Posted on 11/22/2005 11:12:05 AM PST by Irontank
Gen. William Odom has called the Iraq War the greatest strategic blunder in the history of the United States. Final returns are not yet in, but he may not be far off.
In invading Iraq, we attacked and occupied a country of 25 million that had not attacked us, did not threaten us, did not want war with us—to strip it of weapons we now know it did not have.
Even if, as most believed, Saddam had chemical or biological weapons, there was no evidence he intended the suicidal use of such weapons on U.S. troops in Kuwait, or to hand them over to al-Qaida to use on America, risking massive retaliation. Saddam was never a suicide bomber. He was always a survivor.
After 9-11, we couldn’t take the chance, countered the War Party. Nonsense. We take the chance every day with Iran and North Korea, far more powerful nations, as we did every day of the Cold War against a nuclear-armed Russia and China. They had missiles and WMD. But, like Saddam, they were deterred.
Yet President Bush, prodded by a cabal of neoconservatives who, for their own motives, had been plotting war on Iraq for years, invaded. History will hold him accountable for the consequences.
On the credit side, he liberated the Iraqis from a murderous tyrant. But the cost is high and rising: 17,000 U.S. dead and wounded—i.e., the eradication of an entire American division—$200 billion, the diversion of priceless assets from the fight against al-Qaida, rampant anti-Americanism in the Islamic world, the shattering of our alliances, the division of our nation, and the prospect of a U.S. defeat by Iraqi insurgents and terrorists.
Another cost must be added after a week in which Harry Reid and Co. accused President Bush of lying us into war, Republicans accused Democrats of cutting and running, and Rep. John Murtha accused Bush and Cheney of being chicken-hawks who dodged the draft in Vietnam.
Our leaders are behaving like the leaders of the late and unlamented French Third Republic.
But if Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld are responsible for the war and its consequences, so, too, are the potential Democratic nominees: Kerry, Edwards, Clinton, Biden and Bayh. In October 2002, because the country was cheering a commander in chief beating a war drum, they voted Bush a blank check to take us to war. In the fall of 2005, with the people souring on the war, they voted for a timetable to get out.
We were deceived, we were misled, we were lied to, they wail. One only awaits their explanation that they were brainwashed by a C student. The Democratic Party is a poodle of public opinion, unfit to lead the nation.
But if we were stampeded into this war, we must not let ourselves be stampeded out of Iraq by a Democratic Party in panic, scrambling to get out in front of its base. For the cost of retreat and defeat may be far more calamitous than the costs of the present war.
There are at present four exit strategies:
A. The John McCain strategy of sending 10,000 more U.S. troops, taking as long as needed to train the Iraqi army and staying as long as necessary to achieve victory.
B. The Bush strategy of “Stay the Course,” with the present complement of forces staying as long as it takes to win.
C. The exit strategy envisioned in the bipartisan resolution in the Senate last week that passed with 79 votes, calling for Bush to give the Congress benchmarks of success, leading to withdrawal.
D. The Democratic option, supported by all but five Democratic senators, to set benchmarks and a timetable for getting out.
The McCain option is a non-starter, for it is non-credible. Adding 10,000 troops to the 160,000 there will not pacify a Sunni Triangle of 5 million. U.S. opposition to the war is near 60 percent. And if Bush refused to send the troops McCain has wanted for two years, he will not do so now that his support is evaporating. The failure to listen to Gen. Shinseki in 2002 was an irremediable blunder.
As for the Bush policy of “Stay the Course,” with support for the war crumbling in Congress and the country and no light at the end of the tunnel, it is unsustainable. On the other hand, a House resolution, engineered by Republicans, calling for immediate withdrawal was backed by only three members. Cut and run is not an option.
However, there exists a bipartisan consensus for Iraqification—the transfer of political authority in Baghdad and responsibility for the war to the Iraqis. All that remains in dispute is the timetable.
As for the ugliness and acrimony of Washington, it reflects the rage, resentment and shame of men who know they made a horrible mistake, thousands have suffered and died for it, and worse may be yet to come. The truth is both parties failed America. What the Greatest Generation won, the baby boomers are frittering away
I USED to listen to Buchanan, before he started taking stupid pills. He lost me a LONG time ago. He is just trying to worm himself back into the debate.
That's how it works. They keep repeating the lies until they become common usage and the people who know better stop reputing them. It's aggravating.
Pat Buchanon is a puke - an over the edge puke
Sure he did. He supported Vietnam, Grenada, etc.
Basically, so far as I can tell, Pat's patriotism evaporated around 1990. It has a lot to do with a four letter word which begins with a "J" and ends with an "S."
I'm not saying that Pat Buchanan is a vicious and virulent anti-semite. You might well think that, but I couldn't possibly say such a thing.
Pat Buchanon is typical of what happens when a conservative hangs out with too many media types (liberal). They will keep their conservativism, but bash the conservatives in power whenever they can, just to curry favor with their new friends. They don't do it consciously, but they do it.
Pat wouldn't have fought Germany in the second WW. What else is new!
As with every Buchanan column, I lost count of the lies, distortions and half-truths by the fourth or fifth paragraph. Pitchfork Pat is just strengthening our enemies and giving the media more talking points to use against the President.
Yep, Pat is one of those vindictive Irish types that would not have shed a tear if England fell to the Nazis.
Saddam Hussein was answerable to prove that he had eliminated WMD. If he didn't have them, why did he not prove that he'd destroyed them?
Answer- because he sold them. This is far worse than a country sitting on WMD.
Let us also not forget who was voting to make sure Saddam Hussein would not be held accountable - China, France and Russia. All three requiring military sales to get in hard currency to support their economies.
And why in the world would Saddam Hussein have to pay off the French in the oil for food scandal when they would support him gladly for free?
The tratiors are anyone who, by word or deed, are obstructing victory.
That includes people who believe the war was a mistake, people who advocate an immediate pull-out, and generally people whose vicious criticism has made the war harder to wage.
Many of them may well be unwitting traitors, I will admit. But their actions are treasonable nonetheless.
This is a war for the survivial of our civilization! This is no minor engagement.
The enemy is attacking in France, in Spain, in England - and right here at home. Though it is unlikely that America will fall to the enemy advance, it is very likely that Europe and Israel may well do so.
And then what will be left of the West? The United States and Australia? Alone against the world. With no hope of a Reconquista which will one day return Paris, Madrid, and Rome (or whatever they are called by then) to the Western fold?
There's no room here for "dissent." There is no room for sympamthy for the enemy.
Either they are destroyed or we shall be. It is our choice to make. But I hope that you, and everyone else here, chooses wisely. For, if we do not, when I am an old man - and I, statistically have six or seven decades of life to look forward to, I and others of similar age shall be sitting somewhere amid a world ruled by non-Western peoples and wondering just why in the hell we didn't do something about it when we could.
You wrote, "Unless it's 10,000 Marines."
Or paratroopers. No sky too high, no blast too fast.
Gen. William Odom has called the Iraq War the greatest strategic blunder in the history of the United States. Final returns are not yet in, but he may not be far off.
What freaking nonsense. We’ve lost about 2,000 brave soldiers while defeating the fourth or fifth largest military in the world and freed 25 million people in the process. There were individual battles in WWII where we lost ten times that many.
In invading Iraq, we attacked and occupied a country of 25 million that had not attacked us, did not threaten us, did not want war with us…
The old coot’s going senile. They fired on our military planes on an almost daily basis and attempted to assassinate a former US president, among other attacks. And they openly sponsored international terrorism on a global scale.
Pat lost a relative at Auschitz. He fell out of a Guard Tower.
|
Are you sure of his genealogy? Patrick is an Irish name, but Buchanan is Scots.
Be careful before launching into the Irish. I'm one.
>>Liberals - and those alleged 'conservatives' who oppose this war - are a cancer on free people everywhere. That cancer is quickly metastasizing - spreading to and destroying previously health tissue, previously rational minds.<<
Made all the worse by a culture that's becoming more and more idiotic (i.e., rap music, baggy ass pants, etc.).
and what about willieeee boy???????? What did HE do? Did HE serve?
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.