Free Republic

Let us examine point by point why Lt.Gen Odom and the “cut and run” crowd are as WRONG Today as they were in April of 1975!!

FIRST: “If we leave there will be a civil war.” Odom and the rest of the quitters claim that “In reality, a civil war in Iraq began just weeks after U.S. forces toppled Saddam. Any close observer could see that then; today, only the blind deny it…Iraqis are fighting Iraqis. Insurgents have killed far more Iraqis than Americans. That’s civil war…” On what plane of reality does Odom claim connection??? That Iraqis are fighting Iraqis is not the sign of Civil War he and others claim it to be. Rather it is the clear sign of the true fight on the war against Transnational Terrorism where the front lines of the engagement are being drawn within the Islamic world and between those who stand for liberty and those who stand for terror…JUST AS THE BATTLE LINES OF THE COLD WAR were drawn between the forces of freedom and the forces of Communism. Here too those battle lines are drawn in the societies were the belligerents have a stake in the ultimate control of a national outcome. In Vietnam the fact that Vietnamese were killing Vietnamese was an excuse given for the U.S. final withdrawal because the war had become an internal fight in which we had no legitimate voice and against which our continued presence had no purchase of land to stand. The “cut and run” crowd was wrong then AND IT IS WRONG NOW. We owe an obligation to the Iraqis (as we did to the Vietnamese) that must be as deep and as true as the convictions of our national commitment to freedom and liberty. We must stand and fight with the forces of freedom and liberty in Iraq as they labor against the DOMESTIC and FOREIGN enemies who seek to undo both. In Iraq as in Vietnam this choice is CLEAR and UNEQUIVOCAL we must stay and we must help the Iraqis DEFEAT the Forces of Terrorism UNLESS we would rather allow the nascent Iraqi State decline into Terror and Tyranny just like Vietnam when we abandoned another ally. IF WE DO THIS we will declare defeat in Iraq and give victory to terrorists in Iraq. EXACTLY HOW IS THIS IN THE NATIONAL INTEREST??? Additionally what does this say to the millions of Iraqis who want and are indeed fighting and dying for Freedom and Liberty…do we also condemn them to killing fields and refugee boats???

SECOND: “Withdrawal will encourage the terrorists.” Odom admits this as if it is an acceptable fact. Then suggests that it is the undeniable fate of our misguided action to oust Saddam and bring freedom and liberty to Iraq. Did Lt.Gen. Odom spend his military career in the service of the KGB or the USA??? This is almost an exact re-hash of the standard propaganda line used in every communist insurgency during the Cold War, and it was always leveled directly against the U.S. to discourage our efforts to oppose the spread of communism. The communist insurgents knew the only way for the spread of communism to succeed was for the U.S. to stand by doing nothing. They also knew that as soon as the U.S. became involved the best way to get the U.S. out was to convince the cowards in our midst that the struggle against communism was doomed. SO NOW the struggle against transnational terrorism is doomed and we cannot hope to succeed because the terrorists will always win?? I for one do not believe the terrorists will always win – UNLESS WE QUIT which seems to be exactly what Odom and the rest would prefer which I for one believe seriously calls into question their true motives…Then in an incredulous move Odom claims that our intervention in Iraq forced the Baathists into a choice between joining the terrorists or surrender. While this may be true on some level it completely ignores the fact that we have forced this choice and have continued to press the attack thereby forcing subsequent choices. Namely the Sunni and Baathist elements of the Iraqi Terrorist Insurgency have been continually forced to choose between continuing their struggle against the progress of freedom and liberty or quit the path of terror and join the path of democracy. It also ignores the now quantifiably large empirical evidence that many Sunni and former Baath party loyalists have chosen to join the cause of Iraqi Freedom and Liberty and added their strength to the building of a Democratic Iraqi Future. BUT I GUESS Odom has no problem turning his back on these people too.

THIRD: “Before U.S. forces stand down, Iraqi security forces must stand up.” The problem for Odom is loyalty. “To whom can officers and troops afford to give their loyalty? The political camps in Iraq are still shifting. So every Iraqi soldier and officer today risks choosing the wrong side.” WRONG the loyalty of the brave officers and soldiers of Iraq’s new military is to the IRAQI CONSTITUTION and the IRAQI NATION…Perhaps Lt.Gen. Odom should recall for a moment the oath he took as an officer in the United States Military. IT IS THE SAME OATH IRAQI OFFICERS AND SOLDIERS TAKE FOR THEIR COUNRTY. However, quitters don’t ever take much notice of their oaths or their obligations. The key point here is that the new Iraqi Military LIKE THE US MILITARY does not take its oath of loyalty to a political party or faction it takes its oath of loyalty to the Constitution and the Country. In this respect the recent performance of the Iraqi security forces is a shinning example of OUR SUCCESS NOT FAILURE in Iraq BUT QUITTERS AREN’T INTERESTED IN SUCCESS!!

FOURTH: “Setting a withdrawal deadline will damage the morale of U.S. troops.” Lt.Gen Odom believes that “hiding behind the argument of troop morale shows no willingness to accept the responsibilities of command. The truth is, most wars would stop early if soldiers had the choice of whether or not to continue.” Hiding behind the quitter talk of defeated former generals ignores the fact that we are actually WINNING not LOSING in Iraq. Additionally, this exactly why soldiers do not make policy they execute it, they follow orders they do not question them. SO GENERAL why not follow orders or at least help in the execution of them, rather than advocating for our defeat by questioning the orders of the policy decider's ELECTED OVER YOU. Odom’s suggestion that “the willingness to accept personal responsibility for command decisions… must be demanded of high-level commanders, including the president,” ignores the very fact that the President has accepted responsibility for his command decisions and has said very clearly that we are fighting to defeat the forces of transnational terrorism and at present those forces are fighting an existential battle against us in IRAQ a battle we simply cannot surrender and simply will not retreat from until the enemy has been crushed.

FINALLY: “Withdrawal would undermine U.S. credibility in the world.” EXACLTY CORRECT GENERAL just look at the record of our self declared defeat on April 27, 1975. During the next several years the South China Sea swelled with boat people fleeing the terror of communism to which our cowardice consigned them. Mean while the killing fields went into overdrive as the spread of communism in Southeast Asia cast millions of people into the deadly consequences of our lack of courage. Perhaps worst of all the U.S. suffered a moral defeat which plagues our national consciousness still today –exhibit one Lt.Gen. Odom and the rest of the General’s who have called for our surrender in Iraq. YET Lt.Gen. Odom then challenges all reason by suggesting “were the United States a middling power, this case might hold some water. But for the world’s only superpower, it’s patently phony.” WHAT – Lt.Gen. actually believes just because the U.S. is still the world’s sole super power that our surrender in Iraq would not be seen as a major victory for the forces of transnational terrorism or Iran or N.Korea or China or Russia…WHO IS HE KIDDING or does his reality not include these outside nations who wish for our defeat in Iraq.

Lt.Gen Odom again speaking as if he were a former KGB officer or perhaps a French General then claims “a rapid reversal of our present course in Iraq would improve U.S. credibility around the world.” SURE our credibility as a weak and hypocritical would certainly improve in Paris and other European capitals. I suspect Lt.Gen. Odom is also correct that our image in Iran, N.Korea and China would also improve especially since these nations clearly have our best national interest at heart we should obviously endeavor to please them in whatever way possible. This sort of cloudy logic is not just cowardly it is plainly appeasement for nations which harbor significant ill will for the best interests of the United States BUT I GUESS Odom and the other traitors in the “General’s Revolt” would rather sing the praises of Iran, North Korea, China and Russia and win favor in Pairs than the defend the U.S.

In an absolutely ridiculous claim Lt.Gen Odom then claims “[t]he same argument was made against withdrawal from Vietnam. It was proved wrong then and it would be proved wrong today.” WHAT KIND OF HISTORY DOES LT.GEN. ODOM CLAIM TO MAKE SUCH A CLAIM??? After our withdrawal from Vietnam we cast millions of people into the meat grinder of communism. Millions fled as boat people and millions more were killed whole sale in the killing fields. YET ODOM DENIES ALL OF THIS. His claim suggests that there were no consequences for our betrayal in 1975. How he can deny the suffering of these people as a consequence of our quitting in 1975 is simple MIND BOGGLING!! Either Lt.Gen. does not know about their plight or he believes their suffering as a result of our cowardice is unimportant. EITHER WAY this suggests that his council on the current situation is at best ILL CONCEIVED!!!

I find it interesting that so few are critically examining why a handful of retired generals have decided to publicly call for Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's head on the proverbial silver platter. Are these retired military men immune from probing public scrutiny, unlike those civilian men, they formerly served but currently challenge?

Take for example General Zinni, who now astonishingly asserts, he was “never convinced” about Iraq's WMD programs. Yet General Zinni while still serving as the Commanding General of CENTCOM testified in front of the Senate Armed Services Committee in February of 2000 that “Iraq remains the most significant near-term threat to U.S. interests in the Arabian Gulf…primarily due to its large conventional military force, pursuit of WMD [emphasis mine], oppressive treatment of Iraqi citizens, refusal to comply with United Nations Security Council Resolutions (UNSCR)…” As if this was not enough Zinni’s testimony continued “despite claims that [Iraq’s] WMD efforts have ceased, Iraq probably is continuing clandestine nuclear research, retains stocks of chemical and biological munitions,…Even if Baghdad…surrendered all WMD capabilities, it retains the scientific, technical, and industrial infrastructure to agents and munitions within weeks or months.” That’s right folks General Zinni, who now blithely states that he was “never convinced” about the threat of Iraq’s WMD programs was in point of fact, not too long ago, sufficiently convinced of this threat to deliver an assessment to the U.S. Senate in which he concluded among other things that Iraq’s WMD programs and its ties to terrorism made it “the most significant near-term threat to U.S. interests.”

Perhaps Zinni’s most incredulous indictment of Rumsfeld comes in his stunning claim that the Iraq Invasion Plan was “fatally flawed” and based on “erroneous intelligence.” Well, sheer seriousness of these bald assertions certainly begs the question - Who was responsible for collecting reliable intelligence and properly planning U.S. military operations in support of established U.S. Foreign Policy Objectives and threat assessments within the CENTCOM AOR? Ups…Has the cat finally got the general’s well used tongue? Just to clarify the record, Bill Clinton changed the official U.S. Foreign Policy regarding Iraq in 1998, establishing the new objective of “Regime Change.” At the time General Zinni was the theater commander overseeing a JTF responsible for enforcing the “Northern & Southern No-Fly Zones” in Iraq. As such he was already commanding U.S. Forces engaged in routine low level hostilities over the skies of Iraq. Furthermore, Zinni’s testimony in front of the U.S. Senate indicates he was at least aware of Saddam’s UNSCR transgressions, WMD proclivities, terrorist connections, and belligerent history. Additionally, he assessed Iraq as the “most significant near-term threat the U.S. interests.” All of which suggests at the very least that General Zinni in support of the new “Regime Change” policy in light of his own testimony and threat assessments should have vigorously planned and prepared a wide range of “full spectrum” military operations for Iraq. He should have redoubled the intelligence collection effort in Iraq. He should have war gamed every possible “Regime Change” and invasion scenario. He should have developed contingency plans and post hostilities plans.

Yet, inconceivably the seemingly omniscient General Zinni acted in precisely the opposite manner and apparently did nothing to improve intelligence collection or operational planning regarding Iraq, terrorism or WMD proliferation in the region. In fairness to General Zinni he did invest a significant amount of time and energy toward diplomatic, political and economic engagement throughout the region in return for which however, the United States did not realize the benefits of peace and stability in the CENTCOM AOR, but rather received the reward of airplanes hurled at skyscrapers. These facts beg another question - Was General Zinni too ignorant to fully appreciate the potential likelihood of CENTCOM fighting a war in Iraq in the near future OR was General Zinni too incompetent to make the necessary preparations?

While still in uniform General Zinni was uniquely immune to the input and council of others especially in dissent, which perhaps makes him well qualified to recognize these traits in others. But only if we strain our reasoning sufficiently to believe him, which is something I could not do then, and will not do now. Indeed I believe his current political moves betray the very core of what should be the ubiquitous effort of our Nation - Absolute Victory over Totalitarianism and the Unconditional Surrender of Tyranny and Terrorism. Perhaps the harshest truth of this betrayal is that it comes from a brother, an honored hero, a once trusted leader and a formerly valued mentor of the warriors who still today continue to serve to support and defend our Constitution to protect our country and its noble values even in the face of a determined enemy now at home as well as abroad.

Although it is hard for me to imagine why on earth anyone would oppose such a dynamic, aggressive, substantive and consequential leader, it is nevertheless unnecessary to enthusiastically support Secretary Rumsfeld to detect the rank odor of hypocrisy and ulterior motivation underpinning the all too convenient recent statements of General Zinni. In case there is anyone left who hasn’t heard, General Zinni “knew all along” invading Iraq was a “bad idea,” but at the time nobody would listen to him. But what’s new? After all General Zinni enjoys nothing more than another PR opportunity to say again “I told you so.” In an uncanny way I actually agree with some of what General Zinni has said, it is indeed too bad more people didn’t pay closer attention to what he said and what he did on the eve of 9/11. Just for the record General Zinni – I told you SO!!

DMZ,

You are sadly wrong on the use of the word INSURGENT. The people we fight in Iraq have zero political vision for the future of Iraq. 90% of the violence is tribal warfare fought by blood lusting fascist nihilists left over from the Saddam Regime. The other 10% is Terrorist Violence perpetrated by sociopath, Islamic Fundamentalist, Nihilists who give Stalin and Hitler a run for their money in terms of pure evil. Jihad is martyrdom for salvation or in other words Death for the sake of Death without end. Neither one of these groups fits into the definition of Insurgent. Neither group seeks to create a new order in Iraq along their particular political agenda. Don't buy into this caliphate crap-ola its propaganda designed to win over recruits for martyrdom. As for the Fascists remnants of the Saddam Years they only want to kill their enemies, which is most of the world. After that they don't have much of a platform either. Neither group has grass roots support indeed according to the most recent polling 92.8% of all Iraqis reject VIOLENCE yet your so called "insurgents" live only for violence.

Agreed!!

This points to a central failure in our current war effort - the home front. Somewhere along the road in this war we lost the battle of semantics. Instead of fighting unholy terrorists only worthy of a swift, gruesome and timely demise we are fighting insurgents or worse yet revolutionaries. We have legitimized our enemies!!!

Indeed the MSM has done their very best to make the lowly, putrid, jihadist, terrorist maggots, more noble than the very U.S. Soldiers and Marines fighting this scum on a daily basis. The MSM accounts of the GWOT in Iraq depict the "insurgents" mission as pure, noble, and easily understood while the U.S. mission in Iraq is at best portrayed as besotted by partisan politics on who voted for what money, auto-pen scandals, a lack of body armor or WMD, and endless committee reports on why/how we screwed it all up. The MSM doesn't even have half of the story right and their continued aggrandizement of the enemy in Iraq only betrays their deeper Anti-Americanism. Why doesn't the MSM focus in on the gravity of what hangs in the balance in Iraq, or who the enemy really is and why they are really doing these awful things. Why not focus in on the successes of our mission and the failures of terrorism. Oh Well, perhaps these hardened war correspondents wouldn't actually recognize the real story in Iraq even if it Blew-Up in front of them. "Democracy in Action Despite the Fear of Death" "Noble People doing Noble Work to Free a Country and Give Hope to a Region" "Free Press in Iraq" "The high Cost of Freedom and its Immeasurable Worth"

The butthead version of Alan Colmes is priceless.
VERRRRRRY NICE!!!

Nice change of pace - Ollie rules. While I certainly enjoy my daily dose of Hannity alittle LtCol North is a welcome change. I wish Ollie was still doing radio. As a college student I volunteered for his Senate Campaign against Chuck Rob.

Why is this story not racking up shattering News Ratings across the nation??? Could it be because of its unflattering portrayal of LESBIANS and PAGANS. HMMMM?!?!

Just look at the MSM's unbalanced approach to similar stories. Scott Peterson is in the news nearly every day for like two years. Why - because he killed his attractive pregnant wife. Certainly this is liberal MSM fodder if I have ever seen it. Take another example like the Catholic Church which has suffered extensively in the Media for several years over molestation scandals. However, here again the Catholic Church is an institution ripe for attack by the liberal in the MSM. Look also at the continued MSM attention on the ACLU litigation attacks against Boy Scouts. Sure the Boy Scouts must be bad because they don't like Homosexuals and profess a belief in God.

The Female teacher's abuse of a male student in Florida has received some MSM coverage, but it is far less significant. Could this be because this story portrays women in an unfavorably??? Additionally I would submit that this case is only covered because the teacher in question is attractive.

However, the combination of "favored gender", "Alternative Life Style" and "Alternative Religion" in the Michigan case make the story forbidden fruit. WHY??? I thought in our society there were no "Protected classes." Furthermore, I thought the "Moral Values" crowd just carried a national election, doesn't this degenerate, deviant, deserve the attention of a morally outraged public?

Frank Rich is as unbalanced and unhinged as the rest of the left. They are only interested in labels not truth and they are obsessed with demonizing anyone with the gall to challenge their slanted viewpoints. How dare we reject the agenda advancing propaganda of the main stream media. How dare we assert our constitutional rights. How dare we question the wisdom of the elitist group think dominated left. NEWS FLASH FRANK its not "censorship" (unless the government actually shuts down your news paper) its righteous criticism of the unwanted and unsolicited.

I love and share your optimism - We all have alot to do to make sure this happens. We not only do we need a victory on November 2, 2004 but we also need a thoroughly crushing defeat for Kerry in both the electoral college and the popular vote. I think your numbers are good but I think you may be wrong about Michigan and New Hampshire. We are so close in many states with alittle luck good turn out and more effort by the base we can make November 2 a huge day for the Republican Party

It turns out that John McCain and Mary Chenny also do not support Senator Kerry for President but that doesn't stop him from dropping their names at every opportunity. In the most recent Poll taken for Active Duty Military Members 73% indicated support for President Bush YET Kerry continues to insist that the military supports him!! I suppose he is right because A SMALL MINORITY within the military does support him.

I was glad that Bush stayed his ground in a very hostile enviornment. For some reason Lehrer managed to not ask Kerry a single question about his 20 year career in the senate. This was a bogus debate set up by Lehrer to bully Bush on Iraq and offer Kerry softballs on Iraq which allowed Kerry to focus his position and beat up Bush at the same time. Bush was put on the defensive for the get go. THANKS MSM

Look at this web site it takes all of the polls into account and therefore provides a much clearer picture. Zogby and Pew have therace close everyone else including the DNC polls have Bush pulling away. Still this election is going to take a serious get out the vote effort to carry the positive Bush momentum though to Nov 3

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls.html

As a Marine who has just returned from Iraq and who also worked on the Multichannel Corps staff I completely agree with the content of this letter. The situation in Iraq is grossly misunderstood by the media. During nearly every day of my time in Iraq from January through August we experienced significant victories and advancements. We were able to establish an independent sovereign state in Iraq in little over a year of hard work. Indeed Iraq has progressed at an incredible pace and as long as we remain committed to victory the progress of freedom will continue until Iraq is stable, secure democratic and free. Sure there were tough spots along the way, but even during the height of the Fallujah crisis in April we achieved greater success than failure especially in terms of tactical gains against the insurgency. The reality is that the government of Iraq is truly gaining traction and as we move toward the January elections Iraqi society will continue to develop essential democratic institutions at every level. Additionally the rebuilding of Iraq's infrastructure continues to out pace the insurgent's efforts to derail the rebuilding process. While it is not easy going and the insurgency remains a very destabilizing threat, every day the Iraqi government, security forces, and society get stronger and the insurgency gets increasingly isolated and desperate.