Posted on 08/08/2006 5:00:28 AM PDT by Molly Pitcher
Opponents of President Bush and his Iraq policy have jumped on a comment last week by Gen. John Abizaid, commander, U.S. Central Command, before the Senate Armed Services Committee: "I believe that the sectarian violence is probably as bad as I've seen it, in Baghdad in particular, and that if not stopped, it is possible that Iraq could move toward civil war."
Ignored in most of the media coverage was what Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said at the same hearing: "I believe that we do have the possibility of that devolving to a civil war, but that does not have to be a fact." Gen. Pace added: "Our enemy knows they cannot defeat us in battle. They do believe, however, that they can wear down our will as a nation." Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY.) called the administration's Iraq policy a failure, which can only encourage the terrorist insurgents to keep on fighting and killing Iraqis and American soldiers. Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI.) seemed fixated on timetables for withdrawal instead of defeating those who want to destroy the elected government of Iraq.
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld reminded the panel that the United States and the free world are in a "global struggle against violent extremists." Rumsfeld's testimony bears reading and repeating to a large number of people who, in their quest for pleasure and personal peace, appear to lack the staying power required to defeat perhaps the greatest evil the world has ever faced.
Taking note of the differences between the way the United States and terrorists fight, Rumsfeld said, "one side puts their men and women at risk in uniform and obeys the laws of war, while the other side uses them against us." We have seen that in the world's reaction to Guantanamo Bay prison and Abu Ghraib. Terrorists use torture and murder and no court of public opinion or judicial entity holds them accountable. The rare instance of abuse by American soldiers is punished.
Rumsfeld elaborated on the difference between the two sides: "One side does all it can to avoid civilian casualties, while the other side uses civilians as shields, and then skillfully orchestrates a public outcry when the other side accidentally kills civilians in their midst. One side is held to exacting standards of near perfection; the other side is held to no standards and no accountability at all."
Rumsfeld noted how the enemy uses our media to undermine American resolve, "planning attacks to gain the maximum media coverage and the maximum public outcry." And then, most importantly, he said: "If we left Iraq prematurely - as the terrorists demand - the enemy would tell us to leave Afghanistan and then withdraw from the Middle East. And if we left the Middle East, they'd order us - and all those who don't share their militant ideology - to leave what they call occupied Muslim lands, from Spain to the Philippines, and then we would face not only the evil ideology of these violent extremists, but an enemy that will have grown accustomed to succeeding in telling free people everywhere what to do."
For those who claim Iraq has nothing to do with the war on terrorism, Rumsfeld noted, "This enemy has called Iraq the central front in the war on terrorism."
During World War II, U.S. and German forces fought the battle of Hurtgen Forest. It began Sept. 19, 1944 and ended Feb. 10, 1945. That was one battle in a strategically insignificant corridor of barely 50 square miles east of the Belgium-Germany border. The Germans inflicted more than 24,000 casualties on American forces, while another 9,000 Americans were sidelined due to illness, fatigue and friendly fire. Had live TV beamed this battle to America, there might have been an outcry that the policy was failing and somehow a cease-fire and an accommodation with Hitler should be achieved.
Amer ica won that war because the objective wasn't to understand the Nazis, or to reach an accommodation with them; the objective was to win the war. Anything less in this war - against an equally evil and unrelenting enemy - will mean defeat for the United States and for freedom everywhere. That's what Rumsfeld was getting at when he said, "We can persevere in Iraq or we can withdraw prematurely, until they force us to make a stand nearer home. But make no mistake: They are not going to give up, whether we acquiesce in their immediate demands or not."
Rumsfeld is right.
"Rumsfeld in '08" !!
I think there's still better than a 50/50 chance that the result in 'Iraq' will be 3 separate autonomous countries.
Rumsfeld elaborated on the difference between the two sides: "One side does all it can to avoid civilian casualties, while the other side uses civilians as shields, and then skillfully orchestrates a public outcry when the other side accidentally kills civilians in their midst. One side is held to exacting standards of near perfection; the other side is held to no standards and no accountability at all."And guess which side the media is on. And guess which side the "Democrats" are on.
If they never surrender, how will we ultimately declare victory?
Like it was before being combined by Imperial Britain.
Not for nuthin', I dont care if Iraq becomes a Democracy or not. We need to kill Saddam, go into Syria and take out whomever needs taking out there, emasculate Iran completely and violently and by a show of force in those hell holes, remind Eqypt and Saudi Arabia that if they can't keep their Islamofascists in line then they are next.
Three years ago I guess it seemed like a good idea to create a(nother) shiite-controlled in the neighborhood...
Probably not going to happen.
To old in the public's perception. Though he can probably kick many an ass of men 40 years younger. I'm not kidding on that point either.
May have to wait awhile. The war between "Christendom" and Islam has been going on for nearly 13 hundred years. The results have been a see-saw with them ahead most of the time. Part of the problem is the histoical ignorance of our elites. They are taught that the Crusades were agression against peaceful and civilized Muslims. Fact is that it was a counter-attack against them Muslims who were threatening the Byzantine Empire, who had just rolled over the eastern part of it. The Crusaders, howver, had the limited objective of taking back the Holy Land and Syria. Disunity among the Christians eventually led to the failure of the Crusades, which was then followed by another Muslim advance, this one into the heart of Europe, all the way to the gates of Vienna by the 1520s. In the 1570s, the Christians defeated the Muslims in the sea battle of Lepanto, which prevented a Turkish invasion of Italy. Somewhat more than a hundred years later, the Turkis again knocked on the gates of Vienna. This time they were badly defeated and their power began to recede. Their control of the Balkans, however, was not broken until the later 19th Century. About the same time the French won control of North Africa and the British control of Egypt. It was the British and French who kept Russia from taking control of Constantiople. The Ottoman Empire was finally broken during WWI, leading to the establishment of Arab states--and a Jewish "homeland"in Palestine. The Arab states remained under the thumb of Britain and France until after WWII. Here is where we came in. For the post-war history of the Middle East has led to a resurgence of Islam.
And this is where the only parrallel to vietnam might be raised:
we step in, to clean up a mess that is a direct result of our fellow nations pulling out of something that was too messy and hard for them to deal with.
It certainly looks like there ought to be three states, Kurd, Shia and Sunni, build a fence or something. but of course that is way too simplistic.
But as evidenced in palestine and lebanon, until the arab world stops educating (with lies) their kids to hate Jews and the west to the point of murder, the mass of angry muslims will not go away. the blame there lies in the laps of arab leaders.
Conservative opponents of the war say that only totaltiarian/authoritarian governments can keep peace in that religion. The record shows that they don't, excepting Turkey, and even Turkey cannot suppress a Kurdish guerilla movement. Nasser threw away his opportunities largely because he would not make peace with Israel.
"I think there's still better than a 50/50 chance that the result in 'Iraq' will be 3 separate autonomous countries."
And there is nothing wrong with that. The only thing that would really need to be addressed would be the Kurds and Turkey.
They have not surrendered in 1300 years of jihad. The point is not victory in that we finish the enemy for all time. That cannot happen withour exterminating the Mohammedans of the world and I don't think Western Civ is up to that. The best we can hope for is the situation after Lepanto or Tours or Vienna- that Islam becomes torpid with defeat, that the Saracens come to understand that Allah does not will Islam to prevail at this moment in history. That will alleviate the threat for a few generations but it will be back.
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.