An Alternative to Baker: Kill Our Enemies, Quickly

NY Observer ^ | 12/18/2006 | Richard Brookhiser

[WOSG]

"The Israelis are not a party to the Iraq war; bringing them into the calculation seems gratuitous."

seems because it is... Baker is nuts if the Govt that is messing with Iraq and Lebanon should be 'dealt' with by bribing them and giving them Golan Heights. It's utter stupidity, on the order of giving the USSR mexico to cut a deal on arms control.

[highball]

"The public has been worked into a good anti-war froth, and that is hamstringing the president."

The President hamstrung himself because he could not continue selling the war to the American public. There comes a time for accountability.

Agreed.

The Administration made a great tactical error - telling the American public that this war would be fought without sacrifice. He should have called upon all of us to do our part for the war effort. Instead, he asked us to keep shopping. The VP went on talk shows to sell the now-ridiculous notion that we would be greeted as liberators. The Administration insisted that Iraq would pay for its own reconstruction.

They gambled for a quick end to the war. And they were right, when it came to the Iraqi army itself. But apparently nobody even considered that there might be an armed resistance to our occupation, and that lack of foresight has cost us dear.

His advisors failed him, and that fundamental misunderstanding is what is now hamstringing the President.

[RexBeach]

Mr. Brookhiser is correct. It's time to kill the enemies of order and show that we are the BIG dog in this fight.

Mr. Sadr should be among the first to take a dirt nap.

We can still do this, but we need to act with alacrity.

[veronica]

I have no expectation that this road will be taken. But it is nice to see someone articulate this POV.

[gophergas]

There are three objectives in the current war in Iraq:

1. Bring the troops home quickly and safely.
2. Defeat the Islamic extremists.
3. Prevent casualties among innocent civilians.

Only two of these can be attained. If you prevent casualties among innocent civilians and bring home the troops quickly, you won't defeat the Islamic extremists. If you prevent casualties among innocent civilians and defeat the Islamic extremists, you won't be able to bring home the troops quickly OR safely. If you defeat the Islamic extremists and bring home the troops quickly and safely, you won't be able to prevent casualties among innocent civilians.

Personally, I'd select numbers 1 and 2. Because this is war, it (normally) goes without saying that there will be some civilian casualties. It's only our current "leadership" that wants it both ways.

The present war in Iraq does indeed resemble Vietnam -- in that the politicians are once again hamstringing the troops. I say let the warriors do battle and get out of the way!

[Prokopton]

"The President hamstrung himself because he could not continue selling the war to the American public."

It isn't war, as in the War on Terror, he couldn't sell, it's what we're involved with in Iraq. Iraq is not being fought like a war, i.e. using all resources available to gain victory, but is more of a holding action, using our troops as human shields, hoping that the enemy will become more reasonable and Iraqis will get a spine. It is becoming more and more apparent to the average American that this is futile. After 911, Americans rallied behind the President and gave him the backing to fight a real war with victory as it's goal. The president decided to engage in "limited" wars that would not be seen as too harsh by our "supposed" allies, bending our countries knee to the likes of the UN. We are paying the price for all of these decisions. Wars should be fought to defeat the enemy, not transform them into people more to our liking. Transformation is possible, but only after total defeat, as Japan and Germany have proved. The next time our President, whoever they might be, speaks of war, they better really mean it, and if not, the adventure should be forsaken.

[JAWs]

I don't mind killing our enemies slowly.

[Carry_Okie]

Instead of spending so much time on Syria, why not keep wooing Iraq’s Shiites?

Especially when it's so easy (and much more effective), to simply crush the Syrian tyranny.

[The_Reader_David]

Well, there are repentant terrorists like Wahlid Shoebat. The dual strategy of killing them as efficiently as possible, and praying for their repentance has much to commend itself.

[neverdem]

One requirement not mentioned is to put a bullet right between the eyes of al Sadar, or at least make it clear to him that it *will* happen unless he ceases and desists. But I don't think at this late date he believes we'd actually do it. So we'll have to show him.

We should have done that long ago, but I don't believe it will do much good now.

Al-Sadr, however, has repeatedly called on his followers to show restraint and not be provoked into violence. Yet the killings continue, and this has led al-Sadr and other Iraqi Shiite politicians to claim that they are carried out by "rogue" elements of the Mahdi Army who are not under al-Sadr's command. Rumors that the Mahdi Army is splintering are circulating, leaving some wondering what this means for the demobilization of the Mahdi Army and the future of sectarian conflict in Iraq.

I've read multiple stories to that effect.

[aculeus]

The solution now is to put 30,000 troops into Baghdad, without stripping Anbar, and kill the enemies of order. If the generals say they don’t need 30,000 more troops, find new generals.

[aculeus]

Last week the same author advocated Rudy G for president.

You shoulda seen the outrage expressed here.

[veronica]

Last week the same author advocated Rudy G for president. You shoulda seen the outrage expressed here.

:)