War in Iraq

[lwoolley]

There are many definitions of victory. In sports the team that scores the most points claims victory. In politics the winner of an election declares victory. Christians say there is victory in Jesus. There are many views on what constitutes victory. In WW II America declared victory when the enemy surrendered unconditionally. America has not had that kind of victory since 1945. Regrettably that kind of victory involves collateral damage including innocent civilians. In line with PC thinking many Americans want a victory without collateral damage; that is not possible. In the war against terrorists we either have to accept collateral damage or let the enemy declare victory after the kill all who don't convert to Islam.
The terrorists say that Muslims will rule the world. Readers of the Bible know the truth; the truth will set them free. Right thinking Americans know that freedom is not free. Americans have the choice of vanquishing or being vanquished. Many Americas have unwittingly chosen to be vanquished by ending the war now, others want to end the war with a victory. The former see not to have the will to engage in a war that doesn't end in a short time. The terrorists, on the other hand, are in it for the long haul. America has the power if not the will to win a victory against the terrorists.
History reveals that a political solution is possible only after a military victory. It seems useless to talk to someone who is determined to kill us. The enemy will listen only when it has no other option because it has been vanquished.


Amos E. Martinez
In His Service

[lwoolley]

Dear Lynn,

Our chances of "victory" and "success" in Iraq are totally hostage to the regime and people of Iraq. How good of a stategery is that? Given their history our chances of "victory" as Bush defines it are zero. C'mon Lynn, call a spade a spade. We would have to adopt Saddam-like tactics to impose our will on the Iraqis. We won't nor should we do that.
Why sacrifice anymore American lives and limbs to prop up a half-ass regime backed in large part by people hostile to us? If Bush would quit listening to the AEI for a second he might realize that there is no Iraq "nation" to save and a partion would be the best thing for us and the people there.
Iraq was a creation of Churchill and Lawrence of Arabia designed to serve the interest of British imperial policy. They too experienced an Iraqi insurgency {and squshed it} but eventually left; Churchill observing that occupying Iraq was like sitting on a volcano.
On democracy, Bush is like a classic zealot; he thinks he's broken to code to world peace. Democracy! For someone who majored in history--at Yale--he seems to lack any knowledge of it. Democracy's not new to Iraq. The Brits let them have elections and freedom and eventually you had the Baath party and Saddam.
Look at a map of the world and check the former colonies that became free and held democratic elections at US insistance. What kind of shape are they in now? Our values and system of government is based on centuries and centuries of common law peculiar to the English-speaking people. One can't sprinkle it on others like fairy dust and expect them to pick it up overnight. Germany and Japan are different stories as we all know what was done to them.
Bush should've known what was going to happen when he occupied Iraq. He obviously didn't. Why should we believe him, much less follow him now?

unsigned, Waco

[lwoolley]

Lynn,

I’ve got to agree with “unsigned” in Waco. I voted for Bush twice and still support him, but the U.S.’s nation building projects have rarely been a good decision. We have too many unresolved issues in our country, and should take care of our own household before fixing others. Instead of try to convert a culturally divided society, we could have spent those billions on our own border security, and used strategic strikes against known terrorist locations anywhere in the world in response to 9/11.



Jon Carruth

[Thane]

Dear Lynn,

Look at a map of the world and check the former colonies that became free and held democratic elections at US insistence (sic). What kind of shape are they in now? Our values and system of government is based on centuries and centuries of common law peculiar to the English-speaking people.

I would advise unsigned in Waco to find the Republic of Korea (ROK) on a map of the world and reconsider his above point of view.
Korea had been a backward (by Western standards) agricultural “Hermit Kingdom” until it was ruthlessly colonized and exploited by Imperial Japan for 35 years. Upon liberation from Japan, the ROK endured many years of Communist insurgency, to say nothing of the full-scale invasion from North Korea.

The US was very successful in establishing a thriving market economy, rule of law, and democratic system of government in the ROK although it took a long time to get there. The ROK stands today as the sterling example of what a people can do to uplift themselves if they really want to and what the US can do to help such people.

Of honorable mention likewise would be the Republic of China (ROC) and the Republic of the Philippines (ROP). Both former colonies of Japan or the U.S., respectively, and both today now reasonably stable, democratic nations; the two countries also took many years to evolve into true democracy - at our insistence.

But we don’t want to look to any lessons from our success stories of establishing democracy, only to our failures to reform societies such as Reconstruction, Vietnam, or the Weimar Republic.
Sincerely,
Thane

[Thane]

Dear Lynn,

I highly recommend you pick up Fiasco by Thomas E. Ricks, a good read.
There were Four Main Assumptions made by this administration when we invaded Iraq.

1. That Oil revenues of Iraq, estimated at $20 Billion a year, prior to our invasions, would essentially pay for the cost of reconstructing Iraq, and thus obviate the burden for the U.S. taxpayer.
2. That variously our allies, the UN, or the neighboring Arab community, would step up to contribute military forces, governmental and diplomatic assistance, and funding for the effort in Iraq.

3. That much, if not most, of the Iraq military, police, and bureaucracy of Saddam, to say nothing of his erstwhile enemies, would welcome and support his overthrow and then would, en masse, step up to become the foundation of the new Iraq state under our aegis.

4. That an effective Iraqi government could quickly form and consolidate a united Iraq with free institutions, a stable economy and overall safety and security for its citizens, allowing the U.S. to quickly pare down its forces to a minimum.

None of these assumptions were valid before we went in. None of these assumptions were valid when we went in. None of these assumptions became valid one, two, three, and now coming on four years after we went in. None of these assumptions are now showing any conclusive sign of becoming facts in the near future.

None of these invalid assumptions had anything to do with John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Hillary Clinton, Harry Reid, John Murtha, Cindy Sheehan, or Nancy Pelosi, nor do they now.
As usual, you have focused your intellect and ire on a symptom or by-product of the real failure, rather than on the root cause of that failure.

I agree with you, America must win this and any war we are engaged in. We can reflect on the right and wrong of it after we lift our boot off the neck of our enemies. Some unjustly waged wars, like the Mexican War, have a way of coming back to haunt us, as the Mexican reconquista is now. But that’s not to say I would go back and undo the results.
However, things like the above conditions in Iraq are the real issues which must be met, not posturing of Democratic Party craven poltroons who, contrary to Coach Brown's dictum, are acting as if they’ve never been in the end zone before. (or was it Landry?)

Fighting the alligators as they come, whether Muqtada al Sadr or Dick Durbin, will get us nowhere (remember Uday & Qusay or how about al Zarqawi?).
We must drain the swamp.

Sincerely,
Thane

[lwoolley]

Lynn,
Lately I have been hearing alot of the "support our troops" in Iraq and
other places.
and how they are heroes. Well its true no dought, but very seldom the media
says anything
about the civilian contractors over in Iraq and the good they are doing.
Its true they get paid well but their job is just as important. I'm not
talking about the companies they work for but the people themselves..

Here is a link to a web site that shows contractor casualties.. note: it
lists alot of brave
people from around the world who have died in Iraq doing a job to help the
US government

http://icasualties.org/oif/Civ.aspx

These people are Heroes too..


Thanks

Pat Malicki
Little River TX

[Stu]

Lynn,

I too oppose the troop surge in Iraq.

That may surprise some VWW readers (probably not Thane) but hear me out. To no one’s surprise, the American military swept to a battlefield victory in 2003. It was indeed “Mission Accomplished” in a military sense. Sensible supporters and opponents of the President’s strategy have since been able to agree that a political solution is required to achieve end-state. The $64K question remains “How?”

After the surge was announced, I waited to opine until it was clear the mission of these Army brigades was sectarian and Baghdad centric. Deployed thusly, and with no substantive changes to operating norms or Rules of Engagement, these forces will not hasten a political solution, reduce ethnic tensions, facilitate clear-hold-build, seal border infiltration and supply routes, or eliminate foreign jihadists. They will, in fact, thicken an already target rich environment. So why do it?

There is an excellent article in this month’s Army magazine entitled The Modern Seven Pillars of Iraq. The author correctly criticizes the administration’s plan and addresses how a counter-intuitive “less is more” approach vis-à-vis military forces is actually a better option, especially when conducted in harmony with the realities of Iraqi culture. Instead of regurgitating the article, those interested in honest debate and real solutions can read it at the following link.

Link: www.ausa.org

Still Serving!

Stu McLennan
Harker Heights

[Thane]

Stu,

We are in agreement on this one.

The “surge” should be deployed to seal off the Iranian and Syrian borders. Our troops should have been used in large numbers to do this long ago. We must cut the insurgents off from the sources of supply, funding, and leadership from these countries that, obvious to all but die-hard fools, are waging covert war against the United States.

Pouring more troops into Baghdad’s cauldron of escalating street fighting and suicide bombing is useless. Our “presence patrols” have proven to be a bankrupt tactic, creating nothing but a target-rich environment for the enemy. It might have worked had we used overwhelming strength at the beginning and in the first years. However, the situation has eroded too far now for us to make a difference short of putting half a million men on the streets, a half million which we simply don’t have even if we wanted to.

Although the actual human scale and cost is far less, Baghdad has become another Stalingrad or Verdun in terms of futility of effort and unwillingness to back away from a lost cause. In public relations, this will become another Tet Offensive destroying all remaining vestiges of public and Congressional support, even if we inflict massive tactical reverses on the enemy, as we clearly did at Tet.

We should abandon Baghdad to our gallant Iraqi government allies and support them with air support, indirect, select embedded trainers and advisors, and SOF operations. We can maintain overwhelming Armor and Infantry task forces to go in and rescue SOF operators or downed aviators if necessary, without the situation degenerating into a “Blackhawk Down” scenario. Even so, the overall inapplicability of these systems and tactics to a built-up urban environment and insurgency may prove equally futile, however, at least we can abandon the Catch-22 absurdity of giving our guys the mission to drive around "looking for IEDs" which they find when they are blasted to smithereens.

We can redeploy our forces to secure the Iraqi borders, continue to aid the capable Kurds, and secure a perimeter around Baghdad and the Sunni Triangle allowing the Iraqi government to wage the real battle therein. We can focus on keeping secure the remaining 80-90% of the country-which isn’t saying much as most of Iraq is vast empty desert. It's like saying all of Nevada is secure except Las Vegas and Reno.

That’s all we can do, is try to provide a somewhat level playing field for the Iraqi government to win the inner core of the country back from the insurgency. We can’t win it for them unless we are willing to pay a price in blood we haven’t paid since 1968, if not 1862.

Sincerely,
Thane

[Thane]

LW wrote:

So Congress is resolving to support the troops - but opposes the President's pan to send help.

May I remind you of a few inconvenient truths? First, there have been no major terrorist attacks in the United States since 9/11. The reason for that is President Bush took the War Against Jihadists to the Middle East. We now fight the battle for Western Civilization in Iraq and Afghanistan instead of in the United States.

May I remind you of a few inconvenient truths? After 9/11 the United States was not attacked for 554 days before we invaded Iraq in an attack of our choosing. For more than a year and a half before our foray into nation-building in Iraq, we some how deterred or defeated any Jihadist attacks.
Therefore, for you to make false conclusions that we have been safe only because we invaded Iraq is bogus and illogical.
As far as our invasion of Afghanistan, it was at the time, and since been, fully regarded as a necessary and justified action and I have never heard any liberal, any world leader, nor any opponent of President Bush question or deride that decision.

The issue, clearly, is Iraq and the fact this was a war of choice, an attack on a nation that was militarily contained and largely de-fanged by DESERT STORM, the ongoing UN economic sanctions and the DESERT FOX strikes, which destroyed its last vestiges of WMD production or development.
We spectacularly won the Cold War primarily through containment, yet we chose to launch a pre-emptive attack on Iraq and fatally tangle ourselves in their internecine civil war.

I have said before, and I still believe, the U.S. is the world superpower and we must act like one. I believed that removing Saddam Hussein was the right choice. However, we tried to do it on the cheap, with hope as the majority of our plan and false or disregarded intelligence as the majority of our assumptions. Like misbegotten Spanish Conquistadores we searched in vain for the WMD Seven Cities of Cibola, while ignoring the vast number of mundane conventional weapons caches (pronounced like “he cashes a check”) which, forthwith, were looted to arm our enemies. We simply cannot play the superpower role and fight these kinds of wars all while maintaining a
“business as usual” on the home front. If we are to act and prevail as a superpower, then we must commit fully as a nation and take the difficult but necessary steps to win.

If you try to use the Sean Hannity counterattack, that to oppose the war in Iraq is the moral equivalent of supporting the mass murder, rape, and tyranny of Saddam, then I say that is absurd. If our policy is driven merely to end tyranny in other parts of the world, then an invasion of North Korea or Iran would have liberated far more oppressed people with the added benefit of elimination regimes that clearly were about to produce their own nuclear weapons.

The removal of Kim Jong Il’s regime in North Korea and its unification with South Korea would have immediately stabilized the region and allowed even greater prosperity for the Republic of Korea and China, with significant economic benefit accruing to Japan, Russia, and the U.S. as well. Bush long talked tough, but has now caved in to giving Pyongyang exactly what it wants in exchange for more empty promises, just to have a fleeting and shallow diplomatic victory in his time of troubles.

I don’t have to tell you about the dangers of Iran, you seem to understand it very well. But we can now do nothing to counter Iran, short of an unambiguous an dramatic provocation by the Ayatollahs, because we are bogged down militarily, and politically in Iraq. Bush has expended all the American and worldwide capital he had in the aftermath of 9/11 to decisively deal with America’s true threats and decided, instead, to take out a broken-down, tin-horn dictator who was a minor threat. Then, we even messed that up because we tried to do it with a skeleton force, and an attitude that we were happy to take the baby to the playground, but we didn't want to stick around to change any dirty diapers.

A big problem, in my view, is the legacy of Desert Storm. The American public and Congress want all our wars to be like Desert Storm. Impressive, technological, and, above all, BRIEF. Rather like a big bowl game, our forces run in, kick some ass 66-0 and then get to hit the showers and go home to parades and celebrations. It was a relief (and lucky) the Desert Storm veterans got to experience that kind of war, rather like our Spanish American War in 1898. We thought we had the same thing on May 1st, 2003 as it was celebrated on the deck of the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln. But as “Honest Abe” himself knew, it ain’t over till it’s over. Desert Storm was an anomaly, an aberration, a freak occurrence. Only a seriously miscalculating fool would have put his forces out in the open to contest America in a conventional fashion. The North Vietnamese were not that ignorant, nor were the Mujahadeen fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan. But Saddam was just that kind fool. Well, Saddam got his ultimate reward dancing at the end of a rope, while being taunted by a clutch of howling, cowardly men unwilling to show their faces to their own people. I have no sympathy for Saddam Hussein but I note the utter lack of dignity, courage, and seriousness of the regime we have replaced him with.

President George W. Bush is determined to continue his present course and policies, regardless of how unpopular it makes him and regardless of the ruin it will cause to his own party. He sees himself as Harry Truman, himself likewise embroiled in a stalemated war, but with a good cause. Bush believes that, like Truman, while he may leave office despised by both parties, and tanked in the polls, he will be vindicated, honored, and thanked by the judgment of history.

The Jihadists, including Osama bin Laden if he's still alive, are pulling for this resolution. The resolution will inspire terrorists to even great violence

This is utter nonsense. Even if Osama is following U.S. politics, it is irrelevant. That is like saying the Germans really wanted Wendell Willkie or Thomas Dewey to defeat Franklin Roosevelt, as if that would win the war for Germany. Willkie or Dewey would not have “cut and run” any more than Nixon did when he took office in 1969. When Nixon was re-elected four years later, in 1972, we were still fighting in Vietnam.

Congress is finally stepping up because of the woeful mismanagement, to say nothing of false rosy predictions of success, and the entire matter is becoming a bottomless abyss for both parties.

Sincerely,
Thane

[Thane]

Hey Lynn,

This is what I said:

Even if Osama is following U.S. politics, it is irrelevant.

I did not say "Osama Bin Laden and the terrorists are not trying to influence politics in other nations."

You deliberately (or ignorantly) mistated my views, in similar fashion as to what you accuse me of doing to you.

Terrorism, by some definitions, is nothing but an effort to influence politics in one or more countries.

My point is that what the terrorists think about our Congressional Dramaturgy is irrelevant to our war effort. Things like Abu Graib and Hadditha were far more beneficial to the terrorist cause than any non-binding resolutions passed in Congress, something you have never realized or cared to admit.

Try to quote me correctly. Journalism 101.

Sincerely,
Thane

[lwoolley]

Well, certainly.

What they THINK of our politics may be irrelevant, but what radical Islam as a whole sees happening here (on al Jazeera) has an impact. If they belive they are successful in influencing our politics, they try even harder.

Right?

Lynn

[lwoolley]

SOL,


J. T. King, former Texas Tech head football coach and, in turn, athletic
director declared to the USL in 1975, "Illegal recruiting and payola for
college football players is a very slippery slope........that 290 pound
lineman, whose mama got a washer and dryer for his letter-of-intent
signature, may become weary of opening holes for that premier running back
who received a Corvette for his signature."

Duffy Daugherty, former Michigan State head football coach said, "A football
coach's main problem is that he is responsible to irresponsible people."

The below sounds like Nancy Pelosi may have a renewed appreciation for the
above maxims.
USL

March 9, 2007


POTOMAC WATCH
By KIMBERLEY STRASSEL






DOW JONES REPRINTS


This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. To order
presentation-ready copies for distribution to your colleagues, clients or
customers, use the Order Reprints tool at the bottom of any article or
visit:
www.djreprints.com.

• See a sample reprint in PDF format.
• Order a reprint of this article now.

Between Iraq and a Hard Place
March 9, 2007; Page A14
The meltdown among House Democrats over Iraq is rightly being described as
the first big test of Nancy Pelosi's leadership. It's also an early example
of just how much political damage the antiwar left is capable of inflicting
on their new speaker.

[lwoolley]

I listen to your show every morning and agree with you generally but at times I find you to not be so logical. I have heartburn when you have callers say that Democrats are not Christian. I just shake my head thinking that anyone that disagrees with the Moral Right is unchristian and un-American. I suppose that this includes Bush, Cheney, Giuliani, Romney, and anyone else that isn't "logical" as all of your listeners must be.

I am curious as to what you think about Iraq. If it had been a Democratic President that started the war against terrorism in Iraq, would the Republicans be politicizing the war and demanding to have a more reasonable timetable to end (win?) the war? By the way, what does winning the war mean? If we are fighting this war 4 years from now and we have 8,000 dead soldiers should we continue until we "win" the war? My thought is that regardless of the US winning the war, the clerics will eventually end democracy because its not their way of life and never has been. just some thoughts I had...and yes I am a Republican, but I also listen to opposing viewpoints and can understand their point.


One other note...the Army Surgeon General is Kiley, not Riley.

Gary A. Goodman, MPH
Engineering & Environment, Inc.
Drinking Water Program
DPW, Environmental Division
Fort Hood, TX 76544

Gary,

I may have missed that one. I heard the caller say "white" and I jumped to say that not all Americans are white. I do not like to paint individuals with a broad brush. Of course, there are good Christians who are Democrats.

On your hypothetical question --

I belived that a rouge nations had to be made an example. I would have supported the removal of Saddam by any president who did it in the right way. Bush handled it pretty well until the insurgency began.

To me, "winning" means you have hurt the enemy to the point that he stops fighting. We are not really trying to win. We're trying to work it so the Iraquis are in charge.

So what do you think winning is?

Lynn

[Thane]

Mr. Goodman,

You've hit the nail on the head and, as usual, Lynn dodges a tough question.

By the way, what does winning the war mean? If we are fighting this war 4 years from now and we have 8,000 dead soldiers should we continue until we "win" the war?

Yes, exactly! First of all, Lynn did not answer this question and secondly, he wants to debate what the term "winning" means while ignoring that we are not in a position to win at all. At this point there are only degress of losing.

Your question brings to light that insurgencies can be very long-lived. The Vietnamese communists fought from 1945 to 1975 against the French and then America, to secure thier ultimate victory. Mao and th Chinese communists fought from the 1920s until 1949. Our own American Revolution, while not a classic insurgency, took seven, close to eight years to conclude sucessfully. People will fight a long time for what they see as freedom.

Oh we could crush the insurgency with the means and tactics that have historically been sucessfull, however, this would require a level of brutality which our society will not accept or allow. So we come back to degrees of losing.

And we come back to your unanswered question. At what point does the cost in American blood outweigh whatever strategic value we place on trying to hold an anemic and fatally crippled regime together in Iraq? At what point does the actual cost in lives lost, not to mention hundreds of billions of taxpayer dolars, outweigh the conjectural dangers of abandoning the impossible mission of turning Iraq into a peacful vibrant Athenian democracy?

Lynn insert answer here_____________________________________

Another note to Lynn, quit talking about Saddam. The removal of Saddam Hussein was almost a different war and has little to do with the current civil war in Iraq. You keep focusing on whether or not we should have taken out Saddam (and I agree we should have) when the issue now at hand is a vicious ethnic civil war, where all sides target Amercans as well. Saddam is dead! Quit talking about Saddam. Bush and all the King's men should have forseen at least a little bit of this mess and not gone into this war on the cheap and in a cavalier fashion.

Sincerely,
Thane

[lwoolley]

Hi Lynn,

There is two words, that aren't in the Democrats/Liberals Vocabulary. Those words are....WIN and VICTORY. But they do know....CUT & RUN, GIVE UP and WAVE THE WHITE FLAG OF SURRENDER. It's a good thing Dingy Harry (Sen. Reid), Queen Bee (Rep. Pelosi), and these Democrats we have to day, wasn't around in 1776. Or we'd still be under the rule of England. If they had been around during WW-II, no doubt they would have wanted Pres. Roosevelt, to Cut & Run after a couple of years of the war. Let Hitler and Japan, do as they please.

I have this to say... "I've never seen a Democrat that I could trust. They are all two feet below a snakes belly. If the Republican ran the devil on the ticket, I'd still vote Republican".

Have a good day,
Bill Durfee :>)~