Posted on 11/24/2006 6:46:08 PM PST by kristinn
I'm reading an astonishing number of comments on Free Republic these days by posters who have joined the ranks of the anti-American left in calling for an immediate withdrawal from Iraq. Some claim to have military experience, some claim to be patriotic Americans and some claim to be smarter than the rest.
These posters are joining the Murtha-Rangel-McDermott treason caucus. Oh, they say they love the troops, but their decision to abandon them in the field speaks otherwise.
Three years ago, the United States led an international coalition to rid the world of one of the worst regimes on the planet. Saddam Hussein was an international terrorist: He financed terrorism, he trained terrorists and he harbored terrorists. He waged war on Iran, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Israel. He waged war on the people of Iraq, including genocidal campaigns against the Kurds in the north and the marsh Arabs in the south.
Saddam successfully subverted the Oil-for-Food program and was wearing down support for continuing the sanctions keeping him in check.
He had numerous contacts with al Qaeda over the years. He tried to assassinate a former U.S. president. He maintained research capabilities to implement nuclear, chemical and biological weapons as soon as the sanctions were lifted. There is evidence that some of these programs would have been operational within a year even with the sanctions in place.
The decision to remove Saddam and his regime as part of the Global War on Terror was correct.
Three-and-a-half years after Iraq and the world were liberated from Saddam and his terrorist regime, there are those on Free Republic who are clamoring to give up, surrender, cut and run, stab the troops in the back, betray the Iraqis, betray our allies in the GWOT, spit on the graves of our fallen heroes and join Cindy Sheehan, Medea Benjamin and Ramsey Clark in bringing about America's defeat in the GWOT.
It's only been three-and-a-half years--only six months since the freely elected government in Iraq was formed. In that time, what has been called a mini-Marshall Plan of construction and reconstruction has come to fruition. The Iraqis have held three national elections, they have held numerous local elections, fourteen out of eighteen Iraq provinces are relatively peaceful and stable.
Six months ago, when the Iraqi government was formed, the experts said the war would be taken to Baghdad because our enemies in the region could not abide the example of a free, democratic society in the Middle East. For once, the experts were right. The battle of Baghdad has been a prolonged Tet Offensive style operation of headline-grabbing attacks intended to sap the morale of Americans and Iraqis alike.
From what I've been reading on Free Republic lately, a lot of Freepers have fallen for the enemy's ploy and are howling like barking moonbats for our immediate withdrawal from Iraq. Some of that talk is couched in talk of 'we're fighting a PC war like Vietnam!' The soldiers I met in Iraq recently told Debra Argel Bastian to pass on a message to the Vietnam vets criticizing the war: With all due respect to your service, this is not Vietnam. It is not being fought like Vietnam. Please let us finish our mission.
But our enemy is playing the Vietnam ploy to great benefit. They know they can count on the American and world media to broadcast their propaganda. They work with leftist Americans to sabotage the war effort at home. They know these leftist Americans have allies in the Democratic party. They know they do not need a military victory--only political and psychological victories are needed to defeat America.
You guys are playing right in to their hands. Congratulations.
There are those who argue that murder and dictatorship is the mindset of the Middle East and that will not be changed by our actions. Funny how those who smugly denigrate the Arab peoples' capacity for freedom forget the wholesale slaughter of millions of Westerners by Westerners at the hands of Western dictatorships just a few generations past.
I hear complaints that the Iraqis aren't standing up. Yet, to use one common example, when police recruits are slaughtered in bombings, Iraqis line up the next day at the same recruiting center. The insurgency is small in number, but they are able to do enough damage on a daily basis to stretch out the time it will take to secure the whole of Iraq.
At this time of our testing, the American people are starting to go wobbly. Sadly, many Freepers are too. Our troops and their Commander-in-Chief are not, thank God. It's only been three-and-a-half years. The progress made has been phenomonal. Throw in the towel now, and you'll just have the terrorists follow us home. Everyone knows that, including you. I'm not willing to pay that price, not now, not ever, but you are.
Let me close by offering similar sentiments recently offered by two men 'in the know' on the situation in Iraq who are not giving up. First, Kurdish Regional Government Prime Minister Barzani: "When I was in the United States recently and read the negative news in the Washington Post, New York Times and in the network TV broadcasts, I even wondered if things had gotten so bad since I had left that I shouldn't return."
Next, Gen. Abizaid: "When I come to Washington, I feel despair. When I'm in Iraq with my commanders, when I talk to our soldiers, when I talk to the Iraqi leadership, they are not despairing."
Let's start with the large siegheiling goose stepping monstrous groupings chanting "Death to America" first, that we've All seen on ther tube for starters.
I mean this in all sincerity. Post 1032 is my answer. If you can not except the terms of 1032 that were handed to us then we were handed another option. When you see your enemy coming to go to war count the cost. If the cost can not be met seek peace. That also is Biblical. Both are honorable before GOD.
Our leaders did not count the cost. They did not prepare neither the people of the nation nor our troops for the mission. That is not the troops fault our leaders mis-use them for a perverse mission. Our troops server with honor. I wish I could same the same about the DEMs and GOP who sent them there to start with. Post 1032 is the only military solution that will result in victory. We have been told what it takes to win war from GOD. We are also shown what happens when we go to war with less in mind. Three wars now say so also. I'm not cut and run. I believe what I posted in 1032. Does Bush? Do you?
Fear not, we have many FReepers now seeing the light. Over 100 of them have voted "Whatever it takes to win" in the latest FReeper Poll.
Same way we chose targets in Europe, North Africa, and the Pacific. Kill their economic ability to wage war. Sadly, we bombed a lot of ball-bearing factories, breweries, and meat-packing/food processing plants during WWII. Cologne, Germany had many churches and a Cathedral bombed. We force our troops to take their boots off before going into a mosque. Get it?
"Okay...so you are ready to flatten 1 BILLION Muslims???
If not....how do you choose which ones to flatten, and which one not to flatten?"
You only have to "flatten" a portion of those who are a threat. We did not have to kill all of the Japanese or all of the Germans. The survivors will get the message.
Thank you for your articulation of my point.
They wrote into their constitution that _Islam_ would be the state religion.
When I saw that, I realized that our efforts were doomed to go down the drain.
The closest analogy I could make is permitting the Germans to freely re-elect the Nazis to power after their defeat in World War II.
We have not "brought democracy to Iraq". If we were to have done that, one of the bedrock principles of a budding democracy would have been "freedom of religion" - NOT Islam as the "official" religion......This is "victory"? What might BE "victory"?
--The only flaw with the plan: Muslims are not capable of making democracy work.--
Turkey and most of Kurdistan have shown otherwise. It's a matter of degree, and is obviously dependent on the level of violence that is allowed to flourish with impunity.
Regardless, in history there are tipping points beyond which the energy to achieve the same goal increases very rapidly. The proper time to remove Saddam was between late 1991 and 1999. With more efforts toward coups d'etat and using forces like the Peshmerga, that could have been achieved with far less military force.
The GHWB and Clinton admins. both proved incapable of rising to the occasion. The UN sanctions regime was bound to collapse. The rise of the Neoconservatives was facilitated by frustration with WH inaction (a White House in which Arafat slept more times than any other foreign "leader").
If you really want an example of how America's enemies can be emboldened, look at Operation Desert Fox. It was quite successful but was inexplicably called off after four days. Once you start a major operation, calling it off for no reason is an awful signal of confusion at the top.
This was tragically repeated in the sieges of Fallujah; the U.S. got it right the third time, in the most underreported and most brilliant example of urban warfare since WWII.
Bush II was thus left to pick up a metastasizing mound of trash. Another huge blunder was the "New Tone" practice of leaving too many Clinton holdovers in the State Dept. and various intelligence bureaucracies (quite an oxymoron there). Bremer should never have been allowed within 3000 miles of the Mideast.
In summary, IMHO the reason we are where we are today is
"too many Powells, not enough Wolfowitzes", and not the reverse.
And force them to call for permission to engage an enemy who's firing on their fellow Marines from the balcony of a mosque. In Basic, we were taught that once a house of worship is used for any military purpose whatsoever, it lost its protected status under the Geneva Convention. So when did the rule change, I wonder? When we started trying to appease the followers of the "religion of peace"?
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
1384. And thank you for your articulation of my point, also, ARealMothersSonForever.
--The closest analogy I could make is permitting the Germans to freely re-elect the Nazis to power--
The Baathists were not re-elected. Their leaders are about to hang.
You're welcome, and please don't. Be ready to be called a du'er, troll, dummie or any other such nonsense they toss out now. Wanting to be brutal to end a war, building a fence to protect our country, fiscal responsibility, not worshipping Bush, are outcast it seems. Too many islamic apologist lately as well. That one I'll never understand.
It rolls right off my back now.
--Could you tell me where we are going to get another 300,000 fighters in America at the wave of a pen?--
Yo soy el Army. Se habla Espanol./sarc
Why don't you read this thread...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1741415/posts
I said it that way because you know our troops in Germany has nothing to do with patrolling Germany or being their nanny but rather serves our national interest. We were there in the Cold War to halt Soviet Expansion. But it was not combat but a presense. Germany understood surrender and defeat. Iraq and her three tribes see those terms as opportunity to re-group and gain strength.
\sarc Love it, and fight for it, OR LEAVE IT!
--Well said... I think there has been leftist insurgency on the Free Republic Web site. Free Republic is slowly moving from the political unknown to the mainstream.--
There is also an active counterinsurgency.
Bush: U.S. shifting tactics in Iraq War
POSTED: 7:36 a.m. EDT, October 26, 2006
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush on Wednesday said the United States is "shifting" its tactics in the Iraq war as the "enemy shifts" theirs.
But "Americans have no intention of taking sides in a sectarian struggle or standing in the crossfire between rival factions," he said.
Below is a partial transcript of his statement at the White House:
BUSH: I'm going to spend a little more time on my opening comments than I usually do, but I'll save plenty of time for questions.
Over the past three years, I have often addressed the American people to explain developments in Iraq. Some of these developments were encouraging, such as the capture of Saddam Hussein, the elections in which 12 million Iraqis defied the terrorists and voted for a free future and the demise of the brutal terrorist [Abu Musab al-]Zarqawi.
Other developments were not encouraging, such as the bombing of the U.N. headquarters in Baghdad, the fact that we did not find stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction, and the continued loss of some of America's finest sons and daughters.
Recently, American and Iraqi forces have launched some of the most aggressive operations on enemy forces in Baghdad since the war began. They have cleared neighborhoods of terrorists and death squads and uncovered large caches of weapons, including sniper scopes and mortars and powerful bombs.
There had been heavy fighting. Many enemy fighters had been killed or captured.
And we've suffered casualties of our own. This month we've lost 93 service members in Iraq; the most since October of 2005.
During roughly the same period, more than 300 Iraqi security personnel have given their lives in battle. Iraqi civilians have suffered unspeakable violence at the hands of the terrorists, insurgents, illegal militias, armed groups and criminals.
The events of the past month have been a serious concern to me and a serious concern to the American people.
Today I will explain how we're adapting our tactics to help the Iraqi government gain control of the security situation. I will also explain why, despite the difficulties and bloodshed, it remains critical that America defeat the enemy in Iraq by helping the Iraqis build a free nation that can sustain itself and defend itself.
Our security at home depends on ensuring that Iraq is an ally in the war on terror and does not become a terrorist haven like Afghanistan under the Taliban.
The enemy we face in Iraq has evolved over the past three years. After the fall of Saddam Hussein, a sophisticated and violent insurgency took root.
Early on, this insurgency was made up of remnants of Saddam Hussein's Baath Party, as well as criminals released by the regime. The insurgency was fueled by al Qaeda and other foreign terrorists who focused most of their attention on high-profile attacks against coalition forces and international institutions.
We learned some key lessons from that early phase in the war. We saw how quickly al Qaeda and other extremist groups would come to Iraq to fight and try to drive us out. We overestimated the capability of the civil service in Iraq to continue to provide essential services to the Iraqi people.
We did not expect the Iraqi army, including the Republican Guard, to melt away in the way that it did in the face of advancing coalition forces.
Despite these early setbacks, some very important progress was made in the midst of an incredibly violent period.
Iraqis formed an interim government that assumed sovereignty. The Iraqi people elected a transitional government; drafted and adopted the most progressive democratic constitution in the Arab world; braved the car bombs and assassins to choose a permanent government under that constitution; and slowly began to build a capable national army.
Al Qaeda and insurgents were unable to stop this progress. They tried to stand up to our forces in places like Falluja -- and they were routed, so they changed their tactics.
In an intercepted letter to Osama bin Laden, the terrorist [al-] Zarqawi laid out his strategy to drag Iraq's Shia population into a sectarian war.
To the credit of the Shia population, they resisted; responding to the horrific violence against them for a long time.
Yet the persistent attacks, particularly last February's bombing of the Golden Mosque in Samarra, one of the Shia Islam's most holy shrines, eventually resulted in sectarian reprisals.
The cycle of violence in which al Qaeda insurgents attacked Shia civilians and Shia death squads retaliated against Sunnis has sharply increased in recent months, particularly in Baghdad.
As the enemy shifts tactics, we are shifting our tactics as well.
Americans have no intention of taking sides in a sectarian struggle or standing in the crossfire between rival factions. Our mission is to help the elected government in Iraq defeat common enemies, to bring peace and stability to Iraq and make our nation more secure.
Our goals are unchanging. We are flexible in our methods to achieving those goals.
On the military side, our commanders on the ground are constantly adjusting our tactics to stay ahead of our enemies.
We are refining our training strategy for the Iraqi security forces, so we can help more of those forces take the lead in the fight and provide them better equipment and firepower to be successful.
We've increased the number of coalition advisers in the Iraqi ministries of defense and interior, so they can better plan and execute security operations against the enemy.
We have changed our force structure ,so we can better respond to the conditions on the ground. For example, during the Iraqi elections, we increased our force levels to more than 150,000 troops to ensure people could vote.
Most recently, we have moved additional coalition and Iraqi forces into Baghdad, so they can help secure the city and reduce sectarian violence.
After some initial successes, our operations to secure Baghdad have encountered greater resistance.
Some of the Iraqi security forces have performed below expectations.
Many have performed well and are fighting bravely in some of Baghdad's toughest neighborhoods.
Once again, American troops are performing superbly under very difficult conditions. Together with the Iraqis, they've conducted hundreds of missions throughout Baghdad. They've rounded up or killed key insurgents and death squad leaders.
As we fight this enemy, we are working with the Iraqi government to perform -- the performance -- to improve the performance of their security forces, so they can regain control of the nation's capital and eventually assume primary responsibility for their country's security.
A military solution alone will not stop violence. In the end, the Iraqi people and their government will have to make the difficult decisions necessary to solve these problems.
So, in addition to refining our military tactics to defeat the enemy, we're also working to help the Iraqi government achieve a political solution that brings together Shia and Sunni and Kurds and other ethnic and religious groups.
Yesterday, our ambassador to Iraq, Zal Khalilzad, laid out a three-step approach.
First, we're working with political and religious leaders across Iraq, urging them to take steps to restrain their followers and stop sectarian violence.
Second, we're helping Iraqi leaders to complete work on a national compact to resolve the most difficult issues dividing their country. The new Iraqi government has condemned violence from all quarters and agreed to a schedule for resolving issues such as disarming illegal militias and death squads, sharing oil revenues, amending the Iraqi constitution and reforming the de-Baathification process.
Third, we are reaching out to Arab states such as Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Jordan, asking them to support the Iraqi government's efforts to persuade Sunni insurgents to lay down their arms and accept national reconciliation.
The international community is also supporting the international compact that outlines the support that will be provided to Iraq, as it moves forward with its own program of reform.
These are difficult tasks for any government. It is important for Americans to recognize that Prime Minister Maliki's unity government has been in office for just over five months.
Think about that: This young government has to solve a host of problems created by decades of tyrannical rule. And they have to do it in the midst of raging conflict against extremists from outside and inside the country who are doing everything they can to stop this government from succeeding.
We are pressing Iraqi's leaders to take bold measures to save their country. We're making it clear that America's patience is not unlimited.
Yet we also understand the difficult challenges Iraq's leaders face.
And we will not put more pressure on the Iraqi government than it can bear.
The way to succeed in Iraq is to help Iraq's government grow in strength and assume more control over its country as quickly as possible.
I know the American people understand the stakes in Iraq. They want to win. They will support the war as long as they see a path to victory.
Americans can have confidence that we will prevail because thousands of smart, dedicated military and civilian personnel are risking their lives and are working around the clock to ensure our success.
A distinguished independent panel of Republicans and Democrats, led by Former Secretary of State Jim Baker and Former Congressman Lee Hamilton, is taking a fresh look at the situation in Iraq and will make recommendations to help achieve our goals.
I welcome all these efforts.
My administration will carefully consider any proposal that will help us achieve victory.
It's my responsibility to provide the American people with a candid assessment on the way forward. There is tough fighting ahead. The road to victory will not be easy. We should not expect a simple solution.
The fact that the fighting is tough does not mean our efforts in Iraq are not worth it.
To the contrary, the consequences in Iraq will have a decisive impact on the security of our country, because defeating the terrorists in Iraq is essential to turning back the cause of extremism in the Middle East.
If we do not defeat the terrorists or extremists in Iraq, they will gain access to vast oil reserves and use Iraq as a base to overthrow moderate governments across the broader Middle East.
They will launch new attacks on America from this new safe haven. They will pursue their goal of a radical Islamic empire that stretches from Spain to Indonesia.
I know many Americans are not satisfied with the situation in Iraq. I'm not satisfied either. And that is why we're taking new steps to help secure Baghdad and constantly adjusting our tactics across the country to meet the changing threat.
But we cannot allow our dissatisfaction to turn into disillusionment about our purpose in this war. We must look at every success -- we must not look at every success of the enemy as a mistake on our part, cause for an investigation or a reason to call for our troops to come home.
We must not fall prey to the sophisticated propaganda by the enemy, who is trying to undermine our confidence and make us believe that our presence in Iraq is the cause of all its problems.
If I did not think our mission in Iraq was vital to America's security, I'd bring our troops home tomorrow.
I've met too many wives and husbands who've lost their partners in life; too many children who won't ever see their mom and dad again. I owe it to them and to the families who still have loved ones in harm's way to ensure that their sacrifices are not in vain.
Our country's faced adversity before during times of war. In past wars, we've lost young Americans who gave everything to protect our freedom and way of life.
In this war, we've lost good men and women who've given their lives for a cause that is necessary and it is just.
We mourn every loss. And we must gird ourselves for the sacrifices that are yet to come. America's men and women in uniform are the finest in the world. I'm awed by their strength and their character.
As General Casey reported yesterday in Iraq, the men and women of the armed forces have never lost a battle in over three years in the war.
Every American can take pride in our troops and the vital work they are doing to protect us. Our troops are fighting a war that will set the course for this new century.
The outcome will determine the destiny of millions across the world. Defeating the terrorists and extremists is the challenge of our time and the calling of this generation.
I'm confident this generation will answer that call and defeat an ideology that is bent on destroying America and all that we stand for.
http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:5FQ7mIpAzC4J:edition.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/10/25/bush.transcript/+did+not+expect+the+insurgency&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1
Yeah, that always happens RIGHT after I correct someone else's grammar, spelling, etc. Ha.
just lovely.
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.