Posted on 06/27/2005 6:11:36 AM PDT by OESY
Iraq has changed dramatically in the year since my last visit. Earlier this month, I was honored to visit the Coalition leadership in Baghdad, as well as Iraqi Security Forces and U.S. Army and Marine combat units throughout the country. Thanks to an excellent personal security detail, I was able to cover a lot of ground quickly in the extremely violent and tricky environment presented by the ongoing insurgency and the extensive criminal activity faced by military forces, contractors, journalists, as well as the suffering Iraqi civilian population.
One thing has not changed in Iraq -- our fighting forces on the ground represent the most combat effective, courageous, and well led military capability we have ever fielded. This may be insufficiently understood and valued by those who monitor this conflict. Their casualties are a fraction that we should expect given the level of cunning and firepower that has targeted them with automatic weapons fire, mortar and rocket attacks, RPG strikes, the greatly feared suicide bombers, and remotely detonated improvised explosive devices, or IEDs....
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
For liberals it is. As a matter of fact, it's their preference.
As I understand it, McCaffrey's hesitation also allowed the majority of the Republican Guard to escape Gulf War I, only to resurface in the violent suppression of the Kurds and Shiites in the following months.
Then we had to establish no fly zones, etc. etc. etc.
Failure is indeed not an option for America or its allies in Iraq. Period.
1. Deploy 101st Fighting Keyboarders
2. Cut taxes for the $300,000-and-up income bracket
3. Tell citizens to continue shopping
4. Cut taxes on capital gains
5. Begin “fixing” intelligence and facts
6. Undermine Secretary of State with humiliating U.N. presentation
7. Repeal estate tax
8. Alienate remaining international allies
9. Distribute magnetic “support the troops” ribbons
10. Prepare U.S.S. Lincoln for critical photo op
11. Dispatch preparatory rose-petal-cleanup detail for Baghdad, Mosul, Basra, Najaf, Fallujah, etc. and finally, most important:
12. Blame failure on liberals
Wow. I guess that you believe that only our freedom is worth fighting for. I'm glad Americans haven't felt that way over the years. I think a free and democratic Iraq will be a huge boon for stability in the region, and if you can't see how that benefits the U.S.... well, maybe you need to look outside yourself every once in a while.
Actually, the 24th ID (XVIII Airborne Corps), which started way out on the left flank of the big turning movement that was the "Hail Mary", moved farther and faster than the other divisions of the other corps involved in Desert Storm. What you call "hesitation" was actually the order from the GHW Bush people to end the war at 100 hours. Although McCaffrey's troops were sorely tried by the antics of the retreating Republican Guard units (who jeered and taunted as they drove by on their way back to Iraq), they would have disobeyed orders if they had somehow prevented the escape of the Republican Guard.
FWIW, McCaffrey also predicted 2,000-3,000 KIA to take Baghdad. He has been set up as PMSNBC's military expert so if he thinks things are improving in Iraq he'll probably be let go now.
"Wow. I guess that you believe that only our freedom is worth fighting for..."
My one word answer is, Yes! I don't think US soldiers should be dying for Iraqi freedom. Also, if the Iraqi's love freedom, why are there more US troops fighting for their freedom than Iraqi's? I don't see how a "free" Iraq will benefit us. I don't see how leaving Iraq would guarantee another attack on US soil as some have stated.
BTW, I don't consider myself a Move-On.org wack job. I twice voted for President Bush. I agreed with going in because our intelligence said there were WMDs. Even without the intelligence, Saddam was hellbent on aquiring WMDs. You'd have to be unrealistic to not know that, but we went to war to eliminate WMDs, not fight for the freedom of the Iraqi people. Also, we were told a rich country like Iraq, with $50-100 billion in annual oil revenues and they could eaisly afford their own rebuilding. We have spend about $200 billion and I expect another supplemental early next year to the tune of another $100 billion. Money aside, US troops are still dying. Why?
Can someone tell me why we should still be there? What benefit are we getting. And just to preculde one argument, Libya relented on their nuclear program becase we showed a willingness to go after rogue regimes developing WMDs. This freedom thing, please!
I smell trolls. The liberation of Iraq is about winning WW IV on Terror. One by one we will change the regimes of the Axis of Evil and any other country that supports or harbors terrorists. This is a world wide guerilla war; we must make sure there is no sanctuary for the islamonazis. If you think you can just go home and hide; forget it. The islamic terrorists will celebrate their victory and prepare the next phase which is WMD attacks. We need more supporters like the new government in Iraq throughout the Muslim world. Its as much for their benefit as for ours. We are going to win this war, and I will work to make sure that all of the modern Neville Chamberlains and Lindberghs are voted out of office.
Our credibility is at stake here. Our failure to respond to terrorism is what led to 9/11. Ask bin Laden. He has said as much.
I wasn't exactly sure about the events - thanks for clearing that up.
Ok, since you obviously do not have an idea on the answer to this (I will assume you are not trolling) here is the answer. It's a bit long, but I want to be detailed enough so that you understand it.
A free and democratic Iraq will be a stable Iraq. This is of significant benefit to us in economic, military, and humanitarian areas.
Economically, this will be a new market for our goods and services, a new source of goods and services, and a stable source of oil.
Do you think that the instability in places like Nigeria and Venezuela contribute to our higher oil prices? You bet they do! Another stable source of oil in the world will help keep the costs down.
As we have seen with Poland and the Baltic states, growth of economies is very good in places with stability. Compared to Georgia and Ukraine, which are unstable political situations, Poland and the Baltics are growing very swiftly and will be viable economic countries very soon. Georgia and Ukraine will be fixed down the road once stability is established. Iraq will have a huge economic boom once stability takes hold.
Militarily, Iraq is a useful location in establishing our presence. When Carter gave away the Panama Canal Zone, it wasn't the Canal itself that was so upsetting. It was the fact that we had a presence in Central America and could influence or react to various Communist dictatorships. Our presence in an area helps shape it to our benefit.
Since we will likely have bases in Iraq and Kuwait for the foreseeable future, we have by default put pressure on Iran, Syria and the central -stans to behave themselves. Keeping the lid on a flash-point means that we are much less likely to have to fight a hot war and lose some of our people.
On the humanitarian side our presence is leading to the construction of schools and hospitals instead of petty fighting and squabbling over trivial items. As the Iraqi leadership gets to see our people in action and doing the job of running things, they will start living the culture of duty and responsibility instead of corruption and avarice.
Have you ever wondered why former British colonies seem to do so much better than former French or Belgian colonies? It's because the British were significantly less corrupt than their French and Belgian counterparts. As leadership of those former colonies was transferred to local leaders, those local leaders took the lessons of the colonial rulers and we see the results across Africa and Asia. Anglophone countries (Kenya, Tanzania, India) are in general much better than Francophone countries (Nigeria, Togo, Cambodia). We will provide stability by providing a good example for Iraq's leaders to follow.
The U.S. has only fought only it's own soil in two conflicts. The War of 1812 had us defending ourselves against the British and the U.S. Civil War was a period where we determined what our nation was truly going to be shaped like. Other than that, we have always fought to free others in order to have a more stable world to live in.
In 1845, we fought to free Mexico from Santa Ana due to Mexico threatening to attack us through Texas. We didn't stay very long.
In 1898, we fought to free several Spanish colonies from Spain due to threats to trade and belligerence on the high seas. We were in the Philippines until the mid 90's and are still in Puerto Rico. Two of the more stable colonies that Spain owned.
In 1914, we went to war to free Europe from the Germany and the Austria-Hungarian Empire. An unstable Europe was disrupting the economic situation of the whole world. We left soon after and we were back in 1942.
1941, we went to war with Japan and the following year with Germany. Japan was due to their audacity at attacking us, but Germany was because once again Europe was under dictatorship and instability. This time we stayed in both the Pacific and Europe. Our presence there was a major factor in stabilizing those regions.
In 1950, we were the bulk of the UN forces sent to Korea to stop the Communist North Koreans from taking the whole country by force. We are still in South Korea, and the place is stable.
In 1962, we started building up forces in Vietnam to help the French put down a Communist rebellion. We failed the people of Vietnam by our lack of will and it is a pit even to this day.
In 1991, we drove Iraq out of Kuwait, but left Saddam Hussein in power. He killed more of his own people in the next 10 years than any leader since Pol Pot. He financed terrorism and anti-Israeli and Anti-American schools. He came to believe his own propaganda and daily shot at our warplanes enforcing the no fly zones he agreed to.
In 2001, America had war delivered to it's door for the first time since 1814. Saddam Hussein was working to destabilize the Middle East to his own advantage and the Taliban in Afghanistan was openly supporting bin Laden.
What should we do?
Should we leave as we did in the case of
1)Mexico
2)Europe after WWI
3)Vietnam
4)Iraq after Gulf War I
Or should we stay as long as needed as in the case of
1)Puerto Rico and the Philippines
2)Europe and Japan after WWII
3)Korea
Which way has given us more stability and been of greater benefit to the U.S.?
Yawn...
No, and if you really believe that then you are listening to the media propaganda too much.
We went in because:
1) Hussein continually and consistently hampered and obfuscated the weapons inspections that he agreed to and the U.N. was trying to enforce.
2) All intelligence, from every nation, said that he had stockpiles of Nerve and Biological agents that could be quickly weaponized.
3) There were several intelligence reports that he was attempting to gather Nuclear materials.
4) His underwriting of Palestinian suicide bombers and his support of Islamic Jihad and Hamas meant he was on the wrong side of "You are either with us, or against us" as it pertained to terrorism.
5) His brutal treatment of his own people and his invasion of two of his neighbors showed that he was not a stable element in the region.
Your insistence that is was WMD's alone makes me believe you have only recently started to read and understand what is going on or you are a troll.
There are arguments to be made about speeding up the withdraw of troops, but you are not even close to making them.
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.