Posted on 10/13/2006 10:50:20 AM PDT by Blackrain4xmas
The 1990-2006 War in Iraq might soon be over. The head of the British Army is calling for the removal of his nation’s troops. Other members of the Coalition of the Willing are preparing to leave this year as well. The Iraq Studies Group headed by former Secretary of State Baker is putting together a report to be released in December, and it will either suggest pulling American forces out of the fight and positioning them along the border of Iraq or pulling out all together. Even the Iraqi government is working to divide the nation politically along ethnic lines in preparation for the chaos to follow.
How did it come to this? Since the May 2003 “Mission Accomplished” speech declared an end to fighting with Saddam’s forces. That speech also warned of a long fight against holdouts, dead-enders, terrorists, and other forms of insurgents. Since then General Casey and other military leaders have testified before Congress several times. In their testimony the generals often said that the military had done all it could and that victory or defeat would be determined by diplomacy and politics. Make no mistake about it, the lack of victory and the likely defeat of American forces will be the result of failed diplomacy and politics.
The war in Iraq is an awful thing to watch, and incalculably worse if one is fighting it or has friends and family doing so. While there has been a clear anti-war movement since June 02, there is no pro-war movement. Instead, there are people who simply don’t want to abandon Iraqis again and then drag the war out for another 16years or more. No one WANTS this war, but some understand that whether the ship sails straight or not in the fog, at least it’s moving forward, not sitting still, and not moving backwards.
American and other Coalition forces have never lost a battle in Iraq. They never even lost a fight! So if they come home in 2006 or 2007, they will be yet another generation of Americans who were never defeated in the field, but lost yet another war. They will have lost a war to insurgent forces that were outnumbered 10:1, outgunned at least 10,000:1, and (again) they will have lost to insurgent forces that who defeated them in battle.
If the Coalition of the Willing was never defeated in battle, then how did they lose the war?
It will end with the stroke of a pen, and the click of a single mouse button. Somewhere, sometime a pen will sign an order to redeploy US forces to the periphery of Iraq where they can serve as geopolitical deterrents to Iran and Syria while being much less susceptible to insurgent attacks. Then, the order will be typed up into an email, and sent with the click of a mouse. That’s it.
It will not be a defeated American general sitting at an enemy’s surrender table who orders the removal of American troops at the demands of an insurgent leader. Instead, it will be an American politician who writes the order, and an American general who carries it out. In effect, the pullout will not be due to a defeat in the field, but due to the political decision of an American politician-President Bush or Congress.
Many will read this and recoil by saying, “Oh come on! Bush will NEVER pull out US troops from Iraq!”
He will. President Bush is an elected leader and while he is Commander in Chief of American forces he is not omnipotent. He’s accountable to a chain of command. American generals get their orders from the President, and the President will be forced to make his decision by the will and demands of Congress and the American people.
Most people “support the troops.” More than 60% of the nation no longer supports the mission. Instead polls suggest that they support the removal and/or redeployment of US forces from Iraq’s combat zones. Since that is the same objective as the insurgents, they are supporting the insurgents’ mission while “supporting the troops,” and this is where the great national divide becomes emotional to everyone.
On the one hand those who “support the troops” by supporting the insurgents’ mission goals are not bad people, but they’ve become convinced that the loss of American blood and treasure in Iraq just isn’t worth the vaguely defined victory as presented by the President. For those people victory is: an end to the loss of blood and treasure, it’s an end to the ugly scenes on their TVs every night, it’s an end to the yellow ribbons on trees in their neighborhoods, it’s an end to flag covered coffins of 20yr old men and their 18yr old widows.
The mission or objective of those who do not support the war (who support the pullout of U.S. forces and effectively support the same objective as the insurgents) is not to support the killing of Americans, but to just end it regardless of cost since they no longer see the bad effects of a redeployment or retreat. They just don’t see the point of the war anymore (if they ever did).
”Stay the course” is not a strategy if people don’t understand or see that course. It’s like sending a ship into the fog without a compass and then saying go straight. People don’t see any sort of light at the end of the tunnel because even though everyone knows what light looks like, there are those who can’t help asking, “Are we there yet?!” After fighting with, in, and over Iraq for 16years…that’s not at ALL unreasonable! “Stay the course” should be replaced with “We broke it, we bought it, and let’s not leave it in a way that makes it so our kids and grandkids have to come back yet again.”
Opposite of the “Stay the Course” theme is the “Bring the troops home” idea. It’s an idea that calls for an insurgent victory because it’s just like saying, “Let the insurgents win.” Just as “Stay the course” is a flawed sound bite, so too should “Bring the troops home” be replaced by a more accurate, “Let’s get the hell outta there, let the insurgents win, abandon Iraq to chaos, and leave the problem for the next generation to face.”
President Bush Sr. could have removed Saddam in 1991. He was afraid to do so for fear of its results. When he made that decision, the soldiers and Marines currently fighting and dying in Iraq were only 2 years old. Now, they’re 18 years old and fighting a war that should have been fought and ended 16 years ago. Back then, President Bush Sr. followed the post-Vietnam American populist strategy, “Let’s get the hell outta there, let the insurgents win, abandon Iraq to chaos, and leave the problem for the next generation to face.”
Congress and the President get their orders from me-either through my vote or through polling. If I say, “Let’s get the hell outta there, let the insurgents win, abandon Iraq to chaos, and leave the problem for the next generation to face” then Congress and/or the President will do so and accomplish the insurgents’ mission of removing U.S. forces from Iraq. If I say, “We broke it, we bought it, and let’s not leave it in a way that makes it so our kids and grandkids have to come back yet again.” Then I am supporting the American forces and supporting their mission; their efforts to bring freedom, democracy, and security to a place where-if there are none of those things-will certainly be calling my 2 year old son to don beige and brown, to carry a rifle, and to return in 16 or so years.
Some will say that the mission just can’t be accomplished-that Iraq can’t be left in a condition where the US will have to come back and fight again. I submit that 150,000 American forces have faced far tougher enemies than 20,000 Iraqi insurgents, but then again the defeat, retreat, redeployment, or cut-and-run from Iraq won’t be the result of a battlefield defeat at the hands of 20,000 insurgents. It will be at the stroke of a pen, and the click of a mouse button both of which follow my will, and your will, and the will of the American people in general. It is WE who will order the defeat of American soldiers, Marines, sailors, and airmen. Does our resolve for the ugliness of black ribbons on trees match that of Marines dug in and fighting in Ramadi as you read this?
“Let’s get the hell outta there, let the insurgents win, abandon Iraq to chaos, and leave the problem for the next generation to face” OR “We broke it, we bought it, and let’s not leave it in a way that makes it so our kids and grandkids have to come back yet again.”
That’s our choice.
“Now, more than ever, with our soldiers in harm's way, we must stand together and succeed in Iraq and win the war on terror.” -Senator John Kerry 11/3/04
I don't know who made these decisions - my own sense for some time is that Bush has been poorly served by the decisions of the pentagon generals - Abizaid, etc
we have more then enough combat units in iraq - what are they doing? they aren't being used in acute fighting, they are being used as police, driving around escorting convoys, manning checkpoints.
the issue is not "more troops" - the issue is, what are the troops we already have there, doing.
I couldn't agree more. I'm afraid we'll be involved in wars in the Middle-East for decades to come regardless of our actions in Iraq. With Iraq we're at least dictating which wars we fight. This one is about bringing liberty and democracy to people that have no philisophical concept of these ideas.
Good article, btw.
Today at noon on a local radio station I was listening to went to the national news. As I was listening the British General who was to have spoken these words said they were taken out of context. The newsman went on describing what the general had really said and, what he had meant by the statement.
The general stated, the British will never pull out as long as their ali, the United States was in Iraq.
Has anyone checked to see who wrote the story.
I'll take the hit on that. I read about four paragraphs in and figured it was another cut-and-run advocate article.
That ain't me.
I don't write those kinda things.
I'm an advocate of "Finish the job so my son doesn't have to do it in 16yrs"
not
"Let's get the hell outta there, abandon the Iraqis, and watch the chaos just so we can try and bash Bush."
You're full of shit.
what? How so?
What does diplomacy have to do with it? If we leave Iraq it won't be because we were beaten into submission. It will be because we simply failed to outlast the enemy.
You are almost right, what this seems to be all about is 'sustaining'.
Now, I am a few years removed from the fight, but basically thats what our convoys were all about. Keeping the chow hall supplied, bringing in fuel, shower points, latrines, sleeping quarters, barricades, etc.
It is always the case of the point of the sword not being large enough to squash their will to fight.
Shoulda read the entire article
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.