Nov 08 2006

My Biggest Fear

Published by at 8:11 pm under All General Discussions,Iraq

We all know that Al Qaeda wanted the Dems to win so we, America, would abandon Iraq. I understand why Rumsfeld decided to leave, but the timing will possibly play more into the Terrorists’ hopes than the political damage. There were no good answers either way. But the terrorists now have us right where all those video-taped beheadings were meant to place us. And the news media and the Dems now own Iraq (welcome to club – we are all responsible now for the results). Dems made a lot of promises, they now have to deliver. In a very short time they will have to solve Iraq and, using stem cells, heal Michael J Fox. But the problem is all their solutions to Iraq involve surrendering to Al Qaeda. And Al Qaeda is going to come calling on that commitment. In fact it has started already. If you thought Iraq was bad before Tuesday – you will be in for a rude and ugly awakening. Those of us who supported the Iraq effort and understood its challenges have known we have been making progress and have actually been lucky. 1,000 dead a year in a war zone is not what I call a tough war. But Al Qaeda and their affiliates ramped up in October so America would flinch, and now they will make a real concerted effort to push us out using bloody headlines and images to make us run away. And the Dems have no answer to this. And as we run away from Iraq, the reality of this war on the Goose-stepping, Zieg-Hiel saluting Islamo-fascists will literally come home as the pressure is released in Iraq and they come here – to make sure we stay out of the way as they take on Europe.

The debate we never had this election, thanks to the antique media, was what would be the implications if we lose in Iraq. The other debate we never had was whether Al Qaeda would see the Dems winning as the first step in losing….. I am pretty sure they did. Now we go to step 2: the bloodbath. And what will the dems do? Sadly, even they don’t know. A commentor reminded me Churchill and Bush 1 were rejected after they had won their war efforts. True enough. We still need to win this one, though – so this is not quite the same. The question as to whether we need to lose a lot of ground before we realize how serious this is has always been out there. Well, that question also seems to been answered for us. As I said, Step 2, then Step 3, then before you know it they are here and we are fighting on our home turf.

18 responses so far

18 Responses to “My Biggest Fear”

  1. Christoph says:

    Allahpundit put it best with this question and this answer.

    “How bad was last night?

    “It appears that for the first time in history, a party (the Democrats) did not lose a single Senate, Governor or House seat it was defending.”

    That says it all. I agree with Ken and DFG, at least where the quality of your analysis is concerned.

    It was very entertaining and I agree with you on issues, but in your analysis of where your country is right now at this moment in history and the direction it is heading, you have shown yourself to be to quote Monty Python, “… right out.”

    I expect this trend to continue as your and my nation’s influence wanes and Islamic power spreads.

  2. For Enforcement says:

    Very interesting, Christoph says:”I expect this trend to continue as your and my nation’s influence wanes and Islamic power spreads.”

    But just before that he said:”but in your analysis of where your country is right now at this moment in history and the direction it is heading, you have shown yourself to be to quote Monty Python, “… right out.”

    Christoph, these are diametrically opposed.
    AJ’s analysis was that Islamic power would now spread, you disagree with that, then say that Islamic power will now spread.

    Maybe you left out something there, you might want to re-read what you wrote and restate something to make a cohesive argument.

  3. Ken says:


    “al Qaeda and its affiliates…(ramped up in October)”

    yeah, al Qaeda’s app. 10 percent contribution along with
    the app. 90% NATIVE Iraqi Baathist/nationalist contribution,
    the latter of which will turn on alQaeda if they don’t leave after
    the US leaves….

  4. patrick neid says:


    i think you will be pleasantly surprised by the next two years. despite all the huff and puff the dems will not do anything meaningfully different in iraq. they will stay the course. oh sure they will move papers around, accuse folks of crimes etc, have conferences and the like, but day to day the war will procede as it has led by the generals on the ground. if things improve they will take credit and if they get worse they have a dead duck president to point the finger at.

    the good news—iraq will solve itself over the next two years.
    if you read the military bloggs they are fairly consistent in stating that the iraqi police and army will be ready over the next year.

    if the dems are going to wrech havoc it will be domestically. here bush will cave on everything.

  5. Limerick says:

    I don’t think that most readers here understand how much individual commanders on the ground….Division/Regimental commanders….actually have such a tremendous amout of power as to how these battles come out. Pentagon or Political planning aside.

    I won’t name units. But once again I am going to rely on the experience of the war related to me by my son. During both deployments to Iraq his regimental commander was briefed in on his mission and geographical area of responsibility. The unit being relieved had their butt handed to them over 13 months. Why?
    Because it was a unit commander who’s approach to the security of the situation was to emphasize the ‘hearts and minds’ approach.
    My son’s regimental commander took a completely opposite approach. He informed all the local yokels exactly what would happen if the regiment was attacked. It would not defend itself. It would ATTACK.
    That promise was tested early. The area became one of the most pacified in Iraq.

    When the regiment redeployed home it not only received high praise from the Army, it received high praise from the Iraqis. It was specifically cited in public by the President for its accomplishments, and featured on FOX and NBC for the success of it’s pacification programs. John McCain praised it’s success on TW with Georgy as an example of how to win.

    When the regiment came home, the regimental commander briefed his replacement. The replacement regimental commander opted for the ‘hearts and minds approach’. That replacement unit suffered more casualties in three months then my sons unit suffered in 13.

    It was a firm hand that triumphed. It was the soft hand that failed.

    Make no mistake people. Generals and Generalships ARE POLITICAL POSTS as much as military. You get a stupid politician in a position like that you end up with what you see.

    Am I blaming the troops for all the problems? No. Am I blaming Bush/Rummy for all the problems? No. War isn’t Jack Bauer. War isn’t Tom Clancy. War isn’t Dale Brown. War is run just like your state runs your local department of motor vehicles. That should be your perspective when you judge these battles. Some governments do better then others. Some do worse.

    If you really want to know the threat the Dems are pointing at us do yourself a favor. Find all the material you can and learn about 1972, 1973, 1974 and 1975. If you want the United States Military in the shape it was in in 1976 then follow the Dems as they try to ‘solve’ Iraq.
    If you don’t then do everything in your power to communicate with your member of congress that that approach IS NOT ACCEPTABLE.
    It is not the GWOT that is like Viet Nam, it is the threat of repeating the mistakes of 72-75 that is like Viet Nam.

  6. Steve_LA says:


    Keep your powder dry, the Baker Commission is coming out at the end of the month, and it might just have some good stuff in it, who knows.

    With the President making a break from the past, departure of Rumsfeld, he may be open to something new that is not full fledged Democratic cut and run, while at the same time puts more fire under the Iraqi government to pull up their collective socks and get in the fight.

    Time will tell.

  7. TomAnon says:

    Limerick, I was just watching O’Riely interview Chuck Schumer and Chuckie used the term, “Iraqization”. Sent chills up my spine…. His four point plan was, 1) pull back to defensible position 2) train Iraqi Police/Army units 3) provide security to the political leadership of Iraq 4) stop patroling the streets. I thought I was having flashbacks and listening to Nixon…..Vietnamization

  8. Limerick says:

    There you are TomAnon. There you are. The next step after that is the Congress of the United States defunding the ‘puppet’ government.
    I can hear the choppers still.

  9. For Enforcement says:

    But that’s what we’ve been doing. Or at least that’s my understanding.
    Limerick, if we can believe the dems, all those choppers are just gonna be ferrying the troops to Tora Bora so they can get Binny.
    Schumer has never been accused of being overly bright.

  10. Limerick says:

    The difference between 1976 and 2007 will be in 76 we did redeploy all those choppers to other bases around the world whereas in 07 we will have to bring them home. This is where we will need them.

  11. the good doctor says:

    You give the Dems too much credit. It’s going to be like the rumper room hour. The new people that just got elected are moderate to right. The leadership is to the left of the left. The new Blue dogs are going to opose Conyer and company because if they don’t they are gone in 2 years. In summary nothing will be accomplished. Watch them align with the reps as they did during the Reagan years.

    As for Rummy he is a brilliant administrator(he brought Nutrasweet to the market as head of Searle) but the war is going horrible.Although not his fault, the Iraquis are a mess. He had to go.This report will hopefully bring some solutions to this mess.

    Bush controls the military and as long as he is around Osama & co. knows he’ll cut their heads off in a minute. The dems don’t have the balls to cut $$$ to the military. The whole nation would revolt. At the end Iraq needs a political solution and that’s coming soon.

  12. kathie says:

    I think that the President takes his Commander in Chief roll very seriously, and will not push responsibility for the out come of this war in Iraq and the GWOT to any body else. He saved Rummy from countless hours in front of Congress, gave the Dems a chance to be included in a bipartisan manner, but my hunch is if they want to run this thing from Congress he will draw the line. He might have been able to save a few ass if he had made the announcement before the election, then he would have been accused of making the war political, and he wants to keep it out of that arena. This President is not thoughtless when it comes to decisions and has a plan if Congress won’t give him free rain to conduct this war as the constitution gives him the power do. He has made it very clear at every step that he is incharge, setting up tribunals, wire tapping, finance tracking, rendition etc. He will keep this country as safe as he can, deploy every tool and keep on the offensive. Remember when he was in the Oval office right after 911 and a reporter asked him how he felt about what had happened, and the tears started coming. This is not a political game for him. This country is his family and he will protect it with his life.

  13. crosspatch says:

    What bothers me most about all of this is some silly rhetoric I have been hearing in some quarters that the loss for the Republicans was somehow the result of the Republicans moving to center and away from their base. I don’t see that borne out anywhere. From the election returns it was the Independents who abandoned the Republicans, and in droves. And it was the House Republicans that were hammered on the hardest.

    Had the Senate compromise on immigration passed the House, there is a good chance the Republicans might not have taken such a hammering. If the House Republicans had listened to Bush and the Senate Republicans, things would probably be different. Instead, the House Republicans ended up cutting off their noses to spite their faces and are now out on the street.

    Republican spending didn’t hurt the party at the polls, the base still voted for the party. It was the center that walked away and if you thing the Republicans have been on a spending spree lately, just wait till you see what a Democratic controlled House and Senate will come up with.

    The people have spoken. What they are likely to get now is something with even a more liberal slant than the original compromise they could have had. So yeah, the Republicans won that battle but they lost the overall campaign because of it.

    I have really had a belly full of the far right “base” of the party complaining. You can’t let the tail wag the dog. Without the moderate independent vote the “base” will be banished to a corner to babble incoherently to itself. They will march themselves straight into oblivion. When several major polls say that 70% of the people want something, it is generally in the interest of a party to find a way to give it to them if they want to remain part of the discussion.

    I can only hope that the Republican leadership wakes up and smells the coffee. When a party stops listening to the people, puts its fingers in its ears and tries to deny them what they want, in our system of government they find themselves in a certain fast-flowing creek and in dire need of a paddle.

    One suggestion I could give to this lame-duck Congress. As a parting shot, at least give the President the line-item veto. That would be the best thing they could do on the way out the door.

  14. perdogg says:

    I think that this administration was on borrowed time in Iraq regardless of last night’s outcome.

    I have been stressing this over and over. The tactical problems in Iraq are not going to be resolved until the strategic situation in Iran is resolved. Period. Those troops in Iraq are not coming home until we move against Syria or Iran. Once those troops leave Iraq, they are not going back to Iraq or Iran.

    Come noon January 20th, 2009, the WOT as we know is over. Not to say that the next administration is not going to consider some form, but it won’t be the same.

  15. Limerick says:

    Perdogg……here is a quote at the UN…….THIS YEAR…

    “A next war will better be called the American war because the main theater will be the continental U.S., with major cities transformed into towering infernos.”

    Courtesy of your Axis of Evil Member #3

    So on Jan 20th, 09, I hope you have a plan.

  16. crosspatch says:

    “I think that this administration was on borrowed time in Iraq regardless of last night’s outcome.”

    Uhm … Perdogg … of COURSE this administration is on borrowed time, there’s only 2 more years left.

    And don’t go counting chickens yet. There’s a lot of Democrats that vote with Republicans on issues and I really don’t think the House has enough of a liberal majority to overcome that.

  17. perdogg says:

    Limerick, Crosspatch, & AJ

    I am a conservatarian republican who wants to win the war on terror.

    Please don’t misinterpret what I say. I think the problems in Iraq rest in Tehran and Damascus. We have to deal with Iran withn the next two years so the next administration won’t have to.

    The next administration may not want to deal with Iran.

  18. Limerick says:

    Sorry PerDogg……after Pelosi paranoia setting in I guess.