The Cost of Defeat in Iraq and the Cost of Victory in Iraq

Testimony to Senate Foreign Relations Committee ^ | January 23, 2007 | Newt Gingrich

[parousia]

The coalition of the enemies of freedom has growing power around the world. Its leaders are increasingly bold in hostility to the United States. America is faced with two hard paths in Iraq. We can accept defeat and try to rebuild our position in the region while accommodating these enemies of freedom in Iraq -- sadistic inflictors of atrocities will have defeated both millions of Iraqis who voted self government and the American people who supported them. (or)we can insist on defeating our enemies and the enemies of the Iraqi people by developing strategies and implementing mechanisms necessary to force victory despite the incompetence of the Iraqi government, the unreliability of Iraqi leaders, and interference of Syria and Iran on behalf of our enemies. The inherent contradiction in the administration strategy: if Iraq matters as the President says it does the United States must not design a strategy which relies on the Iraqis to win. If the war is so unimportant that the fate of Iraq can be allowed to rest with efforts of a new, weak,untried inexperienced government, why do we risk American lives?

The President's recently announced strategy is inadequate. Its weakness? The current strategy debate focuses too much on the military and too little on all that has not been working. The one instrument that has been reasonably competent is the combat element of American military power. That should not be expanded to include the non combat elements of the DOD which have difficulties in performing adequately. The failures in the Iraq and Afghanistan campaigns have been in non-combat power. Intelligence, diplomacy, economic aid, information operations, support from the civilian elements of national power. .. the great centers of failure in America’s recent conflicts. They are a major reason we have done so badly in Iraq.

[parousia]

Newt Gingrich saw “the first battle in America’s war with militant Islam” as the seizure of the American embassy in Iran and the 444 day hostage taking of 52 Americans in total violation of international law. Further attacks on America were blocked largely because of the courage and determination of President George W. Bush, who, faced with the deliberate and horrific attacks on 9/11, instinctively understood this was a war.

He demonstrated his courage by taking that war to al-Qaeda to protect the American people. Despite opposition from confused and reluctant bureaucrats and politicians, he acted and that decision was the decisive break with the terrorism as a criminal act strategy and in direct contrast to the terrorism as a nuisance mindset held by many

[GiovannaNicoletta]

bookmark

[Jabba the Nutt]

Actually, America's first war with radical Islam goes back to the Barbary Pirates and the "shores of Tripoli".

[M. Dodge Thomas]

“Alternatively we can insist on defeating the enemies of America and the enemies of the Iraqi people and can develop the strategies and the implementation mechanisms necessary to force victory despite the incompetence of the Iraqi government, the unreliability of Iraqi leaders, and the interference of Syria and Iran on behalf of our enemies.”

There is a name for this policy – “Neo-Colonialism”.

And before we formally embark on it Iraq, someone needs to convincingly explain why – however desirable the intended result – it will work this time, when it has failed every other time it has been tried for the last half century.

And that mostly in places with prospects much brighter than those in Iraq.

[Defiant]

Was it neo-colonialism when we ran Germany and Japan after WW2 , until they could do it themselves, and when we installed favorable authoritarian regimes in Korea, Taiwan, the Phillipines, Greece, etc.? Are we seeking permanent colonies from which we extract resources to the detriment of the locals, or are we doing something else?

Your view is simplistic, and your terminology inapt.

[parousia]

Couldn't have said it better myself. America hasn't gone to war to gain territory since the Mex-American war, and then there were some extenuating circumstance of disputed land along southern border of Texas, leading Mexican troops to cross the Rio Grande and attack Zack Taylor's troops.

Dodge's perception of America's failure to succeed in the region before is simplistic.The first Gulf War stopped Hussein from annexing it's neighbor, and the U.S. emerged as the dominant power in the Middle East,leading to USSR's loss of much of its influence both there and in the world.
Had Carter and Clinton used our military power to discourage terrorist attacks against us in the region, OBL would not have successfully inspired and outfitted the international jihad to attempt conquest of the Big Satan.