The Muddle in Iraq (Ralph Peters) OR Why we need a second-termer in the WH (my TITLE)

New York Post ^ | September 17, 2004 | Ralph Peters

[beckaz]

Email Archives Print Reprint

September 17, 2004 -- FIGHTING terror is like fighting a fire. It's easiest in the early stages, before the flames spread. But if you sit idly by, hoping that the fire will burn itself out, you're likely to find yourself up against an inferno. Confronted by global terror, the Clinton administration hoped the problem would go away by magic. Faced with incipient terror in Iraq last year, the Bush administration insisted that the magic of freedom would make it disappear.

But policies that rely on magic of any kind beg for disaster.

We don't yet face a disaster in Iraq — thanks to the quality and commitment of our troops. And the Bush administration, despite its errors, has had a great stroke of luck in Prime Minister Ayad Allawi, who has shown not only a solid grasp of the problems Iraq faces, but the will to solve them no matter what it takes.

At the moment, it's almost impossible to find a balanced view of Iraq in America. The partisans of both political parties are out in force, insisting either that Iraq's a magnificent place with a minor litter problem, or that it's an inferno where countless legions of terror are being forged.

[beckaz]

Another reason to vote Bush, we need a second-termer in, who will stop worrying about getting re-elected to deal quickly and forcefully with Iraq and the war on terror. (Sorry got to post and run)

[Real Cynic No More]

Well, just like the Vietnam war, the anti-administration activists are causing a lot of these car-bombings and rocket attacks, by giving some reason for the terrorists to prolong their resistance. Just as the Viet Cong were ready to give up after they lost the TET Offensive and the likes of John Kerry gave them enough hope to carry on.

And we have 2/3 of the exact same team in place that caused us to retreat then: John Kerry and Dan Rather.

It's as plain as a bump on a log. Can't anybody else see that?

[jolie560]

..."...the intel bureaucrats don't want to be blamed if things go wrong. There's nothing safer than assuming failure."...

[beckaz]

Along the same lines, Tony Blankley in the Wash. Times today, speculating (as would I) that the gloves will come off after the election (if Bush wins of course). Here's the link:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/op-ed/tblankley.htm