Posted on 10/22/2006 7:41:33 AM PDT by forty_years
What a surprise, the Iraq war's course is scaring the hell out of Republicans, given the Democrats something to drool over, and causing despair to people like me who supported the effort for a long time. The only solution left to the U.S. is an all-out, no-holds-barred assault on Iraq's "militants" and anyone related to them -- something akin to how the Allies finished off Hitler and Hirohito in WWII, or Julius Caeser's defeat of Versongeterix's Gallic army, or Alexander's defeat of Persian King Darius at Gaugamela, or the Lithuanian/Polish defeat of the Teutonic Knights at Grunwald. But history has already been forgotten, public relations rules, and I doubt that the U.S.-led coalition is willing to carry out such a massive strike against terrorism in Iraq. The Coalition was on the right track when it wrested Fallujah from Baathist/Sunni terrorist hands in 2004 -- the so-called Second Battle of Fallujah or officially, Operation Al-Fajr. This battle was a tactical and regional success, as Fallujah has been relatively quite since its militants were crushed. Unfortunately, politics and public relations -- mainly the fear of civilian and Coalition casualties -- will most likely prevent the U.S. from applying this strategy to the rest of Iraq.
Just as "President Bush on Saturday reviewed Iraq strategy with top war commanders and national security advisers, but indicated little inclination for major changes to an increasingly divisive policy," Republican Senator "Kay Bailey Hutchison, one of President Bush's most ardent loyalists on the war in Iraq, voiced her strongest criticism yet of the administration's reasons for going to war." Of course, Hutchison made these comments during a debate with the Democratic contender for her seat in the November election.
Not only are Republican members of Congress getting worried, but Condoleeza Rice's own State Department is adding to the pessimistic chorus:
Offering an unusually candid assessment of America's enterprise in Iraq, a senior U.S. diplomat said the United States had shown "arrogance" and "stupidity" in Iraq, but warned that failure in the violence-ridden Arab nation would be a disaster for the entire region.In an interview with Al-Jazeera aired late Saturday, Alberto Fernandez, director of public diplomacy in the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs at the U.S. State Department, also said the United States was ready to talk with any Iraqi group -- excluding Al Qaeda in Iraq -- to reach national reconciliation in the country, wracked by widening sectarian strife as well as an enduring insurgency.
Knowing the history of the State Department, and given the fact that the elections are so close, Fernandez's statement could be purely political, even pro-Democrat. "Ready to talk with any Iraqi group?" A change in the U.S. Iraq strategy is in order, but talks with "insurgents?" Here are Iraq's terrorist demands for "talks:"
"Abu Mohammed", a pseudonym for the man [representing Iraq's terrorists], appeared to set near impossible conditions for the start of any talks with the Americans, including the return to service of Saddam's armed forces, the annulment of every law adopted since Saddam's ouster, the recognition of insurgent groups as the sole representatives of the Iraqi people and a timetable of a gradual and unconditional withdrawal of U.S. and other foreign troops in Iraq.
"Near impossible conditions?" Try for "impossible." One of the main purposes of the war was to prevent Iraq from becoming a staging area for terrorism. And, given the type of atrocities wrought by these terrorists, how could anyone possibly hope that the "militants" would be satisfied with anything less than creating an Islamist, or re-creating a Baathist, regime in Iraq. Either one would welcome anti-Western terrorists into Iraq.
Given the blood-lust being exhibited by Iraqi Arab/Muslims, would it have really mattered if the initial invasion and occupation of Iraq would have been carried out differently? What change in current U.S. strategy would heal the endemic sectarian hatred of the Iraqi people? We seem to be between a rock and a hard place.
Despite glimmers of hope -- as reported by our own Marines -- my patience is waning, as Sunnis and Shiites seem to have no limit to their desire for vengeance and murder, and committing all manner of perversions against each other. The recent estimate that 655,000 people have been murdered in mainly Arab/Muslim on Arab/Muslim violence may be exaggerated, but there's no doubt that the country has become one of the world's worst hell-holes -- "601,027 [deaths] were attributed to the violence (mainly from gunfire and mainly among men aged 15-59)..."
If Iraqis weren't hell-bent on killing each other and/or coalition troops, they'd have the energy to build a civilized society -- but I'm imbuing them with Western sensibilites. U.S. and British troops, and their governments, have no interest in staying a minute longer than necessary. American troops are all volunteers, yet many stay in Iraq beyond the call of duty. The war is a political liability for both Bush and British PM Blair. Do Iraqis want Saddam back? That's like pining to have the old Soviet Union back -- madness.
History proves that only when an enemy is completed and utterly vanquished can the mindset of the defeated people be changed. A decisive, all-out, strategic Operation Al-Fajr-like battle, waged throughout all of Iraq has the best chance of putting an end to the county's "insurgency." But fears of civilian and Coalition casualties will most likely prevent such a battle to end all battles from ever happening. It seems that the Iraq "war" will be limited to minor battles and "strategy sessions," leaving the fragile nation as divided as ever, with Coalition troops eventually pulling out, and letting Iraq become another Vietnam, where military decisions were overridden by politics.
The Japanese and Germans after WWII were basically obedient, civlized people.
The Arabs in Iraq are neither.
Bump!
They did that with 129 divisions, a 1500-ship Navy, and nukes.
Amen to that!
As much as we'd like it to be otherwise, I'm afraid our efforts in Iraq are like "casting pearls before swine."
I believe it won't work without cultural and religious change; which we aren't trying to do.
They'd been crushed. Their cities were destroyed and population decimated, so of course they were civil. We haven't done that to the terrorists in Iraq and unless we do we're going to lose. Sadly I think that's going to be the ultimate outcome.
> I have always seen it spelled Vercingetorix.
We should have gone with Plan C(oulter) ... Kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. Instead, we went with Plan P(uss-out). I knew we were in trouble when we let Sadr live.
I continue to believe Iraq was the right next move in the WOT; I continue to believe that Bush's plan of creating a free, democratic society in Iraq is a good plan. But we've backed away from any strategy that will realisitically get us there.
Regardless of how nice we want to be, bad guys still have to be killed.
That's because they're now in Ramadi.
"... my patience is waning, as Sunnis and Shiites seem to have no limit to their desire for vengeance and murder, and committing all manner of perversions against each other."
Why does anyone care about Sunni vs Shia violence? I only care about dead Americans.
"The recent estimate that 655,000 people have been murdered in mainly Arab/Muslim on Arab/Muslim violence may be exaggerated..."
Then why cite it?
"The only solution left to the U.S. is an all-out, no-holds-barred assault on Iraq's "militants" and anyone related to them..."
And I'm sure that they will accomodate us by showing up for the battle. Perhaps we could write them an invitation: "Dear terrorists, we're having a rough time of kicking yer butt by your rules, so please try playing by our rules. Please mass your forces in this big area over here, vicinity grid LD 1234 5678, so that we can destroy you."
Both Germans and the Japanese, devoid of their militaristic classes, were orderly, polite, well-educated and civilized. It is a shame that such is the nature of things that the militarists had to be deracinated from those cultures using such extreme violence on the rest of the society, but it seems to be the nature of the human condition. One hopes that our inbred American intolerance and disrespect for dictatorial bastards will see us through such threats.
The world is not ready for that I'm afraid. We have a long slide ahead of us before we reach that point. Who knows, then it might be too late to save society as we know it.
There was an old, sarcastic joke about the bitter Confederates after the US Civil War, saying "We could have whupped 'em with corn stalks. But they wouldn't fight us with corn stalks."
My point is that "the enemy" in Iraq isn't going to stand up and fight us "mano-a-mano", to use that utterly silly expression. In fact, most of "the enemy" in Iraq isn't even much interested in fightin *us* anymore.
Remember that the fight in Iraq has changed, several times.
First it was Iraqi army vs. the US.
Then it was Baathist insurgency vs. the US.
Then it was Baathist insurgency *and* al-Qaeda vs. the US.
Then it was Mahdi army vs. the US.
Then it was mostly remnants, criminal gangs and smugglers with al-Qaeda vs. the US for a while.
Now it is sectarian death squads, Shite vs. Sunni, along with Iranians importing mischief.
The last big non-sectarian blow-off will happen when they hang Saddam, one of the big reasons we are trying to secure Baghdad.
Then finally, after their elections in the new year, we will finally have an Iraqi government pretty much fully in charge of their own country, and one we can properly deal with on a country-to-country basis.
Their police and military are going to be fully enough on line and working properly so we really shouldn't have much to do except provide air support and get out of the way.
Once we pull back into our bases, a lot of our soldiers can come home, but hopefully we will get a Status of Forces agreement with the new government, so that we can keep our Africa Command headquarters there.
There was another important difference. The people of Japan and Germany felt a connection and/or sense of loyalty to their government. The Iraqis never have. They have been a tribal society in which the former dictator played tribes against one another to maintain his power. When the government disappeared, there was no sense of defeat because what we defeated was what oppressed them.
and a united nation backing the effort....
Amen brother. Either we crush them completely, in the old-fashioned American way, or we should get out and let them slaughter each other. We have played into the hands of the "unsurgents" far too long now, and we will NEVER wear them down because they've got over one billion replacements to fill the stinking shoes of their dead.
The Japanese and Germans were only basically obedient, civilized people after thousands of good men had lost their lives removing their bootheels from the throat of the world.
The Japanese and Germans WERE neither. . WERE being the operative word here.
What a surprise, the Iraq war's course is scaring the hell out of Republicans
WHAT! I really have to start paying more attention to my mail, I seemed to have missed this memo.
If we could all try remembering when the President started,
backed by congress, this would be a monumental undertaking.
We are a spoiled generation looking back on past wars. None of them were easily triumphed and much blood was paid in the cost. We are the now generation, I want it now, not tomorrow.
We want this war in Iraq won in two days, not in yrs.
The comma-causes were formed in a generation in Japan and, it has taken generations for these people to reform.
Hitlers generation has been a long time changing, though there are a few of them still around.
Germany is now a great Ali with America and so is Japan.
If given time and, patients the war in Iraq could be achieved but, not without sacrifice and, blood as the other wars were so bravely fought.
Our very survival in America is at stake in this world war with Islam and, many countrys are beginning to realize this.
I'm all for releasing the military hounds of hell on the whole lot-of-'em Syria and Iran included.
They would be if the proper measures were applied.
It worked for the Great Khan, and the people of Mesopotamia remember it still.
I am a big fan of the application of massive, prolonged, and ruthless force.
I think we had the idea we could scare 'em into submission with our "shock and awe". Not a chance. People have to be beaten into submission.
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.