It’s Official: Victory Is Not on the Agenda in Iraq
It’s Official: Victory Is Not on the Agenda in Iraq
In a current Chicago Tribune article, we are told that the consensus is against a “cut-and-run-now” approach to the Iraq War.
However, reading between the lines in this same article, it appears that the Bush/Dumbsfeld/PerfumedPrinces/QuislingSenators axis has arrived at a “cut-and-run-later” strategy.
Why do I say that? Well, because, first of all, all we hear about now is “cutting troop levels” in 2006.
Second, in this same article, the commander of the multinational forces now in Iraq, General George Casey, is quoted as saying that . . .
“. . . the U.S. goal is not to defeat the insurgency, but to reduce it to the point that Iraqi forces can maintain a stable nation.”
That is a real howdy-doo to the families of the 2000-plus soldiers who have given their lives in this (now) overtly losing cause thus far – to say nothing of the thousands of wounded. What a courageous goal! NOT to defeat the insurgency.
Unless I am missing something in all this, his recent change to a “no-win” strategy in Iraq makes me despise President Bush – whose decision it was to go in to Iraq in the first place. He now has a new nickname in my book: “Quitter.” I can only imagine the lasting damage that this decision alone will do to the aspirations of the Republican Party in the days ahead.
The greatness of powers in history has depended not nearly so much on their ability to produce high tech weapons or to field large armies as it has on their ability to muster the WILL to WIN.
Seeing that, since World War II, the US has settled for a stalemate in Korea, cut-and-run in VietNam, and now – apparently – cut-and-run-a-little-more-subtly in Iraq, bodes ill indeed for the future of this country.
I say clean house in Washington and clean house in Iraq, as well.
I, for one, say we fight to WIN, WIN, WIN. I am tired of all this defeatist talk by fat, rich, spoiled brats like Teddy Kennedy.
Unfortunately, it is apparently ONLY to the likes of Teddy Kennedy that the current Bush/Dumbsfeld team pays any real heed.
And the jihadists smile . . . .
________________________
Post Script: Patrick Buchanan – a man with whom I often disagree – has hit upon this same theme in this current WND opinion piece. How quickly things change: McCain is now the hero – as he (virtually alone in Washington) is calling for an INCREASE in troop levels in Iraq.
In a current Chicago Tribune article, we are told that the consensus is against a “cut-and-run-now” approach to the Iraq War.
However, reading between the lines in this same article, it appears that the Bush/Dumbsfeld/PerfumedPrinces/QuislingSenators axis has arrived at a “cut-and-run-later” strategy.
Why do I say that? Well, because, first of all, all we hear about now is “cutting troop levels” in 2006.
Second, in this same article, the commander of the multinational forces now in Iraq, General George Casey, is quoted as saying that . . .
“. . . the U.S. goal is not to defeat the insurgency, but to reduce it to the point that Iraqi forces can maintain a stable nation.”
That is a real howdy-doo to the families of the 2000-plus soldiers who have given their lives in this (now) overtly losing cause thus far – to say nothing of the thousands of wounded. What a courageous goal! NOT to defeat the insurgency.
Unless I am missing something in all this, his recent change to a “no-win” strategy in Iraq makes me despise President Bush – whose decision it was to go in to Iraq in the first place. He now has a new nickname in my book: “Quitter.” I can only imagine the lasting damage that this decision alone will do to the aspirations of the Republican Party in the days ahead.
The greatness of powers in history has depended not nearly so much on their ability to produce high tech weapons or to field large armies as it has on their ability to muster the WILL to WIN.
Seeing that, since World War II, the US has settled for a stalemate in Korea, cut-and-run in VietNam, and now – apparently – cut-and-run-a-little-more-subtly in Iraq, bodes ill indeed for the future of this country.
I say clean house in Washington and clean house in Iraq, as well.
I, for one, say we fight to WIN, WIN, WIN. I am tired of all this defeatist talk by fat, rich, spoiled brats like Teddy Kennedy.
Unfortunately, it is apparently ONLY to the likes of Teddy Kennedy that the current Bush/Dumbsfeld team pays any real heed.
And the jihadists smile . . . .
________________________
Post Script: Patrick Buchanan – a man with whom I often disagree – has hit upon this same theme in this current WND opinion piece. How quickly things change: McCain is now the hero – as he (virtually alone in Washington) is calling for an INCREASE in troop levels in Iraq.
posted by GunJam at 10:18 PM
6 Comments:
How would you define victory?
Hi, elizabeth! A worthy question. Perhaps a minimal starting point would be an entire month with ZERO US casualties. Clearly, we are a long ways from that. To engage the so-called 'insurgents' (who are in fact cutthroat jihadists) and then to say our goal is not to defeat them, is very poor strategy indeed. However, the Bush/Dumbsfeld team has shown an uncanny tendency to take its battle-strategy cues from the Ted Kennedy "let's-be-kind-to-our-enemies" school of military warfare. The shock and awe strategy should have been continued for months. Fallujah, Ar-Ramadi, and the hot spots along the Syrian border should have been turned to rubble by B-52s early on. Alas, Bush turned from fighting the enemy as his number one priority to "nation building," which now is the main event. What a shame. Sometimes, nation-levelling is required to take place BEFORE nation-building can properly take place (e.g., Germany and Japan in 1945).
I don't think Bush and Dumbsfeld, as you call him, are taking any cues from Ted Kennedy. I think they were off on some type of fantasy that only they understood, with some help from neocon ideology...As for leveling cities and killing all of the civilian men, women and children, aside from the immorality of that proposition, it would never be tolerated by the rest of the world today. And as for using WWII as a model, in addition to the fact that was 60 years ago, Japan attacked us and Germany was fighting with our allies. Iraq never attacked us. Iraq wasn't attacking anybody at the time we attacked it.
hi, elizabeth. Thank you for your comments. First, despite t is established that Saddam had a working "arrangement" with al-Qaeda -- who HAD attacked us (9/11, remember?). That constitutes a support system and, thus, an alliance. Second, what does the fact that WWII occuured 60 years ago have to do with anything? Has something changed about the intrinsic nature of man or of war in that interval? War is about breaking things and killing people, last time i checked. (That is certainly the method Saddam followed when gassing thousands of Iraqi Kurds.) Third, I would have no objection to our giving civilians a week to evacuate any city we planned to level. If you will recall, we did that before we invaded Fallujah the second time: Allowed women, children, and non-combatants to depart the city before we attacked. At that point, instead of wasting men in house-to-house fighting, as Dumbsfeld seems to prefer, I would then call in the B-52s to flatten whoever remained in the cities that have proven to be hotbeds of resistance. Will some innocents die? Yes. But, that is happening regardless. Regarding whether or not Dumbsfeld listens to Kennedy: You are correct as far as the initial (brilliant) invasion of Iraq went. However, during the subsequent (and poorly run occupation), Dumbsfeld indeed seems to have allowed Kennedy et al to cow him significantly as to the degree of aggressiveness with which the war is currently being prosecuted. Also, your objection of that "the world would never tolerate" our policies in Iraq ring hollow. First, did "the world" stop the holocaust during WWII, the communist slaughters under Stalin and Mao, the slaugher of the Cambodians under the Khmer Rouge, the massive slaughter in Rwanda under Clinton, or the slaughter of the Kurds under Saddam? Anything we might do in Iraq would be a Sunday School picnic compared to those atrocities (which those of your leanings never seem to mention, as you apparently have your "moral microscopes" trained on two countries only: the US and Israel), while everyone else (especially jihadist terrorists) is given a free pass to slaughter civilians as they see fit. elizabeth, I do hope that you will seriously consider living in Saudi Arabia or Sudan for a few years so that you can FINALLY enjoy life under a properly US- and Israel-hating regime that treats their women SOOOOO kindly!
:)
Yes, gunjam, we did give the civilians in Falluja advance warning. And a lot of the insurgents got that advance warning as well. So this is not an effective strategy either.
I am not familiar with the "working arrangement" theory you mentioned...
I don't know why you would think I would support the regime in Saudi Arabia...actually they are a major part of the problem. They are also supported by our government. And by the way I have lived in a Muslim country and traveled elsewhere in the Muslim world and I had a lovely time by the way.
See my current blog post for a link on what Falluja is like now.
Yes, we helped rebuild Germany after WWII...do you think Bush is going to rebuild Iraq? (after the victory that you predict). Take a look at New Orleans...
You're right that the world looks the other way a lot of the time. However the U.S. comes under more scrutiny because we are by far the most powerful nation. Actually, I don't see anything wrong with that--I think we should be held to a higher standard.
Post a Comment
<< Home