Jump To » Mobile / Confirm Them / Right Shelf / Sports / State Blogs / About / Contact / Help / Posting Rules / Conservative Book Club / Human Events
Failure Is Not An Option
By The Directors Posted in War — Comments (172) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
“The majority of Americans seem to have the same misconceptions about the relation between this “new” strategy and the so-called ‘Surge’ now as they did when it was first proposed. Allow us to provide some clarity”
The war in Iraq is vital to America’s national security and to the Global War on Terror. It is a fight which we are not currently losing on the ground, and which we will not lose if we commit to victory, rather than taking the path that appears easier, at least in the short term – abandoning yet another battlefield to the enemy.
We live in an age of unparalleled access to information. Little more than a century ago, wars were fought and supported by nations that had no idea of the outcome of battles until well after they were won or lost. Even monarchs and elected leaders often made decisions based on information whose age was measured in months or even years.
Today, the majority of Americans have access to instantaneous reports from Iraq. Yet still they harbor misconceptions, borne out of what we can only assume to be purposeful ignorance. They do so at a moment where these reports, and the story they tell, are vital both to our military success in that country and to the security of our country in the long term.
Al Qaeda, the terrorist organization which attacked us in 1993, in 1998, in 2000, and in 2001 – and numerous other times – has the dual distinction of being both the highest-profile enemy in the War on Terror, and enemy number one in Iraq. Regardless of Speaker of the House Nancy “The Real War on Terror is in Afghanistan” Pelosi’s apparent belief, along with many of her colleagues, that the latter is untrue, the leaders of that terror network have said otherwise, and have done so loudly and repeatedly.
Only last week, Ayman al-Zawahiri (via video) spoke of the vital role that Iraq currently plays as “the centerpiece of [al Qaeda’s] anti-American fight.” It is safe, we think, to suppose that al-Zawahiri may have a bit more knowledge of al Qaeda’s operations than Ms. Pelosi.
Yet since the war’s very beginning, the calls have come – from retired military officers, politicians, and activists – for a change in course in Iraq. And Ms. Pelosi is determined to listen.
Yes, it's our longest ever Directors' post, but please do keep reading . . .
This week, Democrats in Congress will be voting on a resolution (HR 2956) demanding this change of course – despite the fact that only six months ago, the Senate, by unanimous (81-0) vote, confirmed a new military leader who was bringing with him a brand-new strategic approach to the fight in that country.
“Giving in and pulling out of Iraq is exactly what al Qaeda and our other enemies have demanded of us.”
The majority of Americans seem to have the same misconceptions about the relation between this “new” strategy and the so-called ‘Surge’ now as they did when it was first proposed. Allow us to provide some clarity: The ‘Surge’ – an increase in boots on the ground in Iraq – was never the strategy itself. The increase in troop levels, requested by General Petraeus, was one of many components (or “strategic shifts,” as national security advisor Stephen Hadley called them in a January 29 Washington Post op-ed, in which he even then was attempting to clear up the misconception that the ‘surge’ was the strategy in its entirety) necessary to implement the sweeping new strategy, which radically altered our country’s course in Iraq and sought to solve the problems and shore up the weaknesses which four years of fighting had created and exposed.
In truth, the strategy itself was and is far more intricate and multi-pronged than a simple ‘surge’ in troops. The main focus of the new strategy has been the Baghdad Security Plan – a strategy focused on the capital city of Iraq, which seeks (with increased Iraqi and American forces) to permanently rid neighborhoods of terrorists and extremists and keep them that way, and to secure the population.
The new strategy in Baghdad was to be met with new rules of engagement, set to ensure that Iraqi and U.S. forces could pursue lawbreakers and terrorists regardless of their community or sect, and to be followed by economic assistance and reconstruction aid – including billions of dollars in Iraqi funds – which would combine to offer employment and the prospect of better lives for average citizens.
While this operation has been ongoing since Gen. Petraeus’s appointment in January, troop levels in Iraq have just recently reached the amount necessary to fully implement the BSP and to undertake the other aspects of the new strategy.
Outside of the Baghdad Security Plan, the new strategy stepped up the fight against al Qaeda – the most brutal and violent foe we have in that country, and the one which has the most to lose from the victory of US and Iraqi forces. Beginning in Anbar Province – until six months ago, the most-written-off area of Iraq, and a sanctuary for AQI – US forces have systematically driven al Qaeda from their strongholds, rallying tribes, clans, and groups of all sects to the cause of liberty and of a free Iraq.
Anbar is hardly mentioned in the news media at all today, and Michael Yon recently reported having spent a month there without hearing a shot fired (an amazing development, as gunfire had been as common a background noise in Iraq as traffic horns are in America). The US military is currently wrapping up week three of Operation Arrowhead Ripper, the largest offensive since 2003 and one aimed directly at rooting out and destroying al Qaeda in Baqubah (in Diyala Province just north of Baghdad), one of their final Iraqi strongholds.
“This is the truth about what is happening on the ground – the truth that the American people do not hear, and Ms. Pelosi will not say.”
Each place that the coalition openly fights against al Qaeda, the citizens and tribesmen join in, standing side by side with Americans – their differences forgotten – and helping to win back their neighborhoods, their cities, and their country. This is the truth about what is happening on the ground – the truth that the American people do not hear, and Ms. Pelosi will not say.
Other aspects of this new strategy included doubling the number of provincial reconstruction teams (PRTs) in Iraq. These civilian-led units have been helping the Iraqi government distribute development aid across the country; this year, 10 new civilian PRTs have been be embedded with U.S. combat brigades. The training of Iraqi security forces has been accelerated, with benchmarks set to track progress, and numerical goals decided upon to best bolster the size and effectiveness of those forces. Contrary to popular belief, training and supporting Iraqi troops has been and will remain our military’s essential and primary mission in that country.
The Iraqi people do by and large want us there – not forever, but until they are secure enough to take over themselves. Taking a shattered state – especially one like Iraq, which, being comprised of people who think of themselves as members of a tribe, sect, clan, or mahalla, has no sense whatsoever of itself – and making it whole again is a long and arduous task. It is doubly so when an effective insurgency is being waged against the rebuilding force – and make no mistake about it: this insurgency is effective.
This is no easy task. It comes with a cost measured in much more than funds or effort – in the cost of young men and women, husbands and wives, brothers and friends. Yet that cost is outweighed by this simple fact: Failure here is not an option.
There is no “Plan B” to success in Iraq. If we fail there, the Iraqi government and its security institutions will almost certainly crumble under the pressure of widespread sectarian violence, ethnic cleansing, and extrajudicial killing. The chaos, which would spread across the country like wildfire, is likely to engulf the entire region. Even if it did not reach that far, our withdrawal would give al Qaeda exactly what they have so often asked for: a base of operations outside of Afghanistan, from which they can carry out attacks on American interests and on our homeland itself.
The American military can win this fight. What is needed is for the American people, and their leaders, to put politics aside in favor of presenting a united front against those who, regardless what concessions we make, will do their utmost to kill us. The effort will take time; all successful counterinsurgencies have. The time that winning the peace in Iraq will take is compounded by the fact that, for the Iraqi people to decide to put their lives on the line and to stand together against their murderous enemies, we must first convince them that we are committed to staying there to support them for as long as it takes.
Their skepticism on the latter is justified. We fled the battlefield in Vietnam, in Beirut, and in Somalia after being hit in the mouth by our adversaries. Furthermore – and more relevantly – we abandoned the Iraqis in 1991, after encouraging them to revolt against Saddam and promising to stand behind them while they did so. It will take far more than three weeks at full strength and a few more months of operations against the insurgency in Iraq to convince the people there that we will stick with them for the long haul; however, without doing so, we cannot succeed.
Giving in and pulling out of Iraq is exactly what al Qaeda and our other enemies have demanded of us. Despite the brief respite that such a decision would appear able to provide our “war-weary” nation and military, such a decision would bring nothing but harm, both to Iraq and, in the long run, to America. We were attacked on September 11th by the same enemy we are now facing in Iraq. Surrendering the field to them would be nonsensical and unacceptable, striking a self-inflicted, fatal blow at our war on terror, and inviting more attacks against ourselves here at home.
Along with the new strategy in Iraq came the author of America’s brand new field manual on counterinsurgency, General David Petraeus. Since his arrival, American and Iraqi forces have made marked and significant progress – and he has given our military confidence in our ability to succeed. But there is simply no rational point to giving such a man the task at hand without the resources or time to see it through. We are not surprised, of course. Perhaps, as some of us expected at the time, that was the plan all along.
So here hangs the balance of our mission, and the goal of a just, free, and peaceful world teeters near the brink. Either Ms. Pelosi has in mind a more ingenious strategy for victory then Gen. Petraeus – her brilliant strategic mind honed on the battlegrounds of late night games of Battleship – or she is unwilling to bear the political penalty with her base, and thus has become an eager fan of American defeat. And the sooner there are images of helicopters skirting away from the tops of buildings, the outstretched hands of the Iraqi people left behind to be devoured by our common foe, the better.
You will forgive us for suspecting the latter.
« Deeply Encouraging News From Iraq . . . And Some Of The Reaction — Comments (1) | Haditha Commander To Stand Trial — Comments (5) »
Failure Is Not An Option 172 Comments (0 topical, 172 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
Bravo!
by bs
Superb essay - one that should be published far and wide. I think the point that is lost on most of the surrender-monkeys is this:
...our withdrawal would give al Qaeda exactly what they have so often asked for: a base of operations outside of Afghanistan, from which they can carry out attacks on American interests and on our homeland itself.
Exactly. Yeah, we purged Al Qaeda from Afghanistan and Iraq, but do you think they'll stay gone once we bail out? Ah...no.
Face reality
by grinder
The Iraq battle is toast! We'll either start witdrawing before January 2009 or we'll start withdrawing shortly thereafter.
Banging your fist on the table stating that withdrawal is a bad idea is futile to your fist and the table!
Whether rightly or wrongly, whether unfairly influenced by the media or not, the US people don't have the commitment for an expensive open ended battle in Iraq. Frankly, four years is a lot more than I thought they'd last. It's a democracy and eventually the majority will get what they want (whether or not they'll live to regret their decision).
deep thinking always makes me envious n-t
by streiff
"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling
To be fair...
by grinder
You'd have to ask "why don't they have the commitment level"?
It could be that the general American recalls:
When Bush's economic adviser Lawrence Lindsay said the war could cost between $100 and 200 billion he was sharply rebuked by the rest of the Administration as the argued it would be much less.
non sequiturs make me envious, too n-t
by streiff
"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling
Please Explain
by xseal5@yahoo.com
I mean this with all sincerity.
The article starts with this, "The war in Iraq is vital to America’s national security"
A lot of you probably agree with this statement and take it for granted. I don't. Can someone point me to an article that makes the case that the war in Iraq is vital to America’s national security?
Read it
by xseal5@yahoo.com
I find nowhere in the article a detailed explaination of why the war in Iraq is vital to America’s national security.
Well, for starters...
by mbecker908
Al Qaeda, the terrorist organization which attacked us in 1993, in 1998, in 2000, and in 2001 – and numerous other times – has the dual distinction of being both the highest-profile enemy in the War on Terror, and enemy number one in Iraq. [...]
Only last week, Ayman al-Zawahiri (via video) spoke of the vital role that Iraq currently plays as “the centerpiece of [al Qaeda’s] anti-American fight.” It is safe, we think, to suppose that al-Zawahiri may have a bit more knowledge of al Qaeda’s operations than Ms. Pelosi. [...]
Each place that the coalition openly fights against al Qaeda, the citizens and tribesmen join in, standing side by side with Americans – their differences forgotten – and helping to win back their neighborhoods, their cities, and their country. [...]
There is no “Plan B” to success in Iraq. If we fail there, the Iraqi government and its security institutions will almost certainly crumble under the pressure of widespread sectarian violence, ethnic cleansing, and extrajudicial killing. The chaos, which would spread across the country like wildfire, is likely to engulf the entire region. Even if it did not reach that far, our withdrawal would give al Qaeda exactly what they have so often asked for: a base of operations outside of Afghanistan, from which they can carry out attacks on American interests and on our homeland itself. [...]
Giving in and pulling out of Iraq is exactly what al Qaeda and our other enemies have demanded of us.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
For Starters
by xseal5@yahoo.com
"Al Qaeda, the terrorist organization which attacked us in 1993, in 1998, in 2000, and in 2001 – and numerous other times "
We would be far safer with proper Immigration policy and protection of our borders and ports. Which doesnt' require spending Billions on bringing Democracy to Iraq.
Are we going to go to war with every country that has Al Qaeda in it?
Interesting question.
by UpLateAgain
Specious, and yet with a depth of understanding that fairly boggles the mind.
That's like asking if Roosevelt should have declared war on every country that had Nazis in it.
Your rank stupidity just amazes me.
by mbecker908
No, we probably aren't. But on the other hand, we should not give the enemy a safe haven from which to build their operations. A secure Iraq will deny them that haven, at least for the moment.
If they move operations to Syria or Iran, I would absolutely consider military action to deny them any safe haven. I also would radically change the RoE.
You obviously missed it Bubba, these guys declared war on us. Of course Bill Clinton was President then and all the Democrats were convinced they were the enemy. Democrats have learned a couple of things over the years, and the first is that the "enemy of my enemy is my friend". That's why they are leading the bandwagon to support AQ's goals.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
Good Name Caller
by xseal5@yahoo.com
Well your good name callers. I'll give ya that, but I still haven't heard or read a coherent arguement for how the war in Iraq makes us safer. They're still coming into our country. Has the war made the UK safer?
We would be better served securing OUR country instead of someone elses.
Now I'm willing to change my opinion, but name calling doesn't work.
FYI, not only is name calling not going to change my mind, it won't change the vast majority of the publics mind either. Wasn't that one of the points of the article? To help educated people about what is really going on in Iraq? I'm asking for an articulate and logical explaination of why a secure Iraq makes a secure USA. And not only that, is there a better way to secure America, that doesn't include going to war with every country that has Al Qaeda within it's border.
I absolutely support border security.
by mbecker908
Your willingness to walk - run - away from the ME, is nothing more than an example of the complete "head-in-sand" mode of the Left and Ron Paul supporters. Reality be damned! is your bumper sticker. You want to approach this war as a one dimensional thing, have at it. It didn't work out so well for Europeans prior to WWII. It won't work out so well here either.
And BTW, noting that you are utterly stupid is not an exercise in name calling. It's just stating a simple fact.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
Good Name Caller
by xseal5@yahoo.com
If the arguement, for why a secure Iraq = a secure USA, you'd think you would be able to articulate it...
Simple
by xseal5@yahoo.com
If the arguement is so simple, for why a secure Iraq = a secure USA, you'd think you would be able to articulate it...
It would be easy to call you names.
by kchand
If you cannot understand how a more democratic Iraq would help stabilize the region and NOT provide a jihadist training ground, then there is not much sense having any discourse with you. As you know, democracies just don't wage wars on other democracies.
Would the ME be better off if it operated like Turkey or Israel? Or, would it be better off if it operated like Iran or Afghanistan under the Taliban?
It just isn't that difficult to understand.
--------------------
Vista really sucks!
I wouldn't make
by mbecker908
the argument to you. Or to my dead white cat. Or my dead brown cat. Or to Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid or Jack Murtha. You don't care, you're in surrender mode and perfectly happy with the warm wet feeling in your shorts.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
It won't
by itrytobenice
I'm asking for an articulate and logical explaination of why a secure Iraq makes a secure USA.
It won't by itself. We will still face threats from without and within. However, an Iraq ruled by AQ, who would then have access to petro$ would increase the power of our enemy 100 fold. In addition, it would be much more difficult in the next engagement (and there would definitely be one) to convince any population to go along with us.
Think back: We encouraged the Iraqis to rise up under GHWB, saying that we would support their efforts, then pulled back and allowed them to be slaughtered.
If we leave Iraq now, every single Iraqi who has made any public effort to oppose the terrorists trying to take over the country now would have their head sawed off, along with their wives and children.
Now, think ahead: We have to invade Iran because they just nuked Israel (just one of many possible scenarios, but that's what contingency planning is). We tell the population that they should cooperate with us and we will leave them with a free and prosperous democracy. If you are them, do you help us fight the mad mullahs, or sit back and watch our soldiers die in the fight. They answer to that question is what makes this fight so important.
I meant what I said and I said what I meant. An elephant's faithful 100 percent.
Securing America via War
by xseal5@yahoo.com
Thank you for the polite reply.
First, you make the assumption that Al Qaeda would take over. I think that’s a leap.
Second, if we hadn’t gone in the first place we wouldn’t have had to worry about Al Qaeda take Iraq over. I’m just sayin’…
” If we leave Iraq now, every single Iraqi who has made any public effort to oppose the terrorists trying to take over the country now would have their head sawed off, along with their wives and children.”
I’m more concerned with Americans.
“Now, think ahead: We have to invade Iran because they just nuked Israel” Israel can take care of themselves. They have nukes.
I really think we need to rethink our Foreign Policy. We can be secure without going to war.
Enlighten us on how that happens...
by jdub19
how do you do that without the use of force?
" in the end, it's not the years in your life that count. It's the life in your years."
Abe Lincoln
We'll just round up those bad ol' terrorists and throw them into jail. Wasn't President Clinton oh-so-successful in that approach??
you got it...
by jdub19
I may get bounced for this, but...I'm pretty close to calling BS on our XSEAL....MBeck...I think you had the club last, no?..
" in the end, it's not the years in your life that count. It's the life in your years."
Abe Lincoln
Everything
by mbecker908
related to you and your "opinions".
All yours jdub...
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
I said "close"
by jdub19
to calling BS on your name...though I'm tending to believe the yahoo part is accurate..
now, are you going to asnwer my question I asked above?...
" in the end, it's not the years in your life that count. It's the life in your years."
Abe Lincoln
Security without War
by xseal5@yahoo.com
How could we be safer?
Secure the borders and ports with people and technology.
Stop allowing Muslims into our country. Some in Europe are already calling for a stop to all muslim immagration.
Pretty simple.
Ok...let's try this..
by jdub19
as a warrior, do you think our move into Afgan. (post9/11) was smart?...do you think that move has made the US safer..?..
" in the end, it's not the years in your life that count. It's the life in your years."
Abe Lincoln
War Planning By Hopes and Dreams
by itrytobenice
First, you make the assumption that Al Qaeda would take over. I think that’s a leap.
A LEAP?!?! I can't believe you said that. Do you truly think that the country will just go ahead and devolve into a peaceful democracy? Or surely you just mean that terrorists and killers will take over and they just won't call themselves AQ.
In either case, we lose.
Now, I'm going to grant that there is some slim possibility that Peace will break out. (I don't believe it, but let's pretend) As a matter of fact, let's just go ahead and be really, really generous and give it 50/50. Should we take a 50/50 shot that a terrorist organization will have access to a bajillion oil dollars, not to mention access to one of the most important aspects to the world economy? Don't you think that's too big of a chance to take?
Second, if we hadn’t gone in the first place we wouldn’t have had to worry about Al Qaeda take Iraq over. I’m just sayin’…
And if I hadn't climbed that fence, the bull wouldn't be chasing me now. But I did. He is. And I'd best deal with it, rather than spending my time wishing I were on the other side of the fence.
” If we leave Iraq now, every single Iraqi who has made any public effort to oppose the terrorists trying to take over the country now would have their head sawed off, along with their wives and children.”
I’m more concerned with Americans.
That sure doesn't sound nice. Do you mean to say that it wouldn't bother you to allow a million or so innocent people to be slaughtered?
Regardless, you can't protect Americans by showing the world that we won't fight to win. Remember what happened when Bin Laden thought we were a paper tiger?
“Now, think ahead: We have to invade Iran because they just nuked Israel” Israel can take care of themselves. They have nukes.
I'm not sure I'd choose you as an ally. You might not stay roostered when needed.
I really think we need to rethink our Foreign Policy. We can be secure without going to war.
X Seal? Now, as I tell my kids, tell the whole truth. Really?
I meant what I said and I said what I meant. An elephant's faithful 100 percent.
Okay
by xseal5@yahoo.com
I'll grant you we should deal with the present problem instead of Monday morning quarterbacking.
I don't think Iraq will be peaceful if we leave. I think there's a good possibility Iran and SA will fight over the country. I think the whole region will go crazy, but that's not necessarily a bad thing for us. They focus on each other instead of us. Yes we’ll have higher gas prices but that’s the price we pay.
“I'm not sure I'd choose you as an ally. You might not stay roostered when needed.”
It’s true, I prefer the Foreign Policy of the Founders.
“X Seal? Now, as I tell my kids, tell the whole truth. Really?”
Yes, but how will you ever know. We’re on the internet. Anyone can say anything.
Dream on.
by itrytobenice
I think there's a good possibility Iran and SA will fight over the country. I think the whole region will go crazy, but that's not necessarily a bad thing for us. They focus on each other instead of us. Yes we’ll have higher gas prices but that’s the price we pay.
Do you truly believe that they can't kill us and each other at the same time? You're wrong. There are plenty of bombs to share the pain. And, to tell you the truth, if we abandon our allies now, (meaning the Iraqis who have trusted us to protect them while they try to establish their democracy) leaving them to be slaughtered by their enemies, we deserve the carnage we will get in our nation.
It’s true, I prefer the Foreign Policy of the Founders.
No you don't. They fought wars, they didn't quit, and they fought them to win.
I meant what I said and I said what I meant. An elephant's faithful 100 percent.
ummm
by sdh
you wrote "Do you truly believe that they can't kill us and each other at the same time?"
Isn't that the whole rationale behind fight 'em over there so we won't have to fight 'em here?
No.
by itrytobenice
No, and I don't believe that you're so stupid that you believe what you wrote. You just think it is a catchy little gotcha. You're wrong.
We are there to kill them. Then we won't have to fight them over here because they are dead.
I meant what I said and I said what I meant. An elephant's faithful 100 percent.
well...
by sdh
they weren't there in any numbers before we got there and from reading the paper today, the main branch of AQ (the ones actually resp for 9-11) are back to their pre-911 strength.
I gotta believe that the US in Iraq has created thousands of AQ members. Seems like the more you kill, the more you create. I'm just doing the math, 'cause we have been killin' them for years and there is end in sight.
And we aren't there to kill them. That is justification 7.0 for the war. First is was WMD's, then to show Iraq as a flower of democracy for the rest of the ME.
Is that Talking Point O Matic
by itrytobenice
Is your Talking Point O Matic™ a pocket version, or do you have the full size model?
they weren't there in any numbers before we got there
They were there in much smaller numbers. I'm sure that was mostly due to the fact that Saddam wanted to encourage their activities against us, but had no desire to have them take over his little fiefdom.
from reading the paper today, the main branch of AQ (the ones actually resp for 9-11) are back to their pre-911 strength.
Your paper is a liar. They may still have large numbers, but I heard Condolezza today say that they have regained some of their strength in certain areas, but that we have seriously injured their capacity in others.
I gotta believe that the US in Iraq has created thousands of AQ members. I gotta believe that the US in Iraq has created thousands of AQ members.
BS. Zarcowie was on TV the other day crying the blues because they were having trouble with recruiting. The only reason anyone will join is because we (actually - you and your lousy party members) keep making noises like we're going to quit and run away home and they want to be on the winning team.
And we aren't there to kill them. That is justification 7.0 for the war. First is was WMD's, then to show Iraq as a flower of democracy for the rest of the ME.
BS again. Those guns aren't full of rubber bullets. As for justification 7.0; can we help it if there were multiple reasons to invade? The fact that you can only remember one thing at a time just shows you to be less than astute.
I meant what I said and I said what I meant. An elephant's faithful 100 percent.
Thank you
by MrMosis
For decimating the fella's irrational un-reasoning.
And I forgot
by itrytobenice
Yes, but how will you ever know. We’re on the internet. Anyone can say anything.
If the Fastest Squirrel were here, he'd know.
I meant what I said and I said what I meant. An elephant's faithful 100 percent.
555
by jdub19
so would Sem6...fer chi eye, Strieff, Jeff, even Raven too!! :)
" in the end, it's not the years in your life that count. It's the life in your years."
Abe Lincoln
My bet he's get his
by jdub19
arse tossed out of McP's in record time
" in the end, it's not the years in your life that count. It's the life in your years."
Abe Lincoln
The point is,
by Charles Bird
leaving Iraq prematurely would make us less safe.
Snottiness is really unjustified...
by nargin
The poster asked an entirely reasonable question, one which doesn't justify your condescension. If, as you state:
...we should not give the enemy a safe haven from which to build their operations.
...then we should have attacked Pakistan, yes, Pakistan, the most dangerous country in the world, IMHO. This is a nation one heartbeat away from being at our throat, which likely hosts the fellow who actually did attack us on 9/11, which has a growing movement of Islamic militancy, which supported the Taliban, which has nuclear weapons, which proliferates with pride these weapons to other powers, and which frankly despises us.
If we were truly basing decisions on our national security interests, then the frontier provinces of this nation should have been Target Number Two after Aghanistan. Surely we learned at least a little something from dealing with the Laotian-Vietnamese border, and the difficulty of eliminating an infection adjacent to a well of disease.
And I'd also add, both to you and others who engage in this sort of petty verbal slapfighting, that you do a disservice to the cause you supposedly embrace, the desire to strengthen the American people's will to sustain our war effort. Folks are way past tired of being called traitors, monkeys, and cowards for thinking hard and asking questions about a poorly executed war effort. Step up your game and engage thoughtfully if you truly value the outcome.
A nation currently cooperating with us
by Joliphant
And helping us. A muslim nation that elected a female primeminister twice.
Brilliant lets attack pakistan. While we area at it we could do Turkey too.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
If this is "cooperation"...
by nargin
...then I'd hate to see obstruction. Turkey is a moderate, Westernized nation and, above all, a NATO treaty member whose territory we are committed to protect. Pakistan hosts our enemies, Bhutto is history, and they repeatedly thwart our efforts to secure Afghanistan. And, surely this is of some relevance, since it's likely OBL's lair. Don't we remember him? The fellow who murdered our people on 9/11?
No, we can't likely attack now, now that we've exhausted our blood and treasure on Iraq and have little leverage to end Pakistan's repeated opposition to our efforts to thwart incursions into Afghanistan. I fully acknowledge this is handwringing over "shouldas" and "couldas", regret over the waste of our momentum and credibility five years ago.
Remember also, this is the country who lionized A.Q.Khan, the wretch who gave nuclear technology to Libya, Iran, and North Korea. This is our enemy, who arms our other enemies. And that is desperately important to our national security.
Yes Attack a nuclear armed nation
by Joliphant
Let me guess you weren't born until after the cold war had ended. You never had to go through a shelter drill. The missiles of October is a rock band for you.
Whats even more amazing is the predictability of your response. Repeatedly thwart our efforts to secure Afghanistan ?? What you mean is the current PM is walking a tightrope to keep the country together. He regularly has assassination attempts originate from the region.
Seeing as you have thought this so far through just what is the upside of attacking a nation that has both nuclear weapons and long range ballistic missile capability ?
Just which cities in Europe, India and America are sufficiently low priority that you are willing to let them go for this adventure ?
For most people that are actually aware of whats happening in that part of the world, a full out exchange between India and Pakistan is a real possibility. You're advocating triggering what no sane person would want. Then there is the possibility of rogue nukes afterwards.
Brilliant.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Not even close...
by nargin
I remember the Cold War well. I remember leading a class discussion group about the Soviet threat in sixth grade to educate my classmates. I dissected issues of Soviet Life to understand my enemy. I remember life under a greater threat than this.
But by all means, let's discuss the nuclear threat to our nation. The world's greatest proliferator of nuclear technology is Pakistan's hero, A.Q. Khan. If someone sets off a nuke barge in the Hudson or Potomac, chances are excellent that the technology will have been derived from this man's efforts.
Pakistan cannot deliver nuclear weapons to American soil with conventional systems. India has made its capability of mutually assured destruction quite clear to Pakistan.
Once again, this militant cesspool teetering on revolution likely hosts OBL, and gave nuclear technology to our enemies. If these aren't top priority security concerns, that what is?
Your argument grows increasingly foolish
by Joliphant
If you actually lived through the cold war you have taken nothing away from it. That you can blithely speak of precipitating a nuclear exchange with a country that is cooperating with us to greater degree than many of our other so called allies is patently insane.
Its further indicated when you say things like this
Pakistan cannot deliver nuclear weapons to American soil with conventional systems.
You sir are just talking out of your rear. Pakistan has Missiles, Nukes, and Missile carrying submarines. At the worst they could launch the equivalent of a Regulus at us.
So I ask again which city are you willing to sacrifice to perpetrate this idiocy ?
Just how many loose nukes are you willing to have running around after the war is "won"
By your own description the country is fragmented. Just what do you think the odds are that even with a full scale pre-emptive first strike we would get all the weapons and not take retaliation ourselves ? I can tell you its close to zero.
P.S. I am glad you are so willing to endorse a strategy that will probably kill more people than all the wars of the 20th century put together. Personally I am happy our political leaders are a little more judicious in their use of arms.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Very well...
by nargin
...then let's hear from your rear, specifically how Pakistan would attack us with nukes. Here is the state of their capabilities. And that's as of now, not in 2002, when I assert that we should have crossed the border into territory that the central government of Pakistan itself doesn't even control. Let's hear specifics, including logistics...
Once again, and again, and again, they likely host the guy who murdered our citizens on 9/11 and proliferate nuclear technology to our mortal enemies. How exactly would you propose to deal with the issue?
As our president said of Saddam's Iraq:
Knowing these realities, America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.
Here's a place that we know for sure manufactures those mushroom clouds, and we knew that they did so when we were unsure of Saddam's capability in this respect. So if you regard this threat so seriously, how do we address it, particularly if one man's pulse stops and Pakistan's government suddenly reflects the will of its people?
By your logic attack france
by Joliphant
Seeing as they sold them submarines they could use to launch a counterstike. Agosta 90B Oh gee you forgot its possible to move missiles. I suppose you don't mind losing Honolulu, San Fran and LA and maybe San Diego.
Your lack of analysis is shocking but oddly enough not surprising. Especially, seeing as they have been preparing those subs to handle Nukes since 2001. And, they have been manufacturing their own subs since 2003
So once again what is it you are planning to do ? Attack Pakistan and hope you get everyone ?
As to how to deal with a potential revolution post Musharraf . Try to make certain it doesn't happen now.
Let me ask once again seeing as it has been implied. What is it that you don't understand about attacking to prevent a nation from acquiring nuclear weapons vs Attacking a nation that has nuclear weapons ?
To compare Iraq, a nation that was working on acquiring weapons had absolutely no long range delivery capability and was able to be quickly rolled up. With a nation that has nuclear weapons, would use them to defend itself, and be able to retaliate is idiocy.
I will ask again just how many Americans are you willing to have killed to attack an ally.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Not quite...
by nargin
The submarine in question, which the French have decommissioned in their own Navy, fires Exocet missiles, which carry a payload of 165kg. Good luck fitting homebrew nukes on that small a package. And the Pakistanis themselves renounced their intention to make the submarine capable of delivering nuclear warheads. And at 20 kts top speed submerged, we'd have a few weeks prep time to find the thing before it arrived on our coast. But you were spot on with the remaining details: it belongs to Pakistan and operates in the water.
So even though Pakistan aided and hosted and even developed our enemies, was a source of frustration to our efforts in Afghanistan, has a wide array of WMD, is run by a dictator, has periodic pogroms of its religious minorities, fights with its neighbors, and a host of other issues known with certainty rather than suspected, you say that Iraq was the proper country to deal with, not because it was the greater security threat, but because it was simply "low-hanging fruit"?
How about Iran? If it were to test a nuke tomorrow, would you suddenly consider it invincible and all military responses beyond contemplation? This nuclear club is quite an outfit; small wonder countries want to join it if it suddenly grants them immunity and amazing street cred.
What would I have done? Well, I wouldn't have rolled into Karachi or Islamabad or rained nuclear fire on their country, for crying out loud. Give me break.
What I would have done is informed Musharraf in early 2002 that we intended to prosecute limited operations in his northwestern provinces to pursue Taliban and Al Qaeda fighters, including the use of recon teams, special forces operations, and airstrikes to identify and destroy their resources in this area. And that they'd have the ability to select and attack targets at their discretion, not after a day's deliberation (and warning) from the Pakistani Ambassador. General M could keep this silent or public, at his discretion, depending on what he thought would save his neck, but I'd make clear it was going to happen regardless. And further dealings with his regime would depend on its compliance in this regard. Meanwhile, I'd do something that I applaud President Bush for doing: develop strong defense ties with India. Oh, and I'd also send a good portion of the troops that would have gone to Iraq to southeasten Afghanistan instead to prosecute the war we'd already begun. Plus do everything humanly possible to make A.Q.Khan disappear.
At this point, though, I frankly don't know. We've expended the momentum, urgency, and goodwill that we enjoyed five years ago. Unfortunately, it will probably take a tragedy in the form of another dramatic terrorist attack on America for us to regain the leverage needed to lance this boil.
And finally, I ask you right back: how many Americans are you willing to have killed to not attack the territory of an "ally" hosting an enemy regathering its strength to resume the murder of our people?
Even more laughable
by Joliphant
What I would have done is informed Musharraf in early 2002 that we intended to prosecute limited operations in his northwestern provinces to pursue Taliban and Al Qaeda fighters, including the use of recon teams, special forces operations, and airstrikes to identify and destroy their resources in this area
Yes thats brilliant. Just what do you think any Pakistani citizens response is going to be to the idea their country has been invaded and Musharaf is playing along with it ? You know that civil war you wanted to avoid creating ? You just created it. Hope the Pak C^3 system is adequate to prevent nukes being fired on our troops. (In Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq)
Nice attempt at recovering on the subs butAs I pointed out before the Regulus
or Regulus Thats the Regulus missile. A technology that is 60 years old, is launched from the top of a sub there isn't even a need for tubes. Pakistan can do the exact same thing. They do after all build their own subs and missiles. In the worst case they could just launch a V2 from the sub the same way germany and japan planned to.
Of course if you have a sub with a 10000 NM range, Nukes and suicide bombers, the missile is unnecesesary. Care to go on with more wishful thinking about how we wouldn't be able to struck back at ?
As to making A.Q. Khan dissapear, The man is Pakistan's national hero. He delivered them from the threat of Indian Nuclear terror. You'd have had about as good luck getting George Washington dissapeared from the colonies.
To answer your question back at me, Considerably less dead Americans than your plan would produce immediately. Working with the Pakistani government lets us enhance their stability and at least figure out who our enemies really are.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Your grasp of military hardware...
by nargin
...is rather lacking. To launch a Regulus missile from a sub, even assuming that it could carry their type of nuke, they'd either have to mount the thing on the top of the sub and slowly putt putt putt over to NA without submerging, fully visible the whole time, or build an entirely new design of sub with watertight hangers equipped for transporting and launching these things.
Regardless of what you think, this is a dirt poor country with limits on its resources and technology. Yes, they're building a sub, with French tutoring and blueprints (and managed to murder a good number of the French engineers), but the idea that they could build a whole new nuclear-equipped model from scratch is silly. Or maybe you're expecting they'll instead have space-based death rays by next Tuesday?
In the worst case they could just launch a V2 from the sub the same way germany and japan planned to.
Sure! Why, it's just that easy! Never mind the challenge of trying to load fuel and liquid oxygen on a 50ft missile teetering on a sub deck in tossing seas. Even if you shot it off, you're not going to be able to hit anything with it but the ground, maybe, somewhere. You need a carefully surveyed launch site and a stable platform even on land to ensure the inertial calibration needed to establish proper guidance to a target. Otherwise, you're wasting your time, and aren't much better, probably much worse, than Hezbollah using chop-shop junk to hurl concrete hunks into population centers. I really doubt these chuckleheads have SeaLaunch-type capabilities.
So you truly think we're impotent against Pakistan? Again I ask, and challenge you for an answer this time, what if we needed to strike Iran after it tested a nuke and joined the club? Would we simply give up and prostrate ourselves before their tender mercies? They, too, have subs, and planes, and rockets, and suicide bombers, and are next door to our troop concentrations. What if we thought they were about to launch against Israel or were responsible for a major suicide bombing against our troops in Iraq? Nolo contendere?
Maybe so.
by Joliphant
Its been over 20 years since I worked for a defense contractor.
But your knowledge of weapon systems seems nonexistent.
Seeing as the Nazis did launch a v2 from a submarine
The IJN used submarines as aircraft carriers. The same system could easily accommodate several cruise missiles.
Of course in the worst they could just put the nukes in the subs and smuggle them into cities.
When you speak in such a contemptuous manner and with such arrogance regarding the most deadly weapons ever conceived, I understand the lib characterization of conservatives as war mongering idiots War is not something to be entered into lightly. Blithely wishing your enemy can't do you damage is not a battle plan. Discounting their abilities is not strategy. Write back when you actually understand a little of what you are talking about. For what its worth you can have the last word.
Oh as for Iran. They need to be dealt with before they have nukes. After we know they have nukes it will be too late.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
No, they didn't...
by nargin
...at least by your own reference. It stated that the Germans made successful tests with artillery rockets 20-30cm diameter. A V2 is a 200-mile-range ballistic missile with a 1.65m diameter, its launch is a far more complex undertaking, and, once again, it needs an established inertial orientation state to launch with any degree of accuracy. It already had at least several miles circular-error-probability in what it could hit; launched on a pitching platform, its accuracy would degrade tremendously. Even mobile launchers on land have to be parked on graded, surveyed sites and carefully calibrated to local conditions. You could stick a long plumb bob on the capsules in the drawings on your reference, but surface wave motion is still going to create a good deal of torque about the CG; now imagine trying to attempt this in inhospitable weather. There's a very good reason that everyone today places long-range missiles inside large stable submarines for a submerged launch and adapts the rocket's guidance specifically for that environment.
Look...I'm not trying to come across as bloodthirsty. I'm simply trying to establish two points. One, I'm making the technical point that not only are these capabilities not likely to be included in those of the Pakistanis, they take a lot more effort and savvy than you seem to understand.
And two, we must have options for dealing with powder-keg proliferating states like Pakistan that are penciled-in lightly in the "ally" column today and may be otherwise tomorrow, particularly if they play host to folks like OBL with whom we are already in a state of mutual warfare. Their military threat is obviously not comparable to that of the Soviet Union at its height, and we can't base our contingency planning on equating the two threats in severity.
reply here
by Joliphant
http://www.redstate.com/stories/war/failure_is_not_an_option#comment-486...
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
If you bothered to follow the poster in question
by mbecker908
you would note that a discussion was not on his agenda. He is every bit as open minded as Nancy Pelosi or John Kerry. My regret with him is that I wasn't snotty enough.
I would have no problem going after Pakistan in some fashion, and inserting SpOps to provide support or direct action is a perfectly good idea.
The toad to whom I originally responded, and I suspect you, are totally clueless about what's going on in Iraq and what the result will be if we follow the Democrat's demands and surrender. It's a complete waste of time to make the case to "him" because "he" obviously was fast asleep for the last 30 years contact with Islamic terrorists. We tried negotiations. Doesn't work. We tried running away from them. Just emboldens them. We tried treating them as a law enforcement problem. Doesn't work AND emboldens them. The only thing that will work is to kill them at a place of our choosing.
They are in Iraq in reasonably large numbers, we should kill them in large numbers. How they got there is now of no consequence, killing them is.
With respect to your whine about name calling, I've not called anyone but John Kerry a traitor, and that is related to 1971. I'm reasonably sure Moe would have banned me if I was calling people monkeys. Cowards on the other hand, I would willingly apply to most of the leadership of the Democratic Party for the last 30 - 40 years with very few exceptions.
That the war effort is poorly executed, I think you'll find more agreement to that idea here than at Kos. The difference is that here, most of us want to step up the fight and win it while the Kos crowd - and the Democratic Party want to go hide under a bed and whimper.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
I've not the slightest interest...
by nargin
...in negotiating with terrorists. I want our armed forces to kill them. There's scant evidence that AQI existed before we made a vast Mesopotamian summer camp in which they could garner expertise in killing Americans. We hung out our troops as human fly paper there, and, surprise, surprise, AQ followed the scent to expend their limitless minions against them.
As for Pakistan, recall Willie Sutton's famous retort as to why he robbed banks: "That's where the money is." Pakistan is where the terrorists not only were, but are. In 2001-2002, we had enough momentum and global sympathy that that stupid, largely fictitious line on the map between Kandahar and Waziristan could have been breached at acceptable cost. No longer. And now we have to live with the consequences of being bogged down a thousand miles west of the puppetmaster's home. It's infuriating...
Pakistan is indeed a key front
by qlangley
There are many in this asymmetric multi-faceted war. Saudi Arabia is another.
The important difference between Afghanistan and Iraq on the one hand and Saudi Arabia and Pakistan on the other is that the prior governments in Afghanistan and Iraq were our inveterate enemies, interested in co-operating with any of our other enemies that they could. In Saudi Arabia and Pakistan the governments are co-operating with us against the terrorists. As much as we would like? Perhaps not. Do the governments there fully control all aspects of the state? Certainly not. Do they speak for every individual in the country? Er, no, does any government?
The point is that regime change is really hard to execute. You need to find allies on the ground and then create a new government. It is likely to be years (longer in Pakistan's case - you do know it has twice the area of Iraq and six times the population, right?) before the new government can be an effective ally in confronting the terrorists. And what is the point? The current governments are already co-operating with us. Trying to create a new government that could be a more effective ally would probably be the work of decades and would be a dubious prospect for success even on that timescale.
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
International Editor of
STEP UP THE FIGHT
by followtheleader
How do we do that?
Do you think Bush has the backbone to call for re-instatement of the draft?
That's what we need. Swarms of soldiers pouring across borders.
Yeeeeee-haw.
Ahh, the old Yeee-haw argument
by qlangley
Well that's got me persuaded that, against the advice of all military experts, a draft is of enormous relevance to today's asymmetric, multi-faceted war.
You don't think your arguments would be more welcome at Kos or DU?
Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net
International Editor of
Are we going to go to war...
by furious
...are you saying the U.S. doesn't get to pick its battles, at least while it still has the luxury of doing so? That if we can't get to AQ everywhere, and all at once, that we shouldn't engage them at all?
And how would "proper immigration policy" and "protection of borders and ports" prevented the following...
1.USS Cole (Yemen)
2.Khobar Towers (Saudi)
3.Riyadh Training Center (Saudi)
4.Embassy bombings (Kenya and Tanzania)
5.Danny Pearl's torture, murder, and mutilation (Pakistan)
all of which occurred before we began spending billions in Iraq?
Take your time.
--furious
"I find your lack of faith disturbing." -- Darth Vader
Going after Al Qaeda
by xseal5@yahoo.com
Are you saying we had to go to war in Iraq in order to fight Al Qaeda??????
1) We didn't have to go to war in Iraq to go after those responsible for the USS Cole.
2) Why the hell do we have to be there?
3) Why the hell do we have to be there?
4) We don't have to go to war with a country to go after those resonsible for the embassies in Kenya and Tanzania
5) Come on????
How could we be safer?
Secure the borders and ports with people and technology.
Stop allowing Muslims into our country. Some in Europe are already calling for a stop to all muslim immagration.
Pretty simple.
BWAHAHAHA!
by bs
>>>Stop allowing Muslims into our country.<<<
You can't be stupid enough to think that'll ever happen. Talk about fodder for the left. Now I'm not saying it shouldn't happen - I'm saying it WON'T happen. Does "internment camps" ring a bell?
WON'T happen
by xseal5@yahoo.com
You're more than likely correct, but that doesn't mean it isn't the right thing to do. If we realy wanted to secure the homeland we would keep them out. Islam is incompatible with Liberty and Freedom.
Annnnnnd thanks for playing, Sparky.
by Moe Lane
Religious bigotry is strictly forbidden here: have fun expressing it somewhere else.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
Yo, Sparky!
by Sgt. Meatbeef
Do you like the name "Sparky," Sparky? Do you think calling people "Sparky" insults them, Sparky? I wouldn't know, Sparky, but "Sparky" has such nice, sparky ring to it. I think I'm going to like calling you "Sparky," Sparky.
Have a bully day, Sparky! Bully, I say! A good bully day to you all!
Now, X, you can go back to your
by mbecker908
full time job. Playing with the online polls for RonPaul™.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
Islamism, yes
by Charles Bird
Islam? Not necessarily. I think you're conflating the two, and in process falsely stigmatizing an entire religion.
...war against CrusaderJews, and states that its goal to re-establish the Caliphate there. Better there than aboard another United or American flight or in the New York subways.
Safer? Has there been another mass-casualty attack on American Soil since 9-11? (Hint -- it's a one-word answer).
#1: Answering a question not asked.
#4: Yes we do -- Afghanistan.
#1 and 4: At least reciprocate the courtesy and answer the question as asked.
#2, 3, and 5 appear to be silly non-sequiturs or nervous tics.
You're starting to bore me...
--furious
"I find your lack of faith disturbing." -- Darth Vader
Ahem
by kchand
They are ALREADY here. Did you miss the JFK attempt along with many others?
You shouldn't come to intellectual exchanges unarmed.
Now you know why posters believe you are a troll.
--------------------
Vista really sucks!
Yah. Tell me how committed they are to engaging in supporting Petraeus on the Hill. Katherine Jean Lopez exposes in damning detail the risible incompetence of this WH in getting the Republicans on the same page in today's Corner. Money quote:
For weeks now whenever I talk to Senate staff, within minutes, if even seconds, I notice the dread: What are we going to do about Iraq? And how is the White House going to help us with the opposition right here in the Senate? We want to give it a chance, but it's not like the winds are blowing in our favor, in terms of public opinion, in terms of statesmen-like willingness across the aisle, in terms of getting a ton of leadership help from the White House.
This morning one Senate staffer involved in both big fights recently (immigration, war) expressed his alarm: "The White House is not engaging even 1/2 as much as they did on immigration and they are in a hole now, with little capital left to spend."
The biggest strategic move of the entire Iraq Campaign and the President was surprised by Voinovich? He was surprised by Lugar? He was surprised by Domenici?
Get this: in the middle of a critical military campaign in which Bush needed every man in the Senate he could get, he sent a third level staffer to sit down with one of his Republican Senators, instead of doing the Face Time with the Senator himself. I'm sorry, but this is B.S.. Petraeus needs help, big time, and all the time he can get to ward off an irresponsible Democratic "Peace Now" freight train that will be critically bad for the larger war. If Lopez is correct, Bush isn't helping him too much.
If this White House doesn't even care to stay on top of the Republican caucus, to do what needs be done to keep the Republicans on the same page so Petraeus and our fighting men have half a chance to win this fight, then my friends, you need to wake up and smell the coffee: Failure is an option! And you need to demand that this WH get its act together, because the Democrats certainly won't.
George Bush is the only President we have right now. His instincts are, sometimes, very good. Recently, they've been hideously bad. Spending all your political capital attacking your own people on immigration was stupid. Being surprised by your own people about Iraq was even worse.
Folks, don't blame Domenici or Lugar. There's a simple lack of leadership and energy out of this White House on Iraq. Period. When that happens, the Senate reverts to type: Every Man for Himself.
"History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it"-Winston Churchill
There is little doubt this White House has failed miserably
by spainishirish
to sell the war to Republican senators, let alone the general public, so I can't disagree with you on any point here. Yet today was a good start, and if one-tenth the effort that was devoted to destroy the party via CIR is put into lobbying the Congress to hold off on cutting and running, things still can be turned around. But that window of opportunity almost is shut and the White House had better continue to send the president out as it did today. If needed, even daily.
Bullsheet
by itrytobenice
I cut them no slack at all. Our senators are elected to represent the United States of America and are members of a co-equal branch of gov't. If they can only do the right thing when the President is running interference for them, covering for
Regardless of how someone felt about the initial mission, to withdraw now would be complete insanity. The world in general and the United States in particular would be left vulnerable to these jackals. Genocide would happen throughout Iraq and eventually the region. Israel will be on borrowed time. Iran and al-Qaeda will be the key regional players, something that should give anyone pause.
It has become apparent that victory is not an option for most Democrats and a shameful number of Republicans in our Congress. The rush to leave now isn't because of our failures but because of our recent successes and the September report which probably will reflect the same.
We also need to encourage the White House not to cave to congressional pressure. After some initially disturbing signs the Administration would capitulate, it appears the president finally has put his foot down. Now he needs to go out and convince the public of the wisdom of what he has done--something he has failed to do up until this point.
No one expects and open-ended commitment, but everyone should oppose a premature withdrawal.
Again, congratulations to the Directors.