No Pat, the Saddamites and Islamofascists have ALWAYS been against the liberation of Iraq. It's not a friggin' *occupation* either you numbnut.. Can't you EVER get that straight??
Oh look.... your ride's here~!
Posted on 02/03/2005 5:15:36 PM PST by RWR8189
''We must recognize what a large and growing number of Iraqis now believe,'' said Sen. Ted Kennedy last week, that ``the war in Iraq has become a war against the American occupation.''
Even with the heroic and heartening election turnout, Kennedy is not entirely wrong. The insurgency has always been a war against the U.S. occupation and those Iraqis who cooperate with us. But the paradox that Kennedy fails to address is this: While the U.S. invasion and occupation precipitated the insurgency, it has grown to where only the U.S. military keeps it from seizing power. Should we withdraw now, there is a near certainty the insurgents in the Sunni Triangle would inherit the country.
Sunni insurrection
Here we come to the core conflict that the elections starkly reveal. This is not an Iraqi war against the United States. It is a Sunni insurrection, supported by foreign jihadists. Neither the Kurds, who owe their independence to us, nor the Shiites, who now stand to inherit the nation, are in rebellion. For not only did we depose the hated enemy of the Shiites and Kurds, Saddam Hussein, we dismantled his state, disbanded his army and put Iraq on the road to elections that
now point to an auto-
nomous Kurdistan
and a Shiite-dominated Iraq.
The Shiites believe that they are being compensated for having been abandoned in 1991, when George H.W. Bush urged them to rise up against Baghdad, but let them be slaughtered when Hussein sent his Revolutionary Guard to massacre the rebels. But the elections also leave the United States with a dilemma. While expelling us is the casus belli of the insurgency, it has taken on a life of its own. A year ago, Gen. John Abizaid said there were 5,000 fighters. He now estimates the number of enemy at 20,000, even though Gen. George Casey says we killed or captured 15,000 in the last year. The head of Iraqi intelligence puts the number of enemy at 30,000 or 40,000 fighters, supported by 200,000 people.
Military presence
U.S. generals dispute the latter numbers, but no one denies that the insurgents have augmented their ranks and increased the incidence and lethality of their attacks. Given our dilemma -- the U.S. military presence is the cause of the insurgency, but also the only barrier to its success -- the answer suggests itself: We must bring an end to our military presence, even as we build an indigenous force to replace it.
With the elections now completed, President Bush should lay down, for the Iraqis and the world, conditions for the withdrawal of U.S. forces and their replacement with Iraqi forces. Specifically, Bush should:
• Inform the new Iraqi assembly that the United States has no plans for any permanent U.S. military presence on Iraqi soil.
• Pledge continued U.S. aid in battling the resistance and rebuilding the country, as long as an elected government endures.
• Accelerate the training and equipping of Iraqi army forces, and the transfer to them of the duty to defend their own government.
• Announce an initial drawdown of U.S. forces, so Iraqis get the message that the defense of democracy in their own country is first and foremost their own duty, not ours. While we will aid them in their battle, its ultimate outcome will depend upon them.
The Iraqis must know that, in the not-too-distant future, their fate and future will be in their hands, not ours.
Find out now
The elections showed that a majority of Iraqis will vote for democracy. What has not yet been demonstrated is whether Iraqis will fight for it with the same determination as the insurgents are resisting it. Should Bush advance such a proposal, Iraqis would know that if the insurgents continued to fight -- even after the Americans were committed to leave and had begun to depart -- the insurgents' real goal is a return to power in Baghdad, by force. And if the Shiites (60 percent of the country) and Kurds (20 percent) plus the anti-Baathist Sunni are unwilling to fight a bloody restoration of Baathist tyranny, we need to find out now, before more U.S. blood is shed.
©2005 Creators Syndicate
Conditions for exit:
If you leave now, Pat, you can keep your foreign-made BMW.
Look what old Pat is up to now.
I thought it was actually one of the most reasonable articles Pat has written on Iraq in quite awhile.
It probably did sound reasonable... but what did it sound like in the original Arabic?
I know you believe only in Fortress America, but you isolationists are always on the losing side of American history.
Tell you what, if we like your ideas we'll elect you President.
No Pat, the Saddamites and Islamofascists have ALWAYS been against the liberation of Iraq. It's not a friggin' *occupation* either you numbnut.. Can't you EVER get that straight??
Oh look.... your ride's here~!
Sorry, Pat, not interested in your observations or prescriptions any more. Why don't you ask Dickie Morris for lessons in rehabilitation? He's miles ahead of you.
Hey DIMs, where's the exit strategy for getting us out of the U.N.?
"The insurgency has always been a war against the U.S. occupation"
NO! IT IS NOT!! The insurgents have killed 10 times the number of Iraqis (police, military & civilian) than they have Americans.
Even in the last 2-3 days - who have the "insurgents" attacked ..?? Iraqi policeman - and the Iraqi general public which includes WOMEN AND CHILDREN - only 3 Americans have been attacked.
Anyway we should not be surprised by what a bitter loser like Buchanin says.
• Inform the new Iraqi assembly that the United States has no plans for any permanent U.S. military presence on Iraqi soil.
As if this conversation has not already taken place, if the Iraqis want us to completely pull-out. D'UH!
• Pledge continued U.S. aid in battling the resistance and rebuilding the country, as long as an elected government endures.
Isn't obvious that's what we're ALREADY doing? D'UH!
• Accelerate the training and equipping of Iraqi army forces, and the transfer to them of the duty to defend their own government.
ALREADY being done. D'UH!
• Announce an initial drawdown of U.S. forces, so Iraqis get the message that the defense of democracy in their own country is first and foremost their own duty, not ours. While we will aid them in their battle, its ultimate outcome will depend upon them.
As if they don't get the message already and aren't trying to defend their own country. D'UH!
Love the graphic!
25,374,691 live in Iraq. A good majority, something like 80%, voted on Monday. 1% are insurgents. I think once the taste of freedom really sets into the mouths of the other 80%, that 1% better hide or leave. I expect us to stay in Iraq for a couple of decades. Not as occupiers, but as a testament, just like Korea, to how the Iraqis want us to stay. They will need us in the near future to defend themselves against a horde of freedom haters, and snakes like Iran and Syria. If we were to leave completely, Iraq would be at war constantly for many years.
Was ANYBODY listening to the President last night?
(yawn)
Why these people think they are making new or interesting observations is quite beyond me.
Maybe the reasonable parts sounded that way because they pretty much list exactly what Bush is already doing.
Yeah, let's hear conditions for Pat's exit -- as soon as possible.
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.