A noble, necessary and winnable war

WorldNetDaily ^ | 11/28/2006 | Dr. Samuel Blumenfeld

[jjm2111]

Good post. Untie the troops hands and muzzle the damn media with their b.s. made up stories.

[MNJohnnie]

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.

[steve-b]

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.

[Prokopton]

"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.

[jjm2111]

"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.

[karnage]

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.

[ichabod1]

whatever

[Blind Eye Jones]

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.

[Prokopton]

"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.

[ichabod1]

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.

[ichabod1]

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.

[Prokopton]

"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.

[ichabod1]

Hey, I'm splittin hairs. I noticed you specified U.S. Citizens elsewhere in your post.

[karnage]

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

[ichabod1]

I can't remember EVER hearing the President say ANYTHING about U.S. Citizens. He always talks about amuricans.

[Prokopton]

"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.

[Prokopton]

"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.

[Blind Eye Jones]

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

[Prokopton]

"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.