Posted on 05/20/2007 4:38:07 PM PDT by J. Neil Schulman
Sometimes I wonder if people even listen to themselves talk.The Bush administration tells us that the United States has not yet achieved its objectives in the War in Iraq so American troops have to stay there until a stable Iraqi democracy can fend for itself against an insurgency fueled by al Qaeda-fed Sunni Muslims and Iranian-fed Shia Muslims: that the Iraqi InSurgency has to be fought with an American Surgency
The Democratic Party opposition tells us that, because of this InSurgency, the Bush administration already lost the War in Iraq so it’s time to cut our losses and bring American troops home.
Neither the Bush administration nor its critics see the obvious fact that Operation Iraqi Freedom was a total victory, and any discussion of whether American troops should stay or go has to follow from that fact.
Hey, people, remember September 11, 2001?
The United States was attacked on that date by an al-Qaeda cell that killed more Americans than the Empire of Japan’s multi-carrier air attack on Pearl Harbor.
On September 14, 2001, President Bush stood at Ground Zero and promised the American people through a bullhorn that the people who brought down the World Trade Center would soon hear from us.
They heard from us.
American troops sent the Taliban scurrying into caves because they refused to hand over al-Qaeda director, Osama bin Laden. These days the Taliban dare to scurry outside their caves, occasionally, but they’re still out of power in Afghanistan.
Then President Bush said the next threat was Saddam Hussein developing Weapons of Mass Destruction that could end up in the hands of terrorists whose future attack on the United States could take out entire American cities.
So the United States found a bunch of United Nations resolutions that Saddam Hussein wasn’t complying with, and used it as the casus belli for a U.S.-driven invasion to remove Saddam Hussein, his sons, and his Baathist Party from its one-party rule of Iraq.
It took about three weeks for Saddam Hussein’s dictatorship to collapse, and on May 2, 2003, about five weeks after the U.S.-led coalition invaded Iraq, President Bush stood aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln and declared “Mission Accomplished.”
On July 22, 2003, United States forces killed Saddam Hussein’s two sons, Uday and Qusay, and on December 13, 2003 Saddam Hussein was captured by American troops.
On January 30, 2005, the Iraqi people went to the polls and voted for a new government
On December 30, 2006, Saddam Hussein was hanged.
Whether you want to say that the United States had its victory when Saddam Hussein’s Baathist government collapsed -- or when, with his sons already dead, Saddam Hussein was captured by American forces, or when the Iraqis voted themselves a new government, or when Saddam Hussein no longer had a functioning head that could resume office -- we won that war.
And if the objective of “Operation Iraqi Freedom” was the liberation of Iraq from Saddam Hussein and one-party Baathist rule, so that Iraqi WMD’s no longer represented a clear and present danger to the security of the United States, that mission was accomplished by May 2, 2003 at the earliest, and by December 30, 2006 at the latest.
President Bush, it’s way past Miller Time. You won, and won, and won, and won, and won.
If our next strategic objective is to disable further Islamic-radical attacks on us “kuffars” in the West, then Sunnis and Shia killing each other isn’t something we want to put our troops in the middle of to police. Sunni and Shia have been at war with each other for a millennium, and the only thing that can possibly get them to stop killing each other is to unite them in killing a “Zionist-Crusader” alliance.
For most of Islamic history, Christians hated Jews as much as Christians hated Muslims. So when, after World War II, Christians decided that a couple of millennia of Jew-hating might have been a poor idea, when the Nazis took Jew-hating to the next level, the Muslims saw a peace between Christians and Jews that scares them senseless.
It’s not just that Israel is a Jewish State planted in the middle of Islamic turf that terrifies the Muslims. It’s that Israel is a modern, Westernized Jewish State that exists by sufferance of over a billion Christians.
The presence of Infidels in the Middle East is what drives Islamic terrorism. We Infidels are still there because of remnants of a Great Game for domination of the Middle East that stopped making strategic sense when the British Empire collapsed, when the Cold War ended, and when Japan, China, and Russia became trading partners of America and Europe.
We don’t need Middle Eastern oil. American energy independence is ours any time we decide to take it. Short-term we can pump and refine all we need from our own supplies in Utah and Colorado, and long-term we can switch to alternatives – everything from bio-diesel to solar-power satellites and -- one of these days – Mr. Fusion machines.
We don’t need to defend Israel from Syria or Iran. All we have to do is let the Sunni and Shia get back to killing each other instead of us – let al Qaeda fight Hezbollah.
Mr. Bush, you’re the President who Won the War on Terror. Please brings our troops home from Iraq and declare a domestic State of Emergency that suspends the numerous federal, state, and local impediments to domestic oil and coal production and refinement.
We don’t have to stop the Iraqi Insurgency for our own security, or for Israel’s. We can accomplish that merely by doing what Americans do best: minding our own business.
Mr. Bush: Make Oil, Not War.
J. Neil Schulman is an author, authority, and auteur. Links to his books, articles, and his new feature film are on his website at http://www.jneilschulman.com/.
“USS Abraham Lincoln and declared “Mission Accomplished.””
No such thing happened.
Go back and read what he said that day.
War is simple, the first thing you do is that you kill them until they stop killing you. Until we get around to doing the “first thing” we are just wasting time, money and lives.
“War is simple, the first thing you do is that you kill them until they stop killing you. Until we get around to doing the “first thing” we are just wasting time, money and lives.”
That works in conventional warfare, but not in an urban guerrila insurgency where anybody can plant a bomb under a car parked on a street.
I have yet to see any logic in removing Saddam to allow Bin Laden set up terrorist camp.
Names Ash Housewares wrote:
“USS Abraham Lincoln and declared “Mission Accomplished.””
No such thing happened.
Go back and read what he said that day.”
The sign said it. And whether the President said it or not, the point is that the mission was accomplished.
Good Point and very succinct.
Son House wrote:
“I have yet to see any logic in removing Saddam to allow Bin Laden set up terrorist camp.”
I see no point in a surge to put American troops in the crossfire between an al-Qaeda surge and an Iranian surge. They will neutralize each other.
Unfortunately, we do need ME oil at the moment since we have an opposition party that is beholden to eco and enviro nutters
Also, Bush just can't take energy independence any time he decides.
Mr. Schulman may be a decent writer, but he has no idea why we don't have the refining capacity even if oil was washing up on our shores, thanks to the nutters bringing legal challenges for years
I can’t believe what I’m reading. Saddam was a terrorist and supported terrorism. Bin Laden would be setting up terrorist camps wherever as he is doing.
That's like saying there was no logic in destroying Hitler because Stalin was still a threat to our country.
You don't "win peace". Peace is short periods between wars. The war against Islamic terrorists is not going to be won, or lost, in Iraq. We have shifted our goals from what we can do to what we want other people to do. We cannot let our success be dependent on other peoples or other Countries. There has to come a time in Iraq when we say we were successful in what we could do and any further progress is dependent on the Iraqis. The real debate is when we should say this. However, no matter when it is, there will be some who think we "cut and ran" too soon and those who will think we stayed far too long.
I too am getting concerned that the talk from the Whitehouse is too focused on what's good for Iraqis and less focused on what's good for U.S. citizens
This is exactly how I feel about the latest immigration bill. Again, our "leaders" seem more concerned about citizens of other countries than they are about U.S. citizens. You can call this attitude "globalist", progressive or anything you want, I call it frightening and an affront to me as a U.S. citizen.
By allowing an elite class of professional politicians to become our leaders, instead of citizen legislators as envisioned by our Founders, we have become dependent on those who, seeing our dependency, feel we have no other choice than to accept their worldview.
What is most advantageous for U.S. citizens should always be the primary focus of all our elected officials.
“By allowing an elite class of professional politicians to become our leaders, instead of citizen legislators as envisioned by our Founders, we have become dependent on those who, seeing our dependency, feel we have no other choice than to accept their worldview.”
“What is most advantageous for U.S. citizens should always be the primary focus of all our elected officials.”
Welcome to the empire.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Empire
Yeah, letting Iraq become a failed state with a real civil war sounds like a great idea. Then maybe we can get Saudi Arabia and Iran to go to war. What deep thinker is coming up with this stuff? The whole world would suffer from this scenario. Oil is like oxygen. We have to have it to survive. Letting Iran or al Qaeda have all of Iraq’s oil would be a disaster. Letting the region descend into real chaos would be a bigger disaster. This would make the few car bombs a day look like a picnic. People don’t like high gas prices now, wait till the whole area breaks into an internecine and religious civil war. The cost to the world would be huge and measured in greater blood and treasure than we can even imagine now. Defeatism now seems to have many brazen advocates. It’s all sophistry, though. And why quit now when the tables are finally turned on al Qaeda? Why?
Popman wrote:
“Unfortunately, we do need ME oil at the moment since we have an opposition party that is beholden to eco and enviro nutters
Also, Bush just can’t take energy independence any time he decides.
Mr. Schulman may be a decent writer, but he has no idea why we don’t have the refining capacity even if oil was washing up on our shores, thanks to the nutters bringing legal challenges for years”
Of course I have an idea why. That’s why I suggested the President declare a national emergency and by emergency order suspend the environmental regulations that prevent new domestic oil drilling and building of domestic refineries.
Then let the Supreme Court decide whether during a national emergency/time of war the Executive has this power ... and let the Congress go on record as to whether they prefer American troops to die fighting to defend Persian Gulf shipping lanes for oil, or whether national security trumps environmental regs.
For that is the argument that needs to be debated: American troops dying for foreign oil now or theoretical environmental damage from domestic oil production later.
elhombrelibre wrote:
“Yeah, letting Iraq become a failed state with a real civil war sounds like a great idea. Then maybe we can get Saudi Arabia and Iran to go to war. What deep thinker is coming up with this stuff? The whole world would suffer from this scenario. Oil is like oxygen. We have to have it to survive. Letting Iran or al Qaeda have all of Iraq’s oil would be a disaster. Letting the region descend into real chaos would be a bigger disaster. This would make the few car bombs a day look like a picnic. People don’t like high gas prices now, wait till the whole area breaks into an internecine and religious civil war. The cost to the world would be huge and measured in greater blood and treasure than we can even imagine now. Defeatism now seems to have many brazen advocates. It’s all sophistry, though. And why quit now when the tables are finally turned on al Qaeda? Why?”
First of all, I can’t think of anything better for the long-term economic interests of the United States than Saudia Arabia and Iran destroying each other’s oil fields. Are you aware that before World War II the United States was the chief oil producer for the world? We can be again, any time the political will can be created for the anti-domestic oil laws we’ve saddled ourselves with to be swept aside.
And let me put this on the table as a strategic thought. Saudia Arabia did not prevent its rogues to attack us on 9/11. The Arab world in general needs an incentive with real teeth to get them to hunt down and kill their own Muslim radicals. I cant think of anything that would incent them more than to tell them that the next 9/11 will result in the destruction of the source of their wealth: that if we are attacked again their oil fields are history.
The sign as you know I am sure now was for the crew returning to home port at that time ending the USS Abraham Linclons deployment.
And his speech was TO THE CREW.
The President also said that day.......
“We have difficult work to do in Iraq. We are bringing order to parts of that country that remain dangerous. We are pursuing and finding leaders of the old regime, who will be held to account for their crimes. We have begun the search for hidden chemical and biological weapons, and already know of hundreds of sites that will be investigated. We are helping to rebuild Iraq, where the dictator built palaces for himself, instead of hospitals and schools. And we will stand with the new leaders of Iraq as they establish a government of, by, and for the Iraqi people. The transition from dictatorship to democracy will take time, but it is worth every effort. Our coalition will stay until our work is done. And then we will leave — and we will leave behind a free Iraq................”
“Our mission continues. Al-Qaida is wounded, not destroyed. The scattered cells of the terrorist network still operate in many nations, and we know from daily intelligence that they continue to plot against free people. The proliferation of deadly weapons remains a serious danger. The enemies of freedom are not idle, and neither are we. Our government has taken unprecedented measures to defend the homeland — and we will continue to hunt down the enemy before he can strike.
The war on terror is not over, yet it is not endless. We do not know the day of final victory, but we have seen the turning of the tide. No act of the terrorists will change our purpose, or weaken our resolve, or alter their fate. Their cause is lost. Free nations will press on to victory.”
OH MY
HE said OUR MISSION CONTINUES.
Not Mission Accomplished?
Shame on you for truly mis-representing what happened that day to make a point.
Neither the Bush administration nor its critics see the obvious fact that Operation Iraqi Freedom was a total victory, and any discussion of whether American troops should stay or go has to follow from that fact.
Your point in this piece is valid, however, the future security and stability of Iraq is related to a global economy inseparable from our own. Without an enduring commitment to consensual government in Iraq, billions of dollars per year will flow into the pockets of dysfunctional governors. Your mind needn't struggle hard to figure out how they'll most likely use their wealth. Inversely, what are the alternatives to rival factions slugging it out over the next three or four decades? Not many... We could probably figure out the most like sites for an Iraqi version of Kashmir if we tried. Will Iraqis over the next decades of struggle blame Russia or China, India, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Yemen or Egypt? Nope...
The quintessential question for any modern day isolationist; how can you expect to reduce global economic interdependencies that facilitate most of the peace the world enjoys today and still expect to avoid fights around the world? Americans enjoy a prosperous open society. Keeping it demands incredible will power. Keeping it demands all Americans face the full scope of what is happening in the Middle East today and likely to happen tomorrow. George W. Bush and his administration have the will to face up to their full responsibilities. I believe the lens of history will show the critics' performance expectations of the Iraq War have been unrealistic, bordering on the absurd. You and I both know the Bush Administration accomplished more than most U.S. Presidential Administrations ever have or ever will. Would it be a good idea for the President to quit fighting now? I don't think so.
Muslims & Christians were fighting long before oil was an issue. Take oil out of this picture and we still have a heap of problems: territorial disputes (because of the west’s earlier interventions); religious jihad (not stopping until the world has converted to Islam); resentment over west’s imposition of democracy in Israel, Lebanon & Iraq; mass killings of those who sided with U. S., (like after first Gulf War); plan for refugees; the UN’s failure to correct genocide in middle eastern countries; pro-democracy movements in the ME and their appeals to the US for help; on and on.
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.