In related news, Bush wins. Again.
This story demonstrates just how crucial winning in Iraq really is. I wonder if the chorus of Bush critics, whose continual refrain is "incompetence", understands just how poisonous to success their continual undermining of the war effort really is.
If you needed more, this story should help even the slow-witted understand that the key to defeating Al Qaeda is to prevail in Iraq. It should also make it abundantly clear that we are in a very tough fight against a very tough, resourceful enemy.
This should have been an easy fight, and we are not winning it. Folks can go on about Bush incompetence all they want, but I think what it shows is that our enemies have gone all in on Iraq. They now believe that it's only a short matter of time before they drive us out, and then we'll see what a gusher of revenue Iraq will produce for Al Qaeda and Iran.
The irony is that our military is doing their job just fine. If the American people were to demonstrate their resolve to stay until the job was done, it'd be over a whole lot sooner. (Translation: If Al Qaeda and Iran knew the American people stood behind our troops, they'd know they have no chance. Their tactics were never designed to defeat the American military, they're designed for the TV screens at home to break the will of the people.)
It's a lot like dealing with tantrums. Once you demonstrate that the tantrums will not produce the desired outcome, the tantrums stop.
posted by alwaysright at
7:14 PM
5 Comments:
John Kerry is not an authentic war hero?
I guess I know who had their Swift Boaties for breakfast!
If anyone has undermined our war effort it is the Bushies by going into Iraq and ignoring our real enemy that we had pinned down at Tora Bora.
First the Taliban, then Al Qaida and then the mountain Pushtans who to this day continue to aid and abet Al Qaida and the big dog himself - bin Laden.
Bush's win is a temporary stay of execution and you know it...
You've returned to the usual canards and talking points just when I thought you were starting to think and speak for yourself. Too bad!
I understand the lure of the warm glow of total victory and vindication but, this entire escapade has been a total and utter disaster and unless your name is Kagan pretty much everyone else has come to that conclusion irrespective of the ridiculous statement that we undermine the war effort by doing so.
Iraq has already proven to be a 'gusher' for Al Qaida. We allowed them the beachhead and they have taken full advantage. They have restructured, retooled, rearmed and refinanced since Tora Bora.
Makes you wonder about the missing $9 billion huh? On pallets too, real easy to move around. Incompetence, incompetence, incompetence, incompetence, incompetence, I'll harp on!
Y'know, I'm just curious. How is it that our standong up and fighting Al Qaeda in Iraq has been so good for them? And how would it be bad for them for us to withdraw, defeated, from that battlefield? You seem to have bought into the notion that they're some kind of supermen--the more we fight and kill them, the stronger they get.
We're not the only ones expending blood and treasure over there. They are, too, and they've got a lot less than we do. It is not easy to go up against our military. I'll wager we kill 10-20 terrorists for every servicemen killed.
We're in no danger of being overrun. We should just commit to staying there indefiitely, and gradually pacifying the country. Why the rush to withdraw?
"If anyone has undermined our war effort it is the Bushies by going into Iraq and ignoring our real enemy that we had pinned down at Tora Bora."
This is the crux of one of the many spurious liberal arguments Democrats like to make when they're trying to sound tough on Al Qaeda. I could never understand how the invasion of Iraq in March of 2003 caused us to lose bin Laden in December of 2002 in Tora Bora. You've apparently bought into the bogus linkage sold by guys selling books.
The fact is, Tora Bora's a pretty forbidding place. Mountainous, extreme weather, can't fly helicopters--you couldn't put 20,000 troops in there under the best of circumstances, certainly not in December.
The fact is, we chased bin Laden into Tora Bora, and he escaped into Pakistan. Pakistan is a no go for us. You know, nukes, radical Islamists, Musharraf hanging by a thread. Bin Laden's escape had nothing to do with Iraq.
He got away, and he would have got away regardless of what plans we may or may not have had for Iraq.
Now, maybe we could have had a better plan for Afghanistan, but then again, the Soviets got chewed to shreds there over the course of ten years. Maybe it's not as easy as it seems.
If you would just think, you might realize that Iraq is the very best place to confront our two biggest enemies, Al Qaeda and Iran. They're both there and throwing everything they've got into driving us out.
If Iraq is so bad for us, and so good for them, why are they trying so hard to drive us out?
Oh, and by the way, why has John Kerry never made a complete public disclosure of his war record?
Oh! And by the way why hasn't Bush made a complete disclosure of his war record, or lack of it. That's right, that paperwork went missing. Kerry's war record has been substantiated by the fact that he was there, fighting in a fricking swift boat, we have fricking film for godsake.
As for spurious arguments, let's start with WMD, Iraq-Al Qaida, Mushroom Clouds, DeBaathification, Iraqification... it is becoming patently obvious that the only reason we are in Iraq is because after 9/11 we were literally asked to leave Saudi Arabia for our own safety and we needed another base of operations to protect our interests - oil - and to project our power in the region as being willing and able to protect that assett from the Gulf to the Caspian. Iraq suited this bunch of amateurs - read Cheney - just fine and he doesn't give a rats ass how many die and how much we spend in order to achieve that single goal.
And you slowly trot out every tired, fantastic canard in the hope that one resonates, even the ones that we all know are completely based in fantasy or mired in half-truths. Knowing the whole time why we really are there.
What's wrong with protecting our interests and projecting power? We need to do both. We're right to do both.
It's certainly true that staying in Saudi was becoming problematic. But why were we there in the first place? Saddam! We had to set up shop there after the first Gulf War to babysit him--a problem that wasn't going away.
We absolutely do need a base in that part of the world. Are you really naive enough to believe that we can operate in the world without protecting our interests?
"You see, son, we live in a world with walls. And those walls have to be defended by men with guns. Who's going to do it? You? You, Lieutenant Weinberg?
I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago, and you curse the Marines. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know--that Santiago's death, while tragic, probably saved lives. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives.
You can't handle the truth because way down in places that you don't like to talk about at parties, you want me on that wall. You need me on that wall.
We use words like honor, code, loyalty. We use them to form the backbone of a life worth defending. You use them as a punchline. I have no patience for a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of freedom that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it.
I'd prefer you just said 'thank you' and went on your way. Or pick up a weapon and man a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you're entitled to."
So that's the big crime? We've been defending our interests? Shocking! Is it your position that we should stop defending our interests?
Isn't it possible that there's a convergence of interests between us and the Iraqi's? That we could rid them of a hated tyrant and give them a chance for a better life in exchange for our need to "protect our interests and project power"? In the long run, don't you think the Iraqi's would be better off as free people engaged in the global economy than under Saddam's thumb, or under al Qaeda?
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home