Posted on 06/21/2003 9:31:11 AM PDT by dennisw
Edited on 05/26/2004 5:14:50 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
Every Arabist government except Turkey sponsors a terrorist group against Israel. They hold the strings. It's imperatave that none of us ever forget who controls whom for one minute. Only by forcing the Arab puppeteers to call off their minions can the beginning of peace be achieved. I'd like to give Abbas the benefit of the doubt in the hope that experience, disillusionment and weariness of the neverending cycle of blood has made him willing to achieve peace through freedom...but the longer he does nothing, the more he begins to look like a Yasser mini-me after all.
Galvanizing? I disagree completely. They are being broken, not galvanized. Peters' argument is no different from those who said victory in Iraq really meant defeat; that, as eminent statesman George Clooney opined, "we can't win anything anymore."
It is the counsel of cowards.
Now is the time to be strong and to end this thing once and for all. The hardliners are on the run and on the defensive. One last final push should be made to break the back of Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah and the rest of the charm school graduates. I would not be opposed to American troops doing the dirty work.
We can't afford another fifty years of this crap. It's got to end. Now is the time.
Iran (not Arab) is about the worst. They fund HizbAllah and make a lot of mischief. I fantasize Israel saying "enough" one day and popping one off above Qom or Teheran.
Not to get off topic, but here's an interesting quote from an editorial about the collective mental breakdown in the left that kinda ties in the Palis to their biggest moral supperters in the Democrat party.
"Fury rarely wins elections. Rage rarely appeals to suburban moderates. And there is a mountain of evidence that the Democrats are now racing away from swing voters, who do not hate George Bush, and who, despite their qualms about the economy and certain policies, do not feel that the republic is being raped by vile and illegitimate marauders. The Democrats, indeed, look like they're turning into a domestic version of the Palestinians--a group so enraged at their perceived oppressors, and so caught up in their own victimization, that they behave in ways that are patently not in their self-interest, and that are almost guaranteed to perpetuate their suffering."
Democrats Go Off the Cliff (opens in a new window)
'Course, it isn't surprising : the Dems supported Saddam, who supported Pali terrorists...they surely suppor the mad mullahs in Iran. Jimmah sure did.
BusinessWeek Online
"If You Cannot Be Loved, Be Feared"
Thursday April 10, 11:25 am ET
Ralph Peters may be as close as the American military gets to a Renaissance soldier. He's certainly not one to mince words. The former lieutenant colonel served in the infantry and Army intelligence and holds a degree in international relations. With a razor-sharp analytical style and a historian's grasp of warfare, he has emerged as a leading exponent of the 21st century military. It's a U.S. fighting force that Peters believes will be leaner, faster, smarter, and more lethal than anything seen before.And increasingly, he contends in books such as Beyond Terror: Strategy in a Changing World and Fighting for the Future: Will America Triumph?, it's a military that will be called on to intervene in seething hot spots against global terror networks and Third World tyrants armed with weapons of mass destruction. On Apr. 7, Peters took time out from meeting with U.S. Green Berets to talk to BusinessWeek's Washington Bureau Chief Lee Walczak. Here are edited excerpts from their conversation:
Q: In the early days of the Iraq war, some military analysts insisted the U.S. went to war against Saddam Hussein without enough armor. What's your take?
A: If we had more ground troops, taking Baghdad would have been easier. And with another mechanized division in place, we would have secured Baghdad and be moving on [Saddam's ancestral home of] Tikrit by now. So more ground troops would definitely have helped. But the Army and Marine units that [Defense Secretary Donald] Rumsfeld once scorned as superfluous have managed to pull his cookies out of the fire in Iraq with a strong performance. The plan wasn't perfect, but they adapted well.
Q: Are you referring to Rumsfeld's head-banging with the military Establishment over his vision of a slimmed-down fighting force?
A: I see Rumsfeld as a brilliant yet tragic figure. He could have been the great Defense Secretary we needed to transform the military. But his arrogance undermines his effectiveness. He thought the Iraq war could be done on a shoe-string because of high technology. But in the end, [Central Command General] Tommy Franks managed an ill-tempered compromise on troop strength, and that proved sufficient.
Q: What about Rumsfeld's influential No. 2, Deputy Secretary Paul Wolfowitz? Many opponents of the war see him as a master strategist plotting future interventions...
A: I see Wolfowitz as a kind of sober visionary who gets it right. He gets into trouble when he strays into tactics.
Q: Both men are associated with the doctrine of Digital War -- basically, using America's technology advantage to gain a decisive edge on the battlefield. Has the experience in Iraq supported the Rumsfeld-Wolfowitz vision?
A: The strategic air campaign disappointed us. We bombed [a leadership bunker in] Baghdad, but the results on the regime weren't decisive. When air power turned to supporting the troops, its effectiveness soared.
High-tech weapons are great, but the Iraq war really demonstrated the need to have balanced forces. The technology that worked best was not the flashy strategic stuff, but the enhanced battlefield communications that permitted the Army, Air Force, and Marines to talk to each other. Close air support in Iraq, for example, worked better than it has before.
Q: Do you think the Secretary of Defense has absorbed this lesson?
A: I'm not sure Rumsfeld learns very much. He will view all this as vindication. For instance, in his dealings with generals, he could have listened to them and made them feel a part of plans [to modernize forces]. Instead, he called them yesterday's men and sent them out of his office. That was just stupid.
Q: So what will happen to Rumsfeld's campaign to overhaul the military and reduce reliance on Cold War weapons?
A: Our military is at austere levels. This war will prevent Rumsfeld from cutting troop strength further.
Q: Given the decrepit state of Iraq's military, does U.S. dominance in this war really prove much? A: Believe it or not, Iraq had one of the more able armies we're likely to face. We still managed to put a kind of impenetrable envelope over our infantry columns. Syria has an air force, but it wouldn't last a week.
In reality, no war provides a model for a succeeding war. In the Balkans, we saw strategic bombing. In Iraq in 1991, we saw a classic armored war. In Afghanistan, we saw troops on the ground, special operations, and an indigenous rebel force. Now, we may see urban warfare and counter-terrorist operations figure prominently in the outcome. We have a huge number of special operations forces in Iraq fighting an invisible war. I have always predicted the fight for Baghdad would not be another Stalingrad. Saddam isn't that smart -- and we're not that stupid.
Q: Overall, what lessons will the American military draw from what now seem like the imminent fall of the regime in Iraq?
A: This is going to sound cold-blooded, but the war has been a great training opportunity and an attempt to try out new doctrine. The guys on the ground now have a chance to really write some new rules for future warfare.
Q: Why has world opinion been so hostile to America's role in Iraq?
A: I won't do BBC interviews any more because they're so anti-American. I think the British press can't get over Graham Greene, basically. I think the Russians are simply embarrassed, because they can't even do Chechnya. The French can't pull off a minor intervention like the Ivory Coast. So there is a tendency to jump to conclusions about the war.
Q: In many quarters of the world, there is a strong feeling that despite what happens on the battlefield, a U.S. that stormed into Iraq without U.N. support is bound to "lose the peace." Your view?
A: We're not going to lose the peace. People have to be patient. Over the next few months, we will face car bombings and other suicide attacks and guerrilla action in parts of the country. Iraq is not going to turn into Kansas overnight. But will it be better than it was under Saddam? Yes.
Q: What do you say to Europeans who are convinced that a preemptive war on Iraq is merely be a dress-rehearsal for a string of other U.S. interventions?
A: The technical answer is: F*** 'em! We are the new Rome, and Rome does not ask permission of Gaul or Thebes. In essence, Rumsfeld was right when he referred to the "Old Europe." The war was a watershed event, and we are not going to be able to work with France on strategic matters in the future. The French will get some contracts in Iraq, but nothing big.
In Alliance terms, France committed Great Power suicide over Iraq.... The Europeans' fears are groundless in the short term. In the long term, the doctrine of preemption has been vindicated.
Q: So you don't expect the U.S. to start confronting other Axis of Evil nations?
A: North Korea tried a two-bit blackmail attempt. We're not going to start a war on the Korean peninsula that could cause tens of thousands of casualties. On the other hand, I think if you're the leader of Syria or Iran, you may be worried about supporting terrorism now. What we have done is make the other 20 dictators in line very nervous. Fear is incredibly important to the whole outcome. I have always felt that if you cannot be loved, be feared.
Q: What about prospects for an Israeli-Palestinian accord?
A: There will be a Palestinian state set up in the next few years, but I think when it's done, people are going to be disappointed that it doesn't stop terrorism. The Arab regimes desperately need someone to blame for their failures, and they will continue to blame Israel and the U.S. The last thing they want in the region is a state with a rule of law and freedom of speech, because that is not their model.
Some will be disappointed. Some are expecting this because we know most Palis don't want their own state unless that state comprises all of Israel...and if they swallow Israel, why will want more and more ground, never stopping until the Islamikazis rule the world...which will still not be enough for them, but they won't be able to expend into space because people living in the Dark Ages and the Inquisition weren't allowed to be inventive or think new thoughts. Of course people like President Bush and PM Blair will fight against this. No Kahlifah for the free world.
It won't matter if it doesn't stop terrorism. Then there is international law. Israel cannot be accused of being the 'occupier' and 'oppressor' when the Palis have their own state.
Yeah. He's shown a lot of fear of Arab threats, Bush has </extreme sarcasm>
My view, as expressed in these threads several times, is that US National Security is put at risk by this conflict, as demonstrated on 911. If you choose to believe all the crap that has been written denying that the Israel/Palestine conflict is related to 911, that is your prerogative. I didn't believe it when I first read it on about 9/13/2001, and I don't believe it now.
Our oceans no longer protect us from those who hate us. As Paul Johnson wrote in a recent article for the New Criterion, From the Evil Empire to the Empire for Liberty, "[f]or America, September 11 was a new Great Awakening. It realized, for the first time, that it was a globalized entity itself. It no longer had frontiers. Its boundaries were the world, for from whatever part of the world harbored its enemies, it could be attacked, and if such enemies possessed weapons of mass destruction, mortally attacked." Mortally attacked baby.
You may choose to believe that al-Qaeda is substantially distinct from Hamas, Hezbollah or Islamic Jihad, but I don't share your confidence. We need to eliminate these groups for our own security as well as for Israel's.
By the way, I am by no means a knee-jerk supporter of Israel. I would wager that some of Israel's defenders on FR who are familiar with my posts are having a little chuckle that you apparently mistake me for one. I want to see a Palestinian State on the West Bank, and I want the Israeli settlements there dismantled. I am pretty confident George W. Bush does too.
What I know beyond a shadow of a doubt is that in a post-911 world where nuclear weapons, with a sort of dread inevitablity, are proliferating, the Israeli/Palestian conflict is an indulgence the world can no longer afford. It's got to end.
Now.
Let the IDF do it. For one, they'd be protecting their own families, so it'd be much more effective. Second, we're over extended as it is. We need to save our strength for other battles, like in Korea, and whatever else pops up.
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.