In the war on terrorism we appear to be, as someone said, “between Iraq and a hard place.” And now it looks like an Iraqi civil war is in the making with our troops squarely in the crossfire.
Maybe our military bungled it by sending in ground troops instead of standing back and zapping Iraq to rubble with high-tech naval and air power.
It has long been accepted military strategy not to fight on the enemies’ turf and terms. Our generals seem to have been attending sensitivity classes when that lesson was taught.
Maybe there could be no other outcome given the nature of religious war in a semi-civilized land stuck in time.
At this point it appears that America has done all it can for Iraq. There is nothing more to be gained by spending additional American lives and resources.
I believe history will view the invasion of Iraq by America as a noble and selfless act.
Iraq is one more example of America making the world a better place asking, as General Colin Powell said, “nothing in return but enough ground to bury our dead.”
The U. S. has pried the bloody talons of Saddam Hussein from around the necks of the Iraqi people; removed the use of weapons of mass destruction from the hands of a maniac regime; sacrificed the lives of thousands of American girls and boys; spent uncounted billions of dollars to rebuild Iraq; provided food and medicine to the people; and encouraged the establishment of a democratic government.
Nothing remains to be done except to secure the Iraqi oil flow. We could easily do that by simply seizing the oil fields and operate them under a U. S. protectorate. (Iranian President Ahmadinejad, call your office!)
Iraq has become the central Islamic battleground into which an endless stream of Muslim terrorists can be funneled to grapple with the “Great Satan.”
After a raid into Iraq, Muslims’ flee back across the borders or fade into the civilian population making it impossible for our forces to fight decisive set-piece battles.
The only way the U. S. can win such a fight is to unleash total war on the whole country as we did in World War II on Europe and Japan.
The alternative is to allow another Third World country to hand the U.S. another stalemated military defeat as we suffered in Korea, Vietnam, the Balkans, and Gulf War I.
Muslim countries who covertly or overtly support the Islamic Jihad can easily supply men and war materials to keep a perpetual guerilla war going on forever in Iraq.
Ironically, the steady flow of money needed to support the Islamic war on America comes mostly from the sale of Arab oil to the U. S. and from drug sales to U.S. dope heads.
President Bush has made it clear that our immediate task in Iraq, after removing Saddam, is to stabilize the country, train Iraqi troops, help the Iraqi factions to form a government and assist in the establishment of a constitutional democracy.
But it’s fair for critics of the Bush administration to ask: what is our long term goal in Iraq? Is it to move in as an imperial power and permanently colonize Iraq? Is it to establish democracy as we know it? Is it to bring peace to a part of the world that has seldom known peace?
As to colonizing, I don’t believe Americans would stand for a long occupation of another foreign country, although Iraq would greatly benefit.
And democracy is probably a futile dream. Looking at history a good argument can be made that Middle Eastern nations are not capable of self-government and are very nearly ungovernable except by a theocratic strongman.
The hope that Iraqi forces will ever be trained well enough to keep order and defend Iraqi borders is probably too optimistic. Except for the Turks, Middle Eastern troops have never -- to put it kindly -- demonstrated an ability to perform well as an army.
As for peace, there can never be a realistic peace in a region where personal freedom and liberty are as rare as indoor plumbing.
It’s time, I believe, for us to move on in the war on terrorism. We must establish a series of steps for withdrawing and then carry them out leaving Iraq free to determine its own destiny.
Perhaps this is the President’s plan. If so, he must not explain the timetable to Democrats in Congress, the American media, France, Al Jazeera, or other terrorists’ sources of intelligence.
Still, we must leave within a reasonable time. We cannot nation-sit Iraq forever.
I will look for your name on the ballot in '08.
IF you win that election, you will have earned the right to command the military and our country.
It’s time, I believe, for us to move on in the war on terrorism.
You've got to be kidding.
Why not just give alqueida green cards and go back to sleep?
This IS A LONG TERM proposition we are engaged in, we CANNOT
afford or ALLOW the democrats to peel away support for the Iraqis like they did to the vietnamese after we pulled out, no good can come of it.
We are in a struggle to the death here even if not many are aware of it yet.
Remember too, this is ONLY one front in what will be a protracted conflict, keeping in mind that for the Islamic
fanatics this is only a continuation of a war as old as their religion.
Have you two met Chamberlin?
Better yet, have you met the denizons of Daily Kos? They frequently deal in half truths, lies, and propaganda. You'd both be welcomed there with open arms if these two posts are evidence of anything.
R.W.Ratikal, once you started your post with the non existent Iraqi civil war..it was disregarded as worthless.
varon, I really don't know how any person of good conscience could equate free men and women choosing to put their life on the line voluntarily to protect their own country and free another people as equal to suicide bombers that worship tyranny and death. Therefore I find you lacking in good conscience. Furthermore you are a DAMN LIAR with the spewed rhetoric that a WEAK American president was manipulated...since you care so much about polls why don't you try running a CHECK on his polls in 2002 and 2003. At the time this was being debated and begun. Then don't humilate yourself further by coming back here and trying to justify 2006 polls as influencing a 2002-2003 decision.
As for your sweet fanciful theory Americans are going to toss politicians out for staying in Iraq, go have a chat with Murtha and the House Dems that voted not to withdraw. Go have a little chat with the Dems that only had EIGHT vote against the Patriot Act. Go have a chat with the damn traitors in that party that are so afraid they've weakened themselves into a LOSS over the WOT/Iraq that they tried to present themselves as tough with the ports.
Everytime I come close to considering teaching the spineless Republicans a lesson people like you, or Murtha, cannot keep your traps shut and end up teaching me I've got no choice BUT to put Reps back in despite the fact they are headed by the likes of McCain, and Linds, and Specter.
So keep talking and running your fingers on that typeboard or moving those lips, so that people like myself will remember that more is involved than petty political lessons.
What "crossfire"? "Crossfire" occurs when you are between two groups. But we are helping to defend the democratically-elected Iraq government, at their request, from a terror insurgency fueled by a minority. Whatever else that is, and however bad a civil war might be, that's not "crossfire".
Maybe our military bungled it by sending in ground troops instead of standing back and zapping Iraq to rubble with high-tech naval and air power.
The end result of Iraq being "zapped to rubble" was not among our objectives.
It has long been accepted military strategy not to fight on the enemies’ turf and terms.
We chose to open this front in Iraq, voluntarily. Those are our terms. Many of our enemies have travelled to Iraq to meet us simply because we are there - looks like they're the ones violating your military strategy.
At this point it appears that America has done all it can for Iraq.
Not so, America can continue to play the caretaker role we are playing as Iraq's nascent democratic government struggles to build a civil society. All that is required is a little patience, or is that too much to ask?
There is nothing more to be gained by spending additional American lives and resources.
We can prevent Al Qaeda from assuming power and creating a terror safe haven in a naturally-wealthy Middle Eastern country. This would be a HUGE loss; preventing it is therefore a huge gain. This is so non-debatable that the mere suggestion of ceding this territory to Al Qaeda (for no good reason, I might add) is frivolous and idiotic to the point of irresponsibility.
Nothing remains to be done except to secure the Iraqi oil flow.
... and its democratically-elected government against an ongoing terror assault from our enemy. Or do you simply not care whether Al Qaeda gains the foothold of a wealthy state sponsor?
We could easily do that by simply seizing the oil fields and operate them under a U. S. protectorate.
Not clear how what you suggest is any different from status quo. Iraq is, at present, a de facto U.S. protectorate already. I guess the difference is that you want us to "seize" the oil fields (why?).
Iraq has become the central Islamic battleground into which an endless stream of Muslim terrorists can be funneled to grapple with the “Great Satan.”
Another way to put it is that it is a sinkhole for Muslim terrorists to be captured and killed by the "Great Satan" there instead of wreaking havoc elsewhere. And you want to do away with that situation, why? If it's the central battleground, shall we not fight the battle? Or shall we retreat? If so, why?
After a raid into Iraq, Muslims’ flee back across the borders or fade into the civilian population making it impossible for our forces to fight decisive set-piece battles.
We are fighting an enemy whose beloved tactic is terror. There is no such thing as "set-piece battles" in a terror war. To say that we should retreat from any battlefield in which we cannot arrange for "set-piece battles" is to say that we should surrender entirely.
The only way the U. S. can win such a fight is to unleash total war on the whole country as we did in World War II on Europe and Japan.
This is just a non sequitur. Situations not analogous.
The alternative is to allow another Third World country to hand the U.S. another stalemated military defeat as we suffered in Korea, Vietnam, the Balkans, and Gulf War I.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but that's precisely what you're advocating here.
Muslim countries who covertly or overtly support the Islamic Jihad can easily supply men and war materials to keep a perpetual guerilla war going on forever in Iraq.
For all the good it will do them. You act as if you believe these nihilistic terrorists are accomplishing something of military (or any other) value in Iraq. It is precisely the opposite. To the extent that you're right about Muslim countries' supplying men and war materials on this nihilistic sacrifice, they are essentially pouring those resources down a pit instead of using them on something which could do us significant damage. Sounds ok to me.
I might add that the jihadis in Iraq have caused Al Qaeda's cause a huge PR setback by their actions there. Surprise, surprise, it turns out that slaughtering Muslims indiscriminately isn't quite the PR coup Zarqawi et al think it is. And you intend to scare me with the promise that they could continue? If Muslim countries intend to continue wasting their resources supporting this PR disaster indefinitely then by all means, let them do so.
President Bush has made it clear that our immediate task in Iraq, after removing Saddam, is to stabilize the country, train Iraqi troops, help the Iraqi factions to form a government and assist in the establishment of a constitutional democracy. But it’s fair for critics of the Bush administration to ask: what is our long term goal in Iraq?
Read over your first setence again; that is the long term goal. You may as well have written "President Bush has said 2+2=4. But it's fair for critics to ask, what is 2+2?"
Is it to move in as an imperial power and permanently colonize Iraq?
No. "Colonize"? No. Go look up the definition of "colonize". We are not doing anything even remotely resembling "colonization".
Is it to establish democracy as we know it?
Not necessarily. Just a democracy (which is shorthand for, reasonably decent consensual government).
Is it to bring peace to a part of the world that has seldom known peace?
"Bring peace" cannot be a goal of military action per se, that is nonsensical. To the extent that there can even be defined such a state of affairs as "peace" (is there "peace" in the U.S.? yes? but what about in Compton, CA?), "peace" will have to follow (if it does) from some tangible goal... such as a reasonably decent consensual government. If it does not, well too bad, but that makes the tangible goal no less worthy of pursuit.
As to colonizing, I don’t believe Americans would stand for a long occupation of another foreign country, although Iraq would greatly benefit.
You are confused. "Colonizing" and "occupation" are not synonyms. We currently occupy (just for starters) Germany, Japan, and South Korea militarily, and have done so for a long time - the very thing you insist Americans wouldn't stand for. But does that mean we have "colonized" them?
Looking at history a good argument can be made that Middle Eastern nations are not capable of self-government and are very nearly ungovernable except by a theocratic strongman.
A facile and self-serving argument, sure. "We're gonna abandon the majority of you to the violent minority, cuz we've looked at your history and" bla bla bla.
Wake up and look at the facts: Iraqis have voted in a constitution and a government for themselves. They have participating in self-government. It is a democracy, right now. But its government is under assault by fascists, thugs and zealots, and needs our help to stand. It appears you don't wish to provide that help, for whatever reason of your own. But instead of just saying that, you instead decide they're "not capable of self-government" (because they're being attacked? did 9/11 prove that America is "not capable of self-government"?) and wash your hands of them. Facile.
The hope that Iraqi forces will ever be trained well enough to keep order and defend Iraqi borders is probably too optimistic.
Iraqi forces are people. People can learn to use implements and follow simple orders. Iraq is a territory. Territories can be defended. Non-pacified people are people. They can be pacified or killed. These things have occurred zillions of times in zillions of places throughout human history, yet you make them sound like magic tricks when applied to Iraq. Why? Is Iraq a special-magical "can't defend"/"can't pacify" zone? Or is it that Arabs are particularly incapable of learning how to point and shoot, write and execute laws, and so forth?
Except for the Turks, Middle Eastern troops have never -- to put it kindly -- demonstrated an ability to perform well as an army.
They don't necessarily need to "perform well", just good enough. And your criticism is self-nullifying anyhow, because their foes are also Middle Eastern. If Middle Eastern troops are so incapable then for Iraq to defend herself against her attackers shouldn't be a problem.
As for peace, there can never be a realistic peace in a region where personal freedom and liberty are as rare as indoor plumbing.
Circular argument, basically. Lack of personal freedom and liberty is a symptom of lack of peace, not its cause. You speak as if lack of personal freedom and liberty are features of the landscape there, unalterable as mountains. Rubbish.
It’s time, I believe, for us to move on in the war on terrorism.
What does this even mean? "Move on"? To where? Al Qaeda is in Iraq. Where would you rather us fight them? North Dakota? They might not agree to that.
We must establish a series of steps for withdrawing and then carry them out leaving Iraq free to determine its own destiny.
Um, and this is different from what we're doing, how?
Still, we must leave within a reasonable time. We cannot nation-sit Iraq forever.
Straw man. Of course we can't do that "forever". We can't do anything "forever". Since when was "forever" on the table? You say we must leave within a reasonable time. Well who can disagree with that? The question is what's the definition of a reasonable time? You say we can't nation-sit forever but we sure as hell can do it longer than the attention-span of a 15-year-old watching MTV.
Your entire post is laden with an overarching assumption that our military presence in Iraq is seriously threatened and/or that there is some sort of crisis point reached or nearly reached, that the situation is urgent or dire or about to break in the short term. I wholeheartedly reject these notions and think they are based on absolutely nothing of substance; I do not believe you can defend them or state in objective terms where the urgency lies.
Best,
Hell no, look at Germany, Japan, and Korea. - oh, wait...