Posted on 12/05/2006 10:10:32 AM PST by jveritas
Based on what on what Defense Secretary nominee Mr. Gates has said so far in the Senate confirmation hearings, it is easy to conclude that he is a “Defeatist”. No matter how tough the situation is in Iraq he must not say in public that we are not winning the war in Iraq. That is totally demoralizing to our troops and will further embolden our enemies there like Al Qaeda, Iran, and Syria. Moreover the man has shown extreme ambiguity and uncertainty in his answers to many questions.
I doubt very much that he told the President that we are not winning in Iraq or else the President would not have nominated him. It may be too late to withdraw his nomination now, but our country and most importantly our brave troops deserve a better person to be the Secretary of Defense.
Never underestimate the attraction of self-delusion.
For Heavens sake! We already won the War. We are losing the Peace. Our Military accomplished their legitimate mission. Asking them to be peacekeepers in a country that does not want peace is futile.
I guess what I meant was I trust our men and women to do the job. I don't trust the Iraqis, especially now that they think we're run by Democrats.
Can you imagine a world where 90% of the world's oil is fought over by forces loyal to Al Qaeda and forces loyal to Tehhran? This isn't a humanitarian problem, this is a global security problem.
"Two, Rumsfeld told Bush we werent winning the war and staying the course wasnt going to do win it. That is why he was devising new strategies at the time Bush fired him."
Oh, please. A memo 2 days before he finally was fired? He knew he was going to be fired and created a CYA document.
Even then he still was under the compulsion of writing about "minimalist" approaches. "Minimalist" is codeword for keeping maximum funding directed toward big ticket boondoggles like Star Wars Part Deux and B-2 bomber fleets.
For your possible satisfaction, the liberals are confounded. How do they approach Gates statements about undermanning when such forward the idea that this war was possible to win? Dems are stuck on the idea this war was unwinnable from the beginning.
Agree 100%.
What kind of message does withdrawing from Iraq say about how tough we'll be with Iran and Syria?
Either somebody has gotten to President Bush with persuasion he can't turn down, or he's gone Liberal on us, or he always was a Liberal in disguise. I don't know which, but he's not the man I voted for because he isn't doing the things I voted for him to do.
The successes of the past 44 months have not been erased in the past 30 days.
Are you kidding? Baker-Hamilton (which again, Gates partly wrote) calls for Bush to take a softer line with Syria and Iran, in order to beg their help in quelling the violence in Iraq. Even now, the U.S. presently has no anti-proliferation policy with regards to Iran. A nuclear Iran is inevitable and imminent.
Exactly, many people are not seeing this simple fact but most horrible nightmare.
Boy, that would be very helpful!
I noticed a very negative trend here on FR several months before elections: people are taking everything that's thrown to them by the media (particularly headlines) literally and just respond very reflexively, without thought, logic, without reading through the entire piece, without figuring out what's "diplomacy" and what's real.
The tendency on FR from people who are supposed to know better to react immediately and instinctively by bashing your own in response to DBM hit pieces masquerading as "news" is very depressing and self-destructive (as we saw by low conservative turnout), and is not going to get better as DBM figured out what buttons to push to unnerve and disorient and discourage conservatives. This, in turn, will not help Administration and our representatives in Congress to beat the "Barbarians at the Gates"...
It's psy-ops by Dems through DBM, pure and simple. Let's try and get ourselves together and be more reactive and less reflexive, as DBM will continue these psy-ops for as long as they work, i.e. until these tactics will lose them elections in addition to hitting them in the pocket.
What successes? The Iraqi government will fall 24 hours after US forces leave. Al Sadr and Al Qaeda will fill the vacuum. And there presently exists the political will in Washington to withdraw US forces. Al Sadr is just a proxy for Tehran.
To be totally honest, Al Sadr could bring down the Iraqi government even WITHOUT a US troop withdrawal. He has that kind of power.
I find it rather telling that not one "drug warrior" has found this thread significant enough to post their statist drivel.
Pathetic that they only attack in hordes, or try to overwhelm with rhetoric and volume.
I think defeatist rhetoric is part of the equation. But defeatist actions are even more problematic. In my opinion, the US needs to re-invade Iraq with twice the troops it presently has, in order to change the paradigm of terrorism and defeat. That will take an enormous political, military and economic commitment from the United States that I'm not sure is possible at this point. But what else is the solution? The only alternative is withdrawal and withdrawal will be disastrous.
True, but I fear they will be more hesitant to join us in shoring up Iraq.
Agree and also we need to launch a massive Air Campaign against Iran and teach this terrorist islamic regime that they are not going to control the Middle East. Iran arrogance must be broken and they must be humiliated. Once Iran is broken, Syria will coward and learn not mess around.
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.