Posted on 06/14/2007 9:28:43 PM PDT by RWR8189
I recently returned from Iraq and four other countries in the Middle East, my first trip to the region since December. In the intervening five months, almost everything about the American war effort in Baghdad has changed, with a new coalition military commander, Gen. David Petraeus; a new U.S. ambassador, Ryan Crocker; the introduction, at last, of new troops; and most important of all, a bold, new counterinsurgency strategy.
The question of course is--is it working? Here in Washington, advocates of retreat insist with absolute certainty that it is not, seizing upon every suicide bombing and American casualty as proof positive that the U.S. has failed in Iraq, and that it is time to get out.
In Baghdad, however, discussions with the talented Americans responsible for leading this fight are more balanced, more hopeful and, above all, more strategic in their focus--fixated not just on the headline or loss of the day, but on the larger stakes in this struggle, beginning with who our enemies are in Iraq. The officials I met in Baghdad said that 90% of suicide bombings in Iraq today are the work of non-Iraqi, al Qaeda terrorists. In fact, al Qaeda's leaders have repeatedly said that Iraq is the central front of their global war against us. That is why it is nonsensical for anyone to claim that the war in Iraq can be separated from the war against al Qaeda--and why a U.S. pullout, under fire, would represent an epic victory for al Qaeda, as significant as their attacks on 9/11.
Some of my colleagues in Washington claim we can fight al Qaeda in Iraq while disengaging from the sectarian violence there. Not so, say our commanders in Baghdad, who point out that the crux of al Qaeda's strategy is to spark Iraqi civil war.
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...
Since when do the opponents of the war value common sense?
ping
Good for Senator Lieberman, at least he’s one dem that understands Iraq in the WOT.
Bump for a good report.
bump for later.
Sometimes this guy makes more sense than the republicans
This cant be said enough
I appreciate what Joe Lieberman’s saying, and I’m glad he’s saying it. I agree with him. But in a war where our fighting men and women are making such enormous sacrifices, he owes it to them to abandon the “weak horse” Senate democrats (small “d” is intentional). I guess he’s continuing to caucus with them because of social issues. However, by his own admission, there is no other issue of more vital importance to America’s security (immigration included) than the war. He’s continuing to cast his lot with the wrong people in the Senate.
Three easy steps to a renewed America:
1) Fred Thompson stops stalling.
2) Joe Lieberman switches parties.
3) Duncan Hunter writes articles of impeachment.
He is correct. You know, these enemies, al Qaeda and Iran, are able to destabilize areas of Iraq but not at will and not without great cost. Those who view them as invincible in Iraq are dangerously wrong.
bump for later
Nice poke in the eye there to GrannyNanny and DingyHarry.
I want the VP nod to go to Joe. I don’t care about the domestic, I want a VP that will do what’s right to keep America safe if the next President should die. And when Thompson gets the nod, his Stature compared to Edwards or Hillary at the debates plus Joe’s stand against all our enemies and support of the military will clinch it. And while I’m at it, Thomas Sowell for Sec of Treasury.
“I want the VP nod to go to Joe”
Oh pleeeeeeze - Is this the same Joe that jumped up and down with glee every time a soldier’s absentee vote was tossed in the can and disallowed on some technicality during the 2000 presidential election ?
That Joe for VP Never again!
Actions always speak louder than words.
Facts on the ground also compel us to recognize that Iran is doing everything in its power to drive us out of Iraq, including providing substantive support, training and sophisticated explosive devices to insurgents who are murdering American soldiers. Iran has initiated a deadly military confrontation with us, from bases in Iran, which we ignore at our peril, and at the peril of our allies throughout the Middle East.
Of course, since Bush will continue to do nothing while Iranians continue to kill and maim our troops, there is only one chance...
Joe, just quit caucusing with the loser Rats, will ya?
“Three easy steps to a renewed America:
2) Joe Lieberman switches parties.”
Why does he have to go Republican? I’d definately vote for Lieberman over most of the Republican field in a primary, but what if we had a new real conservative party. Maybe we’re stuck with a two party system, but it doesnt have to be Demons and Rinos.
Yep. Just one. But he DOES get it.
Remember, though...he is not a Democrat. (Have to laugh at that one...)
There used to be a large number of people like Joe Lieberman, a lefty to be sure (make no mistake about it, no one is ever going to mistake Joe Lieberman for Ronald Reagan), but someone who was serious on nation security/foreign affairs. I mean am I supposed to take Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi seriously?...about anything? They and their followers don’t take this war seriously, they look at it the same way they look at (say) a farm bill, as a way to score points against the republicans, assuage their base, and bring home some pork.
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.