Posted on 12/10/2006 12:42:07 PM PST by Yomin Postelnik
Mega dittos!
Not going to get it from the Bush Administration. Iraq to them and our rules of engagement is nothing more than a pink bonnet. I really thought Bush was going to be hard on terrorist, fat chance of that. Iraq and our rules of engagement is a political nightmare. We are seeking peaceful political solution with al-qaeda thugs who openly roam the streets of ramadi and anbar province, not to mention the iranian/hezbollah backed shiite militias and their leader muqtada al-sadr who have free reign in shiite neighborhoods. What is the deal? There has to be a political solution but only after our enemies have realized they have been defeated militarily and any means of resistance will be counter productive. What a joke. take the damn gloves off.
Nice analysis. To many forget that freedom is not free. Had we not gone to war in Iraq, we would just be leaving the problem for later, when it could be much worse. The fact that the "insurgency" is tougher than we expected means only that the problem would have been that much tougher had we left it for later. In other words, the fact that we are having so many problems now is evidence that we should have gone in now rather than later.
"To many" should have been "Too many". Darnit!
Worth remembering...
Problem is - the way I see it - that too quick and too fast may permanently alienate allies while setting us back. A steady, steadfast and progressing strategy seems to work best. We will defeat them if we just have the resolve to see this through.
Another problem is the media. If they want to remind us of the death of each soldier (something that would have had the public up in arms against Rooseveltin WW2 because it would have taken us off the reasons for the war) and find another so-called "expert" who's never set foot in the region to criticize the war from every angle (we could have criticised much about D-Day too) and do this daily, then by darnit we need to state the case for the need of this war every day.
We can definitely debate strategy but the purpose of the media attacking this at every angle is to shore up anti-Vietnam type opposition. For some of them it's reliving their hippie glory days. For others it's part of a greater strategy to attack Republicans or conservatives in general. But whatever the case it's dangerous for the nation.
Very good point.
Ain't it? The Gnu Yak Thymes of all places!
Counter Insurgency is a much different mission then Total War. The Freeper Arm Chair Generals need to quit trying to force their Conventional Military dogmas onto an Asymmetrical Warfare problem.
Try actually learning something about Iraq rather then just repeat as fact the nonsense psuedo Conservative Radio Talk Show hosts with no military background scream at you.
Simply no excuse for this level of ignorant to be still being expressed on Iraq. Considering how may lies and half truths the Junk Media have told Conservatives over the years, why do Conservatives still cling mindlessly to the notion that ONLY the Junk Media is telling the truth on Iraq while everyone else is "drinking the kool-aid"?
How many propaganda lies have to be pointed out? How may Iraqi stringers for AP have to be arrested before the Dincons quit drinking the Junk Media poison?
http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/iraq_strategy_nov2005.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_Security_Force
http://icasualties.org/oif/
http://icasualties.org/oif/IraqiDeaths.aspxs
40 years your senior and am impressed you confirm my opinions
No this is good as is. Need to put Iraq in context of the times not in context of the latest PR spin. There will be lots of time to go after McCain on Iraq. Actually better to work it up as a series of articles rather then shoot all the bullets in one PR blast.
Thank you sir. Am honored to do so. We need to stick together in the face of an insane media with a disdain for covering facts, something that used to be their job.
Iraq to them and our rules of engagement is nothing more than a pink bonnet. I really thought Bush was going to be hard on terrorist, fat chance of that. Iraq and our rules of engagement is a political nightmare.
They are only a political nightmare to those who don't understand the kind of battle/war Iraq is. It's a guerrilla war. Guerrilla wars are the hardest kind of war for a democracy to fight. They are long, messy, and don't involve great victories, what passes for a great victory is a well being dug, 10 terrorist killed, a school being built, a bridge not blown up. It requires patience on our part, and (cue the ominous music) nation building, hearts and minds.
What a joke. take the damn gloves off.
I keep seeing this kind of statement. What exactly does it mean.
I would add to the article's points: 1) Iraq and Saddam were our ENEMIES and it was totally correct for Bush to pre-empt them at any time. 2) War is about geography. By taking Iraq, we have surrounded Syria and Iran. They are two of the ultimate objectives in the WOT. Sooner or later, those two countries need new regimes friendly the USA and hostile to terrorists. The war is not over until the terrorists have no bases, no friendly countries for safe haven, and every country hunts them down.
I think former chief inspector David Kay put it even shorter and sweeter.
David Kay: "It was absolutely prudent to go to war. The system was collapsing, Iraq was a country with desire to develop WMDs, and it was attracting terrorists like flies to honey."
Great post.
(and a ping)
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.