very PC.