A noble, necessary and winnable war

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The recent assassination of Pierre Gemayel, a leading pro-Western Christian politician in Lebanon, has all the earmarks of a Hezbollah-Iranian operation carried out with or without Syrian help. Iran is now pouring millions of dollars into Lebanon to rebuild Hezbollah's military strength and is also financing Hamas in Gaza.

Iran considers the pro-Western Christians of Lebanon as much an enemy as Israel, and she may very well ignite another civil war to finally bring the Christians under Muslim domination. In other words, what happens there is going to have a serious impact on American security one way or another. All of which brings us to the war in Iraq.

Much of the criticism of that war has been emotional and irrational. Why? Because it is a war difficult to understand. Also, we have never fought a war of this kind before. But be that as it may, the war can only be characterized as a noble struggle against tyranny. It is part of the American plan to bring democracy to the Middle East, to free its people from cruel dictators and radical Islam. That it has turned out to be a very difficult war is no reason to throw in the towel and go home. It is all the more reason for us to hang tough.

The war has already won us several dividends. It persuaded Libya to give up its nuclear ambitions. It has produced a democratically elected government in Iraq, and it provides us with a base of military operations close to our deadliest enemy: Iran.

We have been in a state of belligerency with Iran ever since its student hotheads invaded the American embassy in Tehran in November 1979 and held 52 staff members hostage for more than a year. Its new president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a latter-day Hitler, who was a 23-year-old student when the U.S. embassy was seized, has threatened to wipe Israel off the map and wants Americans to get out of Iraq. A retreat from Iraq would convince the Iranians that we are weak and unwilling to defend our interests.

The war by radical Islam against the West is a World War being fought on many fronts, from New York to Bali to Madrid to London. While we have zeroed in on al-Qaida as the focus of our attention because of the attacks on New York and the Pentagon on 9-11, we must not forget that those attacks were merely part of the larger war.

Without 9-11, we never would have invaded Afghanistan or Iraq. Whatever you may think of how we got into Iraq, the simple fact is that the Iraqi front is where the war is presently being fought at its greatest intensity, because that's where the terrorists have concentrated their efforts to defeat the United States and the democratic government it helped create. And because of all the defeatist rhetoric coming out of Washington, the terrorists are now confident they can win.

Why did we ever believe that the Islamic terrorist movement that produced the killers of 9-11 would be easy to defeat in their own home territory? Probably because we were able to rid Afghanistan of the Taliban in a short war with few casualties, and we were able to remove Saddam Hussein in a short and brilliant invasion of Iraq. That gave us the false impression that the jihadists were a pushover. Nor could we anticipate that Muslims would wind up killing each other in such cruel, inhuman ways.

So, how do we win such a war? By simply hunkering down in Iraq and protecting its new-born democracy from destruction by the insurgency. Yes, it means suffering casualties, but we tend to forget that the enemy was able to kill 3,000 innocent individuals on American soil in just a few hours.

The war is winnable provided we understand what winning means. Winning means preventing the enemy from taking power in Iraq. It's that simple.

An American retreat from Iraq would produce catastrophic consequences. It would enable Iran to establish its political hegemony over Iraq, force the Kurds to leave the Baghdad government and create an independent Kurdistan giving Turkey the pretext to invade Kurdistan, turn Iraq once more into an enemy of the U.S., destabilize Pakistan, encourage the Taliban in Afghanistan to increase their efforts to regain power in Kabul, and serve notice to both Israel and the Lebanese Christians that America does not have the stomach to defend them.

Another serious consequence is that the worldwide jihad would go after American interests all over the world and do its utmost to create terror in the United States itself.

An even more serious consequence is what a defeat in Iraq would do to the American psyche and the morale of our military forces. Our soldiers in Iraq are true American heroes who believe in victory. If their government in Washington goes belly-up, there is no telling what members of that force might do when they got home.

In addition, all respect for the United States as a great military power would evaporate. The Russians, Chinese, North Koreans and Islamists would rejoice at the debasing and humbling of the United States and laugh at our moral pretenses.

Would an America defeated in Iraq come to the aid of Taiwan if invaded by the Communist Chinese? Would we be capable of preventing the Iranians from producing a full-fledged nuclear weapon? Would we have to leave it up to little Israel to destroy Iran's nuclear capability? Would we be capable of preventing the North Korean thug from producing his own nuclear arsenal? Would our retreat make the world safer for our children?

As Mark Steyn states in his book "America Alone," "The central issue is America's credibility and will to prevail." In short, we cannot afford defeat.

Too many Americans seem to believe that peace can come cheap. This nation has been fighting wars ever since it was born out of the Revolutionary War. We fought the Barbary War in Jefferson's time, the Mexican War in 1848, our own Civil War in 1861-65, the Spanish-American War in 1898, then World War I, World War II, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Invasion of Grenada, the Bosnian war, the Afghanistan war and now the Iraq war. And who is stupid enough to believe that Iraq will be our last war?

In short, the war in Iraq is both noble and moral, it is a necessary part of our struggle against world jihadism, and it is quite winnable as long as we understand what winning means preventing the enemy from destroying the first democratically elected government in Iraq's history.

In the stern and prophetic words of President Andrew Jackson: "No one need think that the world can be ruled without blood. The civil sword shall and must be red and bloody. … Take time to deliberate; but when the time for action arrives, stop thinking and go in."

Counter Insurgency is not Total War. People got to stop trying to force their Conventional War doctrines to fit and Asymmetrical warfare problem.

The Russians followed your doctrine in Afghanistan, how did that work?

Gen Abizaid and his people know what they are doing. Unfortunately what they are attempting is very very hard. They are having a great deal of success. Maybe people should consider the 24,970,000 other Iraqis, not the 20-30,000 militants. If people want to HELP they should sit down and shut up on Iraq instead of spending all their time screaming doom and gloom nonsense about Iraq.

Maybe people should consider the 24,970,000 other Iraqis, not the 20-30,000 militants.

The underlying problem is that the 24,970,000 other Iraqis have the luxury of 1)expecting the Americans to fix everything and 2)blaming the Americans for everything that isn't fixed.

I don't see any indication that they'll ever "stand up" on their own accord.

"Maybe people should consider the 24,970,000 other Iraqis, not the 20-30,000 militants"

I am much more concerned about the 300 million U.S. Citizens. My government should also be more concerned about the 300 million U.S. citizens. And I don't want to here more crap about "if we're not fighting them there we will be fighting them here", which is based on no logic and is only used as a reason to bleed Americans of their hard earned money and, some of them, of their very lives.
America first. Every decision made by a U.S. leader should be based only on what is best for America. If this means decisions are made that are not what is best for some other country, too bad. I'm not against foreign intervention if it's purpose is based only on what's best for America.
Spending hundreds of billions of tax payers money and the lives of thousands of brave, young Americans on an experiment in converting anti-freedom, anti-human rights, muslim thugs into freedom loving, civilized, world citizens is not a decision any U.S. leader would make if he were only deciding on what was best for the U.S. citizens.
We need leaders who are U.S. citizens first, not world caretakers.

"If people want to HELP they should sit down and shut up on Iraq instead of spending all their time screaming doom and gloom nonsense about Iraq."

I hope you're speaking generally, and not specifically to me. If not, read my profile. I've paid my dues.

Also, you can read what you wish into my "untie their hands" comment, but my meaning isn't what you're thinking. I know we're not fighting total war, and nor do I want to. However there is a fair amount of hand-tying imposed by the brass on the average grunt. That, combined w/ the military chickensh-t that goes on over there puts more pressure than necessary on the avg. trooper.

President Bush is concerned about the 300 million U.S. citizens. That's why we invaded Iraq. This is a global war, and it will go on for a long time (unless we fold, in which case it will be over shockingly fast).

Iraq is not Vietnam. It's much more important than Vietnam. Communism came and went in less than 100 years (it only lives on in the addled minds of American leftists). Islam has been around for 1400. Much tougher entrenched foe.

But as this author points out America's interests won't be served if America retreats. America didn't chose this war -- it was delivered like the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. Some Muslims may not like freedom, and the Iraqi government is not perfect, but it gives the US a base of operations and influence in the area.

"President Bush is concerned about the 300 million U.S. citizens. That's why we invaded Iraq"

The issue is not why we invaded Iraq. There were arguably good reasons why the invasion of Iraq was the best decision, putting U.S. interests first. I have seen no convincing reasons why we are still in Iraq based only on what is best for the U.S. I keep hearing arguments based on what's best for Iraqis or other ME countries. I'm not that concerned for their welfare, especially at the great costs involved.

Every decision made by a U.S. leader should be based only on what is best for America.

You should specify United States of America because when the President talks about "pertectin amuricans" I wonder if he means US citizens, North Americans, North Americans and Latin Americans, or North Americans, Latin Americans and South Americans.

btw I agree with you. If we looked out for the USA's interests first much good would follow for the rest of the world. If we try to accommodate the rest of the world, no good will come of it for anyone.

I see our country and our culture as being like a trust fund. If we keep the principal intact there's lots of interest that benefits everybody else. When we spend the principal, it's gone.

"You should specify United States of America because when the President talks about "pertectin amuricans" I wonder if he means US citizens, North Americans, North Americans and Latin Americans, or North Americans, Latin Americans and South Americans."

You are right. I'll try to be more careful with my language.

"America didn't chose this war -- it was delivered like the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor."

The war with Iraq started when they invaded Kuwait, not the U.S. Because of our dependence on ME oil,(a dependence only necessary because our "leaders" do not make energy decisions based on what is best for the U.S.) our national interests were threatened by Iraq. There was also a potential threat of WMD's. This is no longer the case.

"We're still there because it gives us a forward base from which to deal with Iran and Syria."

Do you really believe this? We do not need Iraq for a base to deal with Iran or Syria unless you're talking about a land invasion. I know of no one who is seriously contemplating a land invasion of either of those countries. Short of that, we have sufficient land and sea bases for our military assets without Iraq. Bases, I might add, that are much more secure than any Iraqi base.

"But wouldn't you agree that Iraq is part of the larger WOT?"

When Saddam was training and financing terrorists and developing WMD's he was a threat to the U.S. and the Invasion of Iraq to stop this could be argued was part of the WOT. These threats are now gone.
Iraqis are killing each other as they jockey for power. I say let them kill each other if that's what they want. It isn't like they haven't been doing this for hundreds of years. We gave them a chance, at great cost to us, to make something of themselves and their country. It is not in the best interest of U.S. citizens to pay any more for this experiment. We must continue to carefully watch them, ready to smack them down again if they threaten us in the future. Right now they're too busy killing each other to be able to be much of a threat to the U.S.

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.