Oct 15 2007

Stunning Victory In Iraq? Or Pending Victory Over SurrenderMedia?

Published by at 8:36 am under All General Discussions,Iraq

As I posted below I would wait a while before making such a declaration of victory in Iraq. There is not rush. But with the news media starting to face the stunning possibility that Surrender in Iraq was not the only option, the country and the world may be preparing to accept a Bush victory when the time is right. The headlines out today may just be an early sampling:

  • Washington Post: Al-Qaeda In Iraq Reported Crippled
  • US News & World Report: Military: “Surge” Has Defeated Al Qaeda In Iraq
  • Fox News: Al Qaeda Dealt Devastating Blow in Iraq
  • It is just a trickle today. It may disappear tomorrow. On the other hand, the evidence that things are turning around in Iraq and in a big way cannot be ignored. Not when it is our top national issue. Take this news round up from a local news organization in Florida:

    Coalition forces have positively identified a terrorist killed in a recent operation as al Qaeda in Iraq leader Abu Duha, coalition officials announced today.

    Coalition and Iraqi forces also discovered arms caches and improvised explosive devices and distributed food to mark the end of the holy month of Ramadan.

    In other news, Arab Jabour, Iraqi citizens led U.S. soldiers to a weapons cache Oct. 10.

    The cache consisted of six 60 mm mortars, four mortar fuses, 100 feet of detonation cord, 20 Chinese-made charges and four unknown charge caps. The soldiers were patrolling the neighborhood when the Iraqi citizens approached.

    In eastern Baghdad, coalition forces killed one criminal and detained three suspects Oct. 11 during an operation to support ongoing efforts to stabilize the region.

    Intelligence reports indicate the targeted individuals were involved in facilitating the movement of explosively formed penetrators into the area. During the operation, an armed man drew his weapon as the assault force approached. Responding to the threat, coalition forces engaged the armed man, killing him. Three other suspects were detained on site without incident.

    The small but relentless drip, drip, drip of a changed Iraq where al-Qaeda is now enemy number one. The pessimismistic fantasy of failure cannot last forever. Even a split Korea and crumpled Balkans was finally declared a victory. Iraq is heading towards a result much better than those two “successes”.

    10 responses so far

    10 Responses to “Stunning Victory In Iraq? Or Pending Victory Over SurrenderMedia?”

    1. Soothsayer says:

      Today on Fox News:

      Fox reporter John Scott interviewed Mike Baker, a former CIA Operations Officer who spent over 15 years in counter-intelligence and counter-insurgency operations. The big question: “Should we declare victory over Al Qaeda in Iraq”?

      Scott: Mike, the argument here is whether or not the US should actually declare victory over Al Qaeda in Iraq. Is it time for such a move?

      Baker: No. Not at all. Nowhere near. It’s premature, I don’t know how many other ways I can put it. It would be a serious mistake.

      Scott: Well, I guess some of the generals want to declare victory just because, as you say, we have had some pretty good success recently. Whats wrong with doing that, Mike?

      Baker: Well, its gonna make us feel good in the short run. From a political standpoint it would be a disaster, akin to Mission Accomplished on the carrier. Whats wrong with it is we’re not fighting a military force, we’re fighting a terrorist organizations…..Unless its blue skies every day, with unicorns and fairies prancing about, we’re not going to get to the point in a War on Terror against this type of terrorist organization where we could declare victory, where we win and reduce the risk down to Zero…..This is not going away in our lifetime, and we should not get into the business of thinking we’re going to declare victory.

    2. sashal says:

      Fine. Pretty soon we will be able to deal with Iran.

      Iraq was not worth one American life. Not one. There is no real American interest that required or even hinted at the need for an invasion of Iraq, and I am convinced that the United States should never risk the lives of American soldiers except where some real American interest requires that risk. There can be arguments over what constitutes a “real” American interest, but I would like to think that there ought to be a general consensus, at least among conservatives, that if there is no such interest our government has no business getting involved.

      Almost every statement made about how Iraq supposedly threatening the United States was wrong. In no conceivable way did it threaten the mainland U.S., nor was there any real threat to Europe, nor was there an uncontainable threat to Israel or the Gulf states. A weak, fractured despotism that had been economically half-starved into compliance not only didn’t pose a serious threat to anyone, but couldn’t even begin to do so. We might as well regard Zimbabwe as a major threat to the world by the standards used to judge Iraq to be a threat. Whether these establishment folks are very bad at what they do, or whether they are dishonest, I cannot tell for most of them, but wrong they certainly are.

      There are three elements to my position: strategic, legal and moral.

      For there to have been anything in the national interest that actually might compel the government to invade Iraq, at least one of the following three things had to be true: 1) Iraq was an uncontainable threat to vital resources or allies; 2) Iraq was an uncontainable threat to the United States itself; 3) Iraq was working hand-in-glove with Al Qaeda. Some opponents of the war (rightly) never believed government claims about WMDs, and many correctly dismissed claims about Iraq’s links to Al Qaeda as being essentially inherently absurd.

      Success in its most optimistic, pre-invasion terms of a genuinely liberal democratic Iraq that would make peace with Israel and serve as a model for the region was not actually ever possible for many of the reasons antiwar conservatives gave before the war, but suppose for a moment that it was possible. Wouldn’t that great dream have been worth it? No, not at all. Two reasons: 1) America should never, barring an attack or uncontainable threat from that country’s government, attempt to dictate through the use of force the political future of any other country; 2) even the most optimistic scenario of liberal democratic Eden serves no compelling U.S. interests.

      Does it actually matter to American security whether people in the Near East vote in their bad governments or not? Well, no, it doesn’t. Latin American countries are going hog-wild with democratic mass movements, most of which seem antithetical to U.S. interests and liberal values, just as would be the inevitable outcome of any kind of democracy in the Near East.

      Let’s ask a different, related question: is it the proper business of the United States government to use its military so that people in other nations can be liberated from repressive governments? Quite simply, no, it isn’t. That isn’t what our government exists to do. It should use its military to defend our country, any allies with which we may have defense treaties and vital resources. It cannot be worthwhile to liberate other peoples because it is a kind of war that not only goes far beyond what our government is supposed to be doing and engages in conflicts that it has no right to involve our people in, but also because it quite clearly harms the United States in the process.

      To choose war, as our government indeed did, is to choose to unleash all the horrors of war on people who have done no lasting, grave or permanent harm to us. They may or may not be wretched, awful people. They may or may not be tyrants. Whether they are or not is actually irrelevant to the question of whether our government has the right to commit aggression against another state. The bottom line is that the attacked state has done nothing to deserve our attack on it. How much less, then, do the civilians killed in the process deserve it? How can a war of aggression ever be “worth” the moral stain and illegality that it entails? How can unleashing hell on earth without cause ever be worthwhile? It cannot be.

    3. Oh my gosh!

      Is that “BOOTLICKER”?

      The Anti-American, Pro-Jihadi, Leftist Traitor Nutbag Cus-Omac?

      Have you NO SHAME?

      Didn’t I just kick your worthless Traitor ass, all over the board, on another five or six topics!

      Didn’t you just bet AJ THOUSANDS of Dollars on the “Off-Budget” issue, and I just absolutely CRUSHED you on that, as well as EVERY SINGLE other issue you EVER post on?

      Spitting on Vietnam Vets “never happened”…




      You’re back, and you’ve just proven, in spades, that things like Integrity, Honor, Decency, Commonsense, Intelligence, etc., are completely absent in the Anti-American, Pro-Jihadi, Leftist Nutbag Traitor Cus-Omac Lunar Chiroptera Crowd that you inhabit, are completely missing!

      Of course, there was NEVER any doubt about that, but it’s nice to see you CONFIRM it, every time you post!


      Just remember, “off-budget” items don’t count against the deficit, everyone…..!


      What a Traitor!

      What a Moron!


    4. “Bootlicker”: btw, you post the comment you post of course, to not only in an attempt to prove your Anti-American, Pro-Jihadi, Leftist Nutbag Traitor Cus-Omac’ian credentials (as IF there was EVER any doubt?); but also in attempt to slam the President for this typical and completely bogus MSM spin story, that your fellow Anti-American/Pro-Jihadi Traitors (i.e. the “Democrats”), ergo:

      “..it would be a disaster, akin to Mission Accomplished on the carrier. ”

      This was another completely untrue, bogus story, repeated endlessly by Traitors like yourself, completely out of context, and completely wrong of course!

      Here’s the PROOF, and once again, I’ve proven that you are a LIAR (and no surprise); and I’ve CRUSHED you once again!



    5. Terrye says:


      How is it I knew that you would show up when soothie did?

      I think Sooth is missing the point again as usual. AlQaida will be around for years to come, but that does not mean we have not crippled them in Iraq.

    6. Terrye: btw; I have NO idea what you were talking about on the S-HIP thread, when you addressed me.

      I have NEVER commented on that topic, here, nor anywhere at all!

      Not once, and so I was completely confused as to why you were addressing me on that?

    7. The Macker says:

      By your reasoning, the Revolutionary War, Civil War and WWII were immoral. Germany didn’t attack us. War is a huge sacrifice and sometimes accomplishes good things.

      I agree we must pick our battles carefully, but an honest review of the facts supports Bush’s decision.

    8. ivehadit says:

      There’s no point in discussing the long term benefits with those who don’t want there to be any. And there’s no point in discussing the global strategy in this War on Terror for those who don’t even think there is one.

      And there is no point in discussing George W. Bush’s brilliance with those who will never, ever be able to see it. Really. Ever.

      And frankly, Mr. Baker is repeating the words George W. Bush has told us in numerous speeches, especially State of the Union addresses, re his comments: “This is not going away in our lifetime, and we should not get into the business of thinking we’re going to declare victory. ”

      Who doesn’t know that already?

      Only those who refuse to see. And let’s not forget those who DO know this and are using it against the President of the United States to defeat and diminish him. Shameless and we will NEVER FORGET.

      Long live the United States of America. Still the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave…that is until November ’08 if the democrat is elected.

    9. Soothsayer says:

      The point is, Dale, you moron, that al-Qaeda is NOT the biggest problem in Iraq, never has been, never will be, and in fact the organization calling itself al-Qaeda in Iraq is only tangentially related to Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaeda organization.

    10. The point is, Dale, you moron, that al-Qaeda is NOT the biggest problem in Iraq, never has been, never will be, and in fact the organization calling itself al-Qaeda in Iraq is only tangentially related to Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaeda organization.

      Left by Soothsayer on October 16th, 2007

      Ah, NO!


      But I won’t even debate it with you!

      Suffice it to say, you’re WRONG, and a LIAR, and that’s been proven by me, by AJ, by Ivehadit, by Merlin, and just about everyone else on this board, who has posted in reply to your Anti-American/Pro-Jihadi Leftist Traitor Nutbag Cus-Omacian rantings!

      The other and more important point is this: YOU ARE A LIAR!

      You bet AJ money, on the “off budget” thing; YOU LOST, and you refuse to pony up!

      But then again, as an Anti-American, Pro-Jihadi, Traitor Leftist Nutbag Cus-omac, the fact that you have no Honor, Integrity nor even the slightest shred of honesty, is not a surprise at all, either, is it?