George W Bush: winning the war on terror

The Telegraph ^ | 12/26/2008 | Nile Gardiner

[bruinbirdman]

~snip~

Widely seen as his biggest foreign policy error, the decision to invade Iraq could ultimately prove to have been a masterstroke. Today the world is witnessing the birth of the first truly democratic state in the Middle East outside of Israel. Over eight million voted in Iraq's parliamentary elections in 2005, and the region's first free Muslim society may become a reality. Iraq might not be Turkey, but it is a powerful demonstration that freedom can flourish in the embers of the most brutal and barbaric of dictatorships.

The success of the surge in Iraq will go down in history as a turning point in the war against al-Qaeda. The stunning defeat of the insurgency was a major blow both militarily and psychologically for the terror network. The West's most feared enemy suffered thousands of losses in Iraq, including many of their most senior commanders, such as Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and Abu Qaswarah. It was the most successful counter-insurgency operation anywhere in the world since the British victory in Malaya in 1960.

The broader war against Islamist terrorism has also been a success. There has not been a single terrorist attack on U.S. soil since 9/11, and for all the global condemnation of pre-emptive strikes, Guantanamo and the use of rendition against terror suspects, the fact remains that Bush's aggressive strategy actually worked.

Significantly, there have been no successful terrorist attacks in Europe since the July 2005 London bombings, in large part due to the cooperation between U.S., British and other Western intelligence agencies. American intelligence has proved vital in helping prevent an array of planned terror attacks in the UK, a striking demonstration of the value to Britain of its close ties to Washington.

President Bush, in contrast to both his father, George H.W. Bush, and Bill

[Erik Latranyi]

...the fact remains that Bush's aggressive strategy actually worked.

Not aggressive enough for some, yet too aggressive for others.

The de-spining of the West is well underway. Our children are weaker than their predecessors.

[mkjessup]

NUDET = Nuclear Detonation. Not a laughing matter.

[ContraryMary]

NUDET is not a word. Nice try.

[mkjessup]

http://www.fas.org/spp/military/budget/peds_98f/0305913f.htm

Go check it out and educate yourself instead of displaying your ignorance.

[ContraryMary]

http://www.fas.org/spp/military/budget/peds_98f/0305913f.htm

Go check it out and educate yourself instead of displaying your ignorance.

Let me see...

You don't know the difference between a word and a military acronym...You don't know how to use acronyms in the written language...

This is boring. I'm still waiting for a cogent argument from you. I'm off to run Saturday errands. I'll check back sometime later...to see if you've actually come up with one.

[AmericanVictory]

It seems to me that when I was in England several years ago the Telegraph had columns by Mark Steyn as the war in Iraq approached. He made the point that in Canada where he was for a number of years there was a large Iraqi community and he did not hear anything except approval of removing Saddam Hussein.

[LtKerst]

The fact that the “Shoe thrower” was not placed into a Meatgrinder, is proof that BUSH was right.

[mkjessup]

Let me see...
You don't know the difference between a word and a military acronym...You don't know how to use acronyms in the written language...
This is boring. I'm still waiting for a cogent argument from you. I'm off to run Saturday errands. I'll check back sometime later...to see if you've actually come up with one.


Yes, let's see. At no time did I state that 'NUDET' was a 'word'. YOU asked me "what is a nudet" and I provided the definition and explanation.

YOU then stated "there is no such word as nudet", when the issue of whether or not it was a word was never at issue. What was at issue was your ignorance in not knowing what 'nudet' referred to.

I provided a link for you to see the use of the term 'NUDET'. You then discovered that it was a legitimate term and that you had been speaking from ignorance. You then proceeded to falsely state that I didn't know the difference between a 'word' and an 'acronym'. Again, that was never the issue.

No 'cogent argument' was ever needed. You questioned what the term 'nudet' referred to, I told you. You said there was 'no such word', something I never suggested in the first place. Now you're trying to save face with a lame attempt to turn it all around as if I were the one wallowing in ignorance. That is commonly called 'projection' Mary, when you attempt to project your own shortcomings and issues upon someone else.

1.) You didn't know what 'nudet' referred to.

2.) You proclaimed that 'nudet' was not a word (which was never an issue).

3.) You then proceeded to squirm and attempted to suggest that I'm the one who doesn't understand words and acronyms.

I think you have adequately demonstrated your ignorance and arrogance in this matter.

But by all means, c'mon back for a few more whacks.

[nuconvert]

“America’s 43rd president did after all directly liberate more people (over 60 million) from tyranny than any leader since Winston Churchill and Franklin D. Roosevelt.”

The liberals can’t accept this. They point to the thousands of Iraqis who were killed rather than the millions who were freed.

While I like and generally agree with Nile Gardiner, I think he underestimates the Iranian regime when he says, “ The memory of the invasion of Iraq and the unequivocal message that sent is by far the most effective deterrent to Tehran developing a nuclear weapon.”

[Moonman62]

And most of the terrorists killed in Iraq could have been killed in Afghanistan for a much lower cost.

[Cyber Liberty]

Of the three legs of the 'Axis of Evil', how many are left?

Two. Would you have preferred to see the US invade four countries simultaneously, or none in the first place?

Don't jump all over me, as you have others who dared question your genius, I'm just asking.

[dragnet2]

lol...

[mkjessup]

And most of the terrorists killed in Iraq could have been killed in Afghanistan for a much lower cost.

I'm not saying that the liberation of Iraq was necessarily a bad thing, not at all. Where the Bush Administration screwed up was allowing Tony Blair and other professional delay-artists to waltz us through the whole U.N. charade which allowed Saddam time to prepare, and allowed enough time to move materials and what-not from Iraq into Syria. We should have deadlined Saddam in 2002, instead of wasting a year dancing the Resolution Tango. Nevertheless, once Iraq was liberated, we reaped additional benefits in that Libya's Colonel Gadhafi saw the handwriting on the wall and voluntarily gave up his nuke program to the U.S. and the UK, rather than risk an involuntary regime change.

And it is convenient to forget that had we not disposed of Saddam like the garbage he was, that we would now have not one, but TWO rogue states in the Middle East (Iraq and Iran) racing to achieve a nuclear capability first. Iraq and Iran had already been at war for 8 years, there was no way Saddam would have permitted Ahmadinejerk to obtain a nuke and a strategic advantage over Iraq.

Once Saddam was gone, we should have been using a steamroller on any and all opposition, especially that puke Muqtada al-Sadr, we should have waxed his ass the first time he looked cross eyed at us, and made an example of him.

[mkjessup]

Of the three legs of the 'Axis of Evil', how many are left?
Two. Would you have preferred to see the US invade four countries simultaneously, or none in the first place?

Four invasions were not necessary. Iran could have been choked off early in the game had the United States exercised it's influence on a global scale by forcing other nations to choose between diplomatic and economic relations with the United States, or continuing to do business with the rogue regime in Iran. We could have literally forced Iran out of the United Nations had we played our cards right, by establishing a government-in-exile, be it by the son of the late Shah or some other political group, and given the U.N. an ultimatum: either expel Iran and grant official standing to the exile group, or the U.N. could pack up and get their asses out of the U.S. That's a simple black and white choice that the majority of Americans would have applauded. That's just one way we could have isolated and put an end to the Iranian regime. If we opted for military intervention, dropping a 1 meg nuke on (for example) the city of Tabriz (the Assahollah's home town) would have sent a message to each and every Iranian that if they didn't move fast to string up the mullahs and Ahmadinejerk and install a new regime, that they would all be enjoying the summer at Iran's new 'Green Glowing Sandy Beach'. The Persian mindset post-Khomeini has evolved into a delusional state which believes they are impervious and invulnerable to any and every outside threat. The little runt in charge right now has fed that belief at every opportunity. Iran NEEDS a major smackdown, and if we had a President who could back up his big-balls talk, with some big-balls action, Iran would already be well on the way to reestablishing itself as a force for stability as it was under the Shah, not as a threat to it's neighbors.

As for North Korea, the United States bought into the illusion that Pyongyang could be dealt with as with any other foreign power. Kim Jong Il is every bit as corrupt as Romania's former despot Ceauşescu, unfortunately the North Korean people have no real means of overthrowing him. If the U.S. had responded to their pipsqueak 'nuke test' in October 2006 with a precision air strike on the test facility, the chaos resulting would very likely have seen Kim Jong Il dangling from a wire like Mussolini.

All we needed to accomplish these things was sufficient resolve at the top of the chain of command.

[driftless2]

As I recall, Iran and N. Korea were alive and kicking after Reagan left office too. Are you saying Reagan screwed up? I guess he wasn’t a strong enough leader, huh? (smirk)

[mkjessup]

Don't be a smart ass. Reagan did not stand up in front of the world and proclaim that Iraq, Iran and North Korea were all part of a greater 'Axis of Evil', those remarks were made by one George W. Numbnutz in 2001 who managed to take care of 1/3rd of his 'Axis', and did nothing about the other 2/3rds.

Get it right.

[Theodore R.]

I suppose there has been some progress, but the American people don’t know that or believe. Ramos and Compean will remain the visible evidence of the failure of GWB’s “compassionate conservatism”.

[Theodore R.]

Reagan buckled many times to the Democrats on fiscal and other matters. His advisors told him that if he signed the King Day bill, it would bring blacks to the Repubican Party. He probably knew that was not the case. He did nothing with the attack on the KAL airliner that killed a U.S. representative. The one place he stood firm was at Reykjavik against his own RINO advisors, and then came Iran-Contra two or three weeks later. He seemed confused over Iran-Contra. Namcy was photographed telling him what to say at one point. I wish he had been more effective, but all three (going on four) of his successors make him look better.

[Theodore R.]

I think sealing the borders would have been preferable to the invasion of Iraq and a lot cheaper in manpower and $. That being said, I am glad that Iraq may be approaching a degree of freedom. But overall, the U.S. hasn’t been able to do that much to stem tyranny.