Nov 21 2006
Surrendering Iraq Is Surrendering The War On Terror
I pointed folks to Micheal Ledeen’s article on how the Baker ISG could be addressing the wrong issue. It is clear the right question is asked so we don’t destroy ourselves by misunderstanding the challenge we face right now.
Our strategists are constantly asked, how can we win the war in Iraq? But it is the wrong question, and therefore has no correct answer.
…
Instead of trapping themselves in an imaginary quagmire, the commissioners can help us face the real war. What’s going on in Iraq is not “the war,†which is raging over the entire world. The real question — the life and death question — is: How can we win the war in the Middle East, which now extends from Afghanistan to Lebanon, Iraq, Israel, and Somalia?
…
It forces us to confront the terror masters in Tehran and Syria as well as the killers in Iraq. If we ask how to win in Iraq alone, we are led into a fool’s errand of trying to convince our sworn enemies–Iran has been at war with us for twenty-seven years—to act like friends.
Read this and share it with everyone you know, because this was written five days ago, before there was a lot of talk about Syria and Iran getting involved. It illustrates perfectly how good people make serious mistakes – they answer the wrong question. Neville Chamberlain was not pro-Hitler or anti-Britain, he just came to the wrong conclusions. We must win this war and our leaving Iraq will not end the war, it will regenerate it into something much, much worse. If the ISG comes out without an answer to this bigger question, then they will have wasted a lot of time and money. Ledeen gives us a glimpse of the kind of answer we should see forth coming:
But if we ask how to win the war, we can see that we have many good cards to play, and many real allies, from the Iranian and Syrian people to the millions of Kurds in Iran, Iraq and Syria, to several other oppressed groups throughout the region, and even to leaders who today denounce us.
He also clearly demonstrates the damage the Liberal Democrats and media have done to our war efforts – and continue to do:
Take Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki, for example. Several commentators flew into a rage when Maliki went to Tehran to kiss the turban of Supreme Leader Khamenei, as if this were an expression of Maliki’s deep affection for his neighbors. It isn’t, but Maliki knows they can blow him up, kidnap his relatives, and blackmail his friends. He has no reason to believe that we are going to save him from the Iranians, nor indeed that we are going to win this thing at all. From his point of view, we’re bugging out of the real war, and all the talk about negotiating with Damascus and Tehran can only reinforce this belief. He undoubtedly believes — don’t you? — that we are just marking time until we can dump it all in his lap. Very few Iraqi Shiites dream of living in an Iranian-style Islamic Republic, but they all know that if we lose, they will have to come to terms with Tehran. Maliki is trying to save his neck. Who wouldn’t?
Why did Maliki take these steps? The far left and far right abondoned our President and our military. They ran away in a fit of partisan opportunism. Shame on them. But the rest of us still need the right answers. We have been offered plenty of ways to lose this thing. Now we need some ideas on how to win it.
Ken is trying to shove Peter Pan out of Never Never Land and take over.
Bikerken
Perhaps the Mossad did it in an attempt to drive Christians en masse
away from camraderie with Hezbollah. Maronite Aoun is aligned with Hezbollah, you’re aware? Whatever, Hezbollah and Syria are in
a much strengthened position because of Bush’s botched Iraq War.
If you argue this, or that an assassination here and there is going to
reverse these realities, you’re dreaming.
Maybe things aren’t as violent as they seem in Iraq.
According to this post
Iraq is about twice as violent as Washington DC in murder rate. If you take Baghdad out of the picture, the murder rate in the rest of Iraq is about the same as the US.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061122/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq
above link corrective to delusional Crosspatch
actually Crosspatch October was the worst month for casualties
and Baghdad is the focus of the insurgency, which could,if it desired,spread itself equably to meet your foolish affirmative actions requirements for violence, but chooses to exercise strategic
aptitude instead.
Also, check out how many military people died in October that were not in Iraq. Kenny boy, it might be a revelation to you.
Just so you won’t be surprised when you get the number, it will be along the same lines as since 1990.
The link was not particularly about US losses but about the broad continuing deterioration of Iraq, emphasizing all casualities. But like so many of your other comments, FE, this one was irrelevant and
meant to distract, if not the reader, your own confused self.
Ken, just a reminder. Keep your day job.
For Enforcement
Any comment on the hideous worst attack by the insurgency
since the US invasion yesterday in Sadr City? Your guru, AJ
has been saying “worse is better” the past week or two. Under
Geneva, the US troops are responsible-and have utterly failed
since the occupation began-for squashing insurgent, and other
lawlessness ,pronto.
You have demonstrated disregard for US troop losses so why
should I expect you to have any for Iraqi loses?
Ken, old buddy, I’m not sure we didn’t see a good thing with these attacks. First a major assault on Sadr, killing many Shi-ittes then a counter attack by Sadr, killing lots of Sunni’s. Wonder how many days like that before most of the terrorists have gone to the happy hunting ground. The sooner the better.
Neither of those attacks were ones that the US should be involved in. If those killers want to kill each other over there. Have at it. The more dead there, the less to come over here and cause disturbances on US Airways.
First I have plenty of regard for American losses. I’m a veteran myself and I would never disrepect the U S Military, the US flag or the country. I volunteered, they all volunteered. I’m sure you will never understand what it means to volunteer to serve in Defense of freedom for this great country. All you have is contempt for the US and all it stands for. This great country is responsible for more people living in freedom today than has ever had freedom. And all you have is contempt. Do I care if those people kill each other. NO. as long as they don’t kill Americans. I hope there are a significant number of Iraqi’s that feel like freedom is worth fighting for and understand that freedom is not free. I know you will never understand that and while I wish no one any bad luck, if there is any justice in the world and another plane is hi jacked and used for a suicide mission, maybe, just maybe it will be loaded with people that think like you do, then you could die happy.
For Enforcement
Your response could be filed as exhibit A in why the US Empire deserves to suffer heavy losses, military and political, in the Middle East writ large to the degree the response mirrors US
attitudes and policy.
One, you disregard the rules of occupation under Geneva.
Two , in doing so you exhibit an Arabophobic, bigotted attitude,
which of couse is political suicide for American foreign policy
in that part of the world when applied–and it is being applied.
Three, you dishonor the US military and the flag in ignoring
Geneva’s responsibilities,in spite of your weak claim to
respect both.
Four, you exhibit a will to attempt to impose your version of “freedom” on a people who do not want it.
Five, you ignorantly argue that because they do not want it,
they are likely to come here and attack us, even though none
of the jihadists were Iraqis…and ignorance deserves its own
punishment, not to guide foreign policy.
Enjoy the no win quagmire for your troubles and expect a
worse than Vietnam outcome.
Ken, what a dummy. I thought that your claim is we lost the war in Iraq.
So how is the US occupying a country we LOST the war in.
So you’re saying there is a Geneva convention that governs how the losing country occupies the country of the winning side?
You’ve already demonstrated that you don’t know what an empire is. why are you pushing that issue?
Those countries that left the British Empire are?
So the US deserves to have heavy military losses? Does anyone need more proof that you are a frenchman. and that is with a small f.
You dishonor yourself. period.
They (that’s them, not us) said they will not stop til they get the White House. Is it over there? or would they have to come over here?
You continue to amaze me how small you are.
You have been dropped to 4th on the dumbass list.
Ken, should have told you why I dropped you to 4th.
You don’t have to work at being a dumbass, I’ve decided that it just comes natural to you. Those ranked above you are actively working to acheive greatness. Sorry.
You’re not a patriot, For Bloodshed. You’re a cretin who
“doesn’t care if Iraqis kill each other” even though Geneva says,
with humane intentions of saving life, the occupier has a responsibility to establish basic security soon after occuaption.
It is because the US has no ability to do so and invaded only to
seize oil,extend empire and protect Israel in the first place, that I
advocate withdrawing. The Iraq War is indeed lost.
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1562867,00.html
And another feature from the pro-war Time Magazine
confirms Iraq is out of control.
Ken, did you say we lost the war and we’re the occupier? Repeat that please.
I didn’t follow the liberal rag link. it would be useless.
And the countries that left the British Empire are?
Ken, you pasted this quote for me in quotation marks. Where did I say that? And YOU are the one complaining about being misquoted:
You owe the world an apology for blatant dishonesty, well….except they’ve come to expect that from you….. You don’t owe me anything. I’ve taken care of that by moving you down to no. 5.
You’re not a patriot, For Bloodshed. You’re a cretin who
“doesn’t care if Iraqis kill each other†even though Geneva says,
“If those killers want to kill each other over there. Have at it. The more dead there, the less to come over here and cause disturbances on US Airways.”
That’s your exact quote, which encompasses exactly what I quoted.
Again, the US is responsible under Geneva for halting “those
killers” shortly after occupation. It has miserably failed. Today’s NY Times revealed a US government report which admitted the insurgency’s funding was better than ever, had not been solved as to where and who it came from,- except to say the very OIL profits which Wolfowitz assured Americans would have the war paid off by
2003, are a component, thru Iraqi government corruption.
And for Strata’s sake , the report also says the insurgency is so rolling in the dough that it can afford to fund OTHER insurgents in other
parts of the world…exactly what I said long ago, that is, the occupation is making the US UNSAFER rather than safer.
so “For Enforcement,” if the “killers” you cavalierly dismiss eventually fund another attack(s) on America, your disregard
will have been put in its place. Karma, baby.
Ken, I know you won’t see the difference, but you quoted me this way:
“doesn’t care if Iraqis kill each otherâ€
And MY quote actually was:
“If those killers want to kill each other over there. Have at it. The more dead there, the less to come over here and cause disturbances on US Airways.â€
Where did I say I didn’t care?
You have to resort to making up quotes to make a point. Funny, but as I’ve warned you, Don’t quit your day job.
That report from the NY Times was ‘classified’. Does it make a difference to you if a liberal rag leaks classified info?
Ken, don’t you get tired of always being wrong? Let me give you a hint. There is a site called “google” that you can actually look up some things. Some of them are even correct. If you use it enough times, you might stumble upon something that you could use to actually be right one time.
and the name of the countries that left the B. Empire under Churchill are?
“So Charmley’s argument that Churchill did not do enough militarily to preserve the Empire is not particularly valid. Charmley probably understands this, because he also comes as close he can to stating (without actually doing it) that maybe, just maybe, Churchill might have been well-advised to cut a deal with the Nazis, keep the Empire intact, and focus on the real enemy, which was (in Charmley’s conservative viewpoint) the Soviet Union. Charmley does not explicitly say this, because he would then run the risk of being lumped into the same category as the likes of David Irving. However, he makes this argument repeatedly, in as an oblique a fashion as he can muster.”
First for For Endorsement of Iraqi Slaughter –an excerpt from
a review of Charmley’s book critiquing Churchill. As inferred
however, Charmley did not go as far as the more concise David Irving in “Churchill’s War.”
“Have at it” means you don’t care–in fact any comment less than a call for US troops to get out of Iraq means you don’t care, for only when they get out can they be absolved in part for any killing which occurs afterward–they are responsible while there under Geneva’s terms, which you inhumanely discount.
Much classified information is so declared by one who lied us into a war and who might well take us into suicidal war with Iran ,among other recklessness,left to his own devices. Heroes leak that which will
protect us by the leaking.