A bridge too far? (Was our Iraq mission a failure - One Opinion)

The Washington Times ^

[Yardstick]

There was a good sized thread on this article here:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1218593/posts

[Thebaddog]

The point of it all in my opinion, is and was to go in there and kick some ass and stay a while. The Arabs all read us to be weak when Clinton didn't act or when we pulled out after short missions. When the new point is made, then a withdrawal could be in order with the clear message that we could return again and that our foot is on their throat always. Power is all that matters to that world. Raw power.

[zkbeta51]

I think it was a mistake to not send massive firepower like in gulf war 1, but, the military was trying more of a surgical war, causing less collateral damage. The military is also trying new tactics to make the ground forces more agile. I think it worked well, but others disagree. As for going to Iraq in the first place, that is a lost cause argument from the left. We were right, they are wrong.

[A CA Guy]

We were obligated to go in on the facts that Saddam had contact with terrorists training them in camps there and was a terrorist himself. Not only to his people with mass graves, but especially because the terrorist Saddam financed terror in Israel at $25,000 to the family of each bomber.

[mammer]

what was this guys name again?

[A CA Guy]

Well regarding the 3-5 cities where terror is prevalent, one way to handle it is to tell people to leave the city, screen the people as they leave, then level the whole town with bombs, burying the terrorists.

[TADSLOS]

The question needs re-phrasing. It should be "Is our mission in Iraq failing?", since it's still a work in progress.

The answer is no, it's not.

[quidnunc]

This paragraph is a dead giveaway:

• The neocon objectives for restructuring Iraq into a functioning model democracy were a bridge too far. They were never realistic.

Arnaud de Borchgrave is a paleocon whom the world has largely passed by.

[Ranger]

I quite agree with you and this article.

[Moconservative]

I think that what you see here is John Kerry's viewpoint on Iraq being put forth as the truth. My questions would be who are these European military experts? Are they the French and the Germans? Do they have an ax to grind against the United States? Wars are not won by the editors of newspapers and magazines. Their opinions are just opinions and that is it. I think President was up front and said this would not be easy. I think when the going gets tough the liberal media wants to run. That type of philosophy does not work in the real world only in the halls of academia

[familyop]

"Off the record conversations with intelligence chiefs..."

Ah, Yom Kippur--the day the Euro-Nazi identity groups bubbled up in America.

De Borchgrave should go back to Russia, the Rump of Yugoslavia, southern Europe or wherever he's trying to come from. We were on the right track in Iraq, and we're on the right track with doing something about Iran.

And that's the way it's going to be, whether Iran's allies to its north, its east and lurking here on our soil like it or not.

[Mister Baredog]

He is absolutely correct. We are in suspended animation here on FR. Bush must win, so any criticism of the long term ramifications of this war in Iraq must not be mentioned. What a shame.

Gee I hadn't notice many restrictions on FRee speech here at FR, unless of course you're talking about TROLLS.

Tell me do you think McCain, Hagel, Graham, and Lugar did Bush a lot of good last week on the Sunday shows when they went out to bash the war effort in unison? The DUmbocrats used their statements as talking points all week.

You can be anti-war and still be conservative.

Although since we're in WWIII(or WWIV) and the battle of Iraq is but one front it would pay to keep some perspective.

Something I've wanted to ask someone who's against the war in Iraq: If Saddam were still there in power and we forced Al Queda from Afghanistan just where in the middle east do you thing they might have assembled to continue planning our destruction? Iraq possibly? Huh?

[Nick Danger]

Fundamentally, this article is about whether Iraq is the right laboratory in which to create the 21st-Century Islamic country. The author basically agrees that such a thing is needed; he's just making the usual Kerryesque comments about how such a task ought to be a "global effort" and how, to defeat terrorism, we must attack the "root causes."

Well, turning Iraq into a 21st-Century Islamic country is an effort to attack the root causes. Looming in the background of all this is the horrifying truth that if that there is not some demonstration that life can be better than living under some despot who blames Israel and The West for all of life's problems, we are going to end up having to nuke these people — all billion of them — to keep ourselves safe from rogue nukes and poison gas.

I don't know if Iraq is the right laboratory for this demonstration; nobody does. But it was a reasonable choice, and we are making halfway-decent progress towards creating a place where Moslems can feel they have some ownership over what is happening and how their government behaves. Yes, this is new to them, and the average Mohammad in the street is still a bit baffled by the whole idea. In Iraq, he also sees various factions attempting to become the new despotic rulers — a system he understands pretty well and is familiar with. What he knows is that if any of them win, he had better not be on record as opposing them.

President Bush was very clear at the beginning that this was going to be a long, hard struggle. Bush's political opposition chooses to use the term "quagmire" to describe that, but what liberals are not doing is being honest about the alternative.

If we and our allies were to pull out, Iraq would sink into yet another despotically-ruled Arab "state" in which the Mullahs and their Madrassas would turn out yet another never-ending stream of hotheads looking to glorify Allah by killing infidels. Down that path lies the wholesale annihilation of a billion people, because we in the West are not going to have nukes going off in our cities... period. Our history as a people is that if we have to literally annihilate them — all of them — to keep from having to deal with WMD attacks, we will do so. The sorry truth is that compared to us, these people are bugs, and they will suffer the fate of bugs if they don't learn how to live in the world without blowing up other people's trains, cities, and schools.

Too many people are looking at this Iraq issue as if it were about Iraq per se. It's not. It's about an extremely noble and moral quest to avoid having to commit genocide. It is also a race against time. Once nukes start going off in Western cities, the game is over for Islam. We will not take the chance that we missed one when going after such terrorists. If one suicide bomber can kill 500,000 people with a nuke, then we will not leave one potential suicide bomber alive. Not one. This is the ugly truth that liberals and appeasers refuse to face. If they are, as they ought to be, horrified by the prospect of having to kill a billion people, then they should stop right now and ask themselves what they are trying to accomplish by halting the "Iraq War." Their way will not lead to "peace."

The road to peace is to convince a billion Moslems that the despotic governments that rip them off and blame The West for all their ills must go. We must convince them that they can lead halfway-decent lives, and that they have the ability to do so. No one believes that turning the Iraq of 2004 into a "shining city on a hill" will be easy. Certainly President Bush has never claimed it will be. It will be a long, hard row to hoe.

Those who wish to take the easy road now need to ask themselves what they think is going to happen if we do not persevere in Iraq. How many nukes in Washington, New York, Paris, or Rome are they prepared to see before the entire population of the Western world transforms itself into an angry mob, demanding from its governments the annihilation of these so-called "people" who do such things.

It is a testiment to our own morality and civility that we will invest troops and treasure to avoid that. It is high time that our "morally superior" liberals took their eye off this election and faced the long-term ugly truth about what's coming if we don't finish our task in Iraq. This may be our last chance to save a billion lives.

[paul51]

well said

[NJ Neocon]

The most thoughtful, accurate post I have seen to date here at FreeRep.

Too many people are looking at this Iraq issue as if it were about Iraq per se. It's not. It's about an extremely noble and moral quest to avoid having to commit genocide. It is also a race against time. Once nukes start going off in Western cities, the game is over for Islam. We will not take the chance that we missed one when going after such terrorists. If one suicide bomber can kill 500,000 people with a nuke, then we will not leave one potential suicide bomber alive. Not one. This is the ugly truth that liberals and appeasers refuse to face. If they are, as they ought to be, horrified by the prospect of having to kill a billion people, then they should stop right now and ask themselves what they are trying to accomplish by halting the "Iraq War." Their way will not lead to "peace."

That is the reality. That quote and its sentiments should be burned into the minds of every Muslim on earth. If you know anyone who doesn't understand why we're in Iraq, print out the above quote and tape it to his/her forehead. Well written Nick. John

[MplsSteve]

Nick-

Damned good post. You're right.

No one ever promised the American people that the road to restoring hope (in the Middle East) would be easy.