Redstate

" If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime--Pol Pot or others--that had no concern for human beings. Sadly, that is not the case. This was the action of Americans in the treatment of their prisoners."

"We are fighting an enemy that murdered 3,000 innocent people on American soil 3 1/2 years ago and would murder millions more if given the chance--and according to Dick Durbin, our soldiers are the Nazis."
From this Wall Street Journal Article

Sen Durbin may be offering hope that things are improving today, but Sen Durbin's and other politicians, previous statements (such as the one shown here) have contributed to the efforts of terrorists to defeat Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan; just as surely as John Kerry, Jane Fonda, Walter Cronkite and their supporters aided the efforts of the North Vietnamese in killing Americans in Vietnam.

amen to the Petraeus for President notion. Second, on the overall topic, momentum is a fleeting thing, here today, gone tomorrow.

I remember right after John McCain's speech at VMI there was also momentum and then a string of car bombs took that away. I think the operative word right now is cautiously optimistic on not only the success of the surge, but Bush's ability to fend of the Democrats come September in ending the war.

What I would really like to see is a gentleman by the last name of Al Masri killed or captured. You want to talk about momentum, how about that for momentum.

"The nine most dangerous words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'"

Ronald Reagan

www.proprietornation.blogspot.com

I have been wondering the same thing. It seems that the GOP has no plan, only reaction. What happened to strategic thinking in the GOP party?

Oh by the way, what is RedState doing? Well for one thing, we have sponsored reporters to go over there and actually tell us what they see and what is happening. That may have something to do with the problem the Democrats are having trying to tell the people that nothing is happening.

What's next? Will the military progress result in political progress, probably given time. I guess we better start up startegery on how to get that time for the Iraqis.

I wonder if Jeff could start working that issue with the Iraqi parliament members?

people in place - they were people who could initially rally the people, but most likely represent extreme positions, hence the deadlock. I think through what is happening on the ground with our troops, the folks who are capable of working together for a common cause will become the second wave of politicians who will be able to move the country forward.

The political process will need to work fro mthe bottom up, not the top down. It will be interesting how the people put pressure on their elected officials while they are home for the summer break.

Actually have you noticed that the definition of "poor" keeps changing everytime we get close to taking care of the current definition.

Eventually poor will be anyone with an Escalade, a masters degree, and an iPhone.

That is truly the one frustrating thing about Democrats. Once you think you have them nailed down to a position and you're close to proving them wrong, without blinking an eye, they'll LIE to your face and claim that was never really what they were talking about and now THIS is what they were talking about.

... we'll never get rid of poverty completely.

See: Deuteronomy 15:11, Matthew 26:11, Mark 14:7, John 12:8

---
(Formerly known as bee) / Internet member since 1987
Member of the Surreality-Based Community

Troops have a military mission. See my post above for my response about the politics.

www.iraqthemodel.blogspot.com has some very good discussion as well.

I really am getting tired of repeating the same old thing over and over, but it seems that some folks have not bothered to study up on our enemies in the broader war on jihadism.

The jihadists have three main objectives:
1.) Expel all "infidels" from Muslim lands.
2.) Unify all Muslim people under a single caliphate.
3.) Resume the fatah and conquer the dar el harb, converting or killing all who stand in the way. (that's the entire non-Muslim world by the way.)

By finishing our mission in Iraq we deny the jihadists all three objectives. That is a solid victory that can be built upon in the future. Sadly this war is not a video game. We will never be able to end it fast enough to suit a population that has a very short attention span and is very self-centered. This war will take time because our enemies are patient and are prepared to take decades or even centuries to achieve their objectives. We must be willing to match their persistance. No one should need to be reminded every five minutes of what is at stake and what we are fighting for.

It is going to take time for the Sunnis and Shia in Iraq to reconcile after what they have put each other through. It took us a long time to get things as good as they are here and we are still not done. We also didn't have to start from such bitterly opposing positions. We have to help the Iraqis obtain the kind of stability and security that will give them the opportunity to work things out.

nt

I appreciate it sir! Now if I could just get the Repubs in DC to repeat that kind of material every chance they get, then maybe the Demos would have to come up with something new.

Do you carry on sleeping when you have these dreams or do they wake you up?

We're spending $100B + a year on Iraq and you want to outlast "our enemies" even if it takes "decades or centuries"! First of all for that to happen we'd have to ask for China's permission since they now own $900B of our Treasury debt and as of this week seem prepared to utilize that leverage over us (at least in rhetoric, and in respose to our grumbling about their currency manipulation). And second you'd have to ask American's who as of November 2006 don't seem to agree with you (presuming you're not in favor of doing away with democracy in America).

Realistically.....if the political situation in Iraq is not going to be stabilzied within 2-3 maybe 5 years tops there is no point in spilling more American blood.

BTW we're not fighting AQ in Baghdad...that's not the main enemy (I admit I havn't been there but that is at least according to Patreaeus).

You cannot put a price on the necessary measures taken to defeat our enemies. World War II was a helluva lot more expensive in terms of lives lost and percentage of GDP spent, but it was absolutely necessary. My opinion is that our war with the jihadists, of which Iraq has been made a part, is equally necessary.

My personal opinion is that it should not take decades or centuries provided we maintain an offensive posture and continue to deny our enemies any victories. While AQ may not be the largest enemy in Iraq, make no mistake they are there. Neither the insurgents nor the jihadists are capable of defeating our forces militarily. The more aggressive our posture the more security and stability we can provide. Only with security and stability can the Shia and Sunni begin to do the heavy lifting that will be necessary for them to reach a legitimate reconciliation. Our goal should not be to remain in the region forever, but to remain in the region until the job is done regardless of the cost.

It is a pitch in the dirt, but I will swing anyway...We don't have to ask China's permission to increase our debt. They need the American consumer as much as, if not MORE, than we need them to buy up our debt.

Lastly...I believe a significant majority of Americans would be persuaded to complete our mission in Iraq if it were explained to them in the context of denying a victory to the jihadists who have a vested interest in seeing us leave Iraq with our tail between our legs. The comments made by Osama and Zawahiri that they want us to stay so they can kill us are little more than empty bravado. They are spoon feeding the segment of the population who want us to leave already. It is propoganda plain and simple.

"But to what end is this "surge" happening?"

Establishing a long-term military presence in Iraq to combat the spread of Iran's and Syria's destabilizing influence in the region, and to neutralize Iran's nuclear weapon program.

That is of course, in addition to our continued effort to combat Islamic Fascism on a global scale and secure Pakistan's nuclear arsenal.

***

“Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't so.” – Ronald Reagan

We're going to keep this up until a Repuplican wins the White House and we recapture the House and Senate with veto-proof majorities in 2009. Then we extend the mission for 8 years and put the hurting on jihadist allies in our country who keep denigrating the hard work of our troops. That in turn cuts off the propaganda war, which is the war the jihadists are REALLY waging, and maybe by the end of that 8 years we'll have a stable democratic Iraq, and in less time than it took to create here in the good ole USA when we did it.