I’ve been putting off writing this post for a couple of months. Not out of any fear of blogospheric consequences although it would pain me if my honest opinion drove people away from this site. But I realize many readers who have been following my evolving position on the War in Iraq know how pessimistic I have become over the last six months about the chances of that bloody land achieving anything like a stable, democratic government. For them, it may come as no surprise that I have reached a point where I believe we must make a decision as a nation about whether we want to continue our involvement – which would mean an increase in resources and a direct confrontation with Iran and Syria over their massive support for the terrorists and insurgents – or whether we should pack up and go home. In other words, escalate or leave.
Why now? And why bother writing about it?
Simply put, the reason I have come to this conclusion now is that the enemies of Iraqi democracy have established a clear upper hand in the country and it is uncertain at best whether the situation can be retrieved at this point.
And the reason to write about it is equally simple; to join a growing chorus of conservatives who are becoming very critical of our involvement and try and break through the spin and myopia of the Administration which is making the situation worse by pretending that things are getting better or are not as bad as we think they are.
The ultimate question to be asked is do we make one, final, massive attempt to alter the deteriorating situation by committing more resources to the war while at the same time giving ultimatums to both Syria and Iran to halt their clandestine and outrageously illegal assistance to the terrorists who are murdering thousands of civilians every month.
The risks involved in the latter should be self-evident; a general Middle East war that could drag the world into both economic chaos and a massive regional conflict with uncertain consequences for our friends and allies. And, of course, the risk in committing more resources is that we increase the number of American targets for the terrorists and insurgents as well as face the possibility that all our efforts will be for naught anyway.
The evidence that has been piling up the last three years against this Administration’s management of the war can no longer be dismissed as the rantings of dissatisfied bureaucrats or the partisan attacks of critics. Fiasco by Thomas Ricks, a respected military correspondent for the Washington Post, is an absolutely devastating account of the war and how the civilians (and some Generals) in the Pentagon not only made massive and continued mistakes in Iraq but also when confronted with the facts on the ground that refuted their rosy forecasts of progress, refused to change direction. This not only cost American lives but also helped the insurgency grow.
But perhaps the most damning record of stupidity and spin comes via the book Cobra II by Michael R. Gordon and General (Ret.) Bernard E. Trainor. Much of the book is a heartbreaking recitation of erroneous assumptions, overly optimistic assessments, and finally, a risible refusal to admit mistakes and change course.
Lest one think that these books are the products of left wing loons or authors suffering from Bush Derangement Syndrome, the one common thread running through both volumes is the massive amount of research and unprecedented access to documents that went into writing them. To deny the reality of all that these authors have uncovered is too much of a stretch, even for a Bush partisan like myself. Facts are facts and if the Administration had confronted many of the problems – insurgency, militias, disenchanted populace, the extent of foreign assistance to the insurgents, and sectarian factionalism to name a few – it may be that a different outcome to the war could have been salvaged.
For as it stands now, we are at a psychological tipping point in Iraq where drastic measures are needed in order to turn the situation around and give the weak Iraqi government a chance to gain control. There are many hands raised against this government and as of right now, they are losing any semblance of legitimacy due to their powerlessness in the face of the massive violence that has been unleashed.
Here’s a short list, by no means comprehensive, of what is happening in Iraq as you read this:
- An Sunni insurgency that despite offers of amnesty and clemency continues apace and if anything, is growing stronger and bolder. Certainly a large part of the insurgents strategy now is to ratchet up the violence in the lead up to the American elections in hopes that the Democrats can gain control of Congress and force the President to withdraw. And in perhaps the most disheartening news imaginable, as we have transferred troops from insurgent strongholds in the central provinces to Baghdad in order to quell the violence there, the insurgents have moved back into areas vacated by departing American troops and have re-established themselves in towns already “swept and cleared” by our men.
- The Iraqi army is not making the kind of progress that would allow us to draw down our forces anytime soon. With the exception of a dozen brigades (around 7500 men), the Iraqis are poorly equipped, poorly trained, poorly led, and are riddled with corruption and infiltrated by militias whose loyalty to the government is at best questionable.
- The end result of the Israeli-Hizbullah war has emboldened both Iran and the militias who are apparently doing Tehran’s bidding by stoking the fires of sectarian conflict. The Shia militia death squads are taking a fearful toll of Sunnis and are even starting to fight amongst themselves. There is ample anecdotal evidence of the Iraqi army turning the other way while the slaughter goes on which calls into question whether the violence can be stopped by American forces alone.
- In the south, Shia on Shia violence is also starting to escalate as militias battle for supremacy in towns and villages that were formerly peaceful. More Iranian meddling here as one of the prime movers behind the violence are the Badr Brigades who, like Hizbullah, were trained in Iran.
- In the north, a confrontation with NATO member Turkey has been avoided for the present as the terrorist arm of the Kurdish independence movement, the PKK, continues it cross-border terrorist activities against Turkish targets. The Turks had threatened to invade Iraq and handle the PKK problem with or without our blessing which has necessitated sending precious assets to the border region in order to deal with the Kurds.
- Also in the north, sporadic fighting is occurring between Kurds and Shias over oil rights. Despite clearly belonging to the Kurds, northern oil centers are under pressure from Shias as they seek to move the Kurds out.
- While weakened, al-Qaeda in Iraq has not gone away and is killing dozens daily with sophisticated car bombs and some suicide bombers. Coordination between the Sunni militias who make up the insurgency and the terrorists in AQI has improved in recent months thanks to the elimination of al-Zarqawi who was generally hated by all Iraqis. So for every step forward, it appears at times that we lose a step in the process.
- There are now more than 250,000 Iraqi refugees (mostly Sunnis) – people driven out of their homes in mixed Shia-Sunni areas by force. The dwindling number who stay in these areas are subject to harassment and ostracism.
- Criminal gangs who kidnap up to 70 Iraqis a week for ransom. They use the money to fund their extortion and shakedown rackets as well as buy guns to sell to insurgents.
- 3400 dead civilians in July alone. Thousands more injured. And no sign of any let up in August.
The government’s plan to combat this escalating violence which was implemented in June has failed miserably. They deployed 60,000 Iraqi troops and policemen in Baghdad in order to stem the violence. All told, the violence worsened. This is the direct result of the machinations of the Iranian backed cleric Muqtada al-Sadr whose Mehdi militia at the moment is engaged in a low level insurgency against Americans.
It is al-Sadr’s thugs who are carrying out the brutal public execution of hundreds of Sunnis with impunity. Only recently has the government given the go ahead to try and take the Mehdi militia down, something long past due. Since the police and army are simply too untrustworthy for this task, it has fallen to Americans with some assistance from the Iraqi army to try and defang the Shia militia. We are suffering increasing casualties as we move through Sadr City and systematically go door to door looking for weapons and members of the death squads. It is uncertain how this campaign will turn out.
But this campaign may be undermined by the government of Prime Minister al-Maliki. The medicine is harsh and some innocents are being killed. Maliki has already severely criticized the operation and it is unclear at this point whether we have scaled back our operations in response. If so, it makes the job of disarming the Mehdis that much more difficult.
But even disarming the militias, while minimizing the violence, won’t help deal with the insurgency. This is a political problem for the Iraqis themselves and one that, so far, they have failed to address in any comprehensive way. Clearly some kind of amnesty program and national reconciliation will be needed. But this will never happen until Shias stop killing Sunnis. Most of the insurgency is made up of Sunni militias whose tribal and clan loyalties require them to protect their own and not depend on the central government to do so. They will never disarm until they can be assured that their participation in the political process will not leave their people open to slaughter.
Given all of these complex and heartbreaking problems, what has our government been telling us about the state of affairs in Iraq?
Here’s Rumsfeld earlier this month:
Q: Is the country closer to a civil war?
SEC. RUMSFELD: Oh, I don’t know. You know, I thought about that last night, and just musing over the words, the phrase, and what constitutes it. If you think of our Civil War, this is really very different. If you think of civil wars in other countries, this is really quite different. There is—there is a good deal of violence in Baghdad and two or three other provinces, and yet in 14 other provinces there’s very little violence or numbers of incidents. So it’s a—it’s a highly concentrated thing. It clearly is being stimulated by people who would like to have what could be characterized as a civil war and win it, but I’m not going to be the one to decide if, when or at all.
The “14 other provinces” may not have the violence that Baghdad has but Rumsfeld never mentions the lawlessness that necessitates a constant military presence in the streets. Not does he mention that 75% of the Iraqi people live in the three most violent provinces.
Similar sentiments have been echoed by the President, albeit with a little less nonchalance. What this adds up to is an Administration unwilling or unable to face up to its past blunders and apply the necessary lessons in order to try and win through to victory.
For if there is a victory to be had in Iraq – and one can just barely make one out in the distance amidst the blood and ruin – it will take courage on the part of the President to confront these problems and do what is necessary in order to reverse course. And this will entail both risks and probably a larger casualty count among Americans fighting there.
Yes we need more troops – a lot more at least temporarily. Order must be brought to Baghdad and its environs and to do that we would need, according to General Trainor, is perhaps as many as 50,000 more Americans to both police the area and ferret out insurgents and the death squads.
For that to happen, the President would have to admit he and Donald Rumsfeld have been wrong all along and that in order to achieve stability, the additional troops must be sent. It is of the utmost distress to me that this President has failed to take responsibility for past mistakes and admitted to error in prosecuting the war. The grudging admissions of mistakes just isn’t getting it done. If he is serious about winning in Iraq (and he has called Iraq the “frontline” in the war on terror”) then he is going to have to go before the American people and explain why additional troops are necessary.
Yes I can understand why he has not admitted past mistakes and errors. The political climate wouldn’t give him “credit” for doing so. The situation in Iraq has gone far beyond the politics of the moment and now engages the future security of the United States. If he can’t be a man and take the inevitable finger pointing and name calling, then all hope is lost and we should start bringing the troops home now. The whispers in Washington that the President wishes to simply “hang on” in Iraq and leave the denouement to his successor is possibly the most immoral, cynical thing I’ve ever heard – which leads me to believe that it is not true. But it is equally immoral to simply apply more of the same prescriptions to a war that is now clearly out of control. Drastic changes are necessary. And if the President is not willing to apply them whether out of fear of the political consequences to his presidency or the Republican party, then he doesn’t deserve to sit in the big chair.
In war, rhetoric must match reality or you lose credibility. By constantly reminding us that Iraq is at the forefront of our anti-terror strategy – and then not doing the things necessary to win through to victory – the President takes the risk that our deterrent will lose its edge. And this is no more true than in the actions of Iran and Syria.
Both nations have judged that we will do nothing to stop them from continuing their support for the terrorists and the insurgency. We interdict what supplies and men that we can but it isn’t enough. And Iran and Syria have apparently decided that since there is no downside to their support for our enemies in Iraq, that they can bleed us white while engineering a humiliating defeat for American prestige in the process.
Jawboning hasn’t worked. Clearly some kind of diplomatic demarche is in order. Whether it involves sitting down in formal talks and making clear that our apathy toward their support for terrorists is at an end or we actually threaten force against assets that are supporting the insurgents, peace will not come to Iraq until those two nations stop their meddling. And why we have done so little in the past three years to stop them is, to my mind, one of the biggest mysteries of the war.
Restoring hope to the Iraqi people by radically diminishing the violence will help retrieve a situation that is getting worse by the week. It will take courage, initiative, boldness, and a more humble approach to the problems caused by our presence there. But there really isn’t any viable alternative. If we leave, Iraq will become what we all fear; a haven for radical Shia fundamentalism and terror. And the humanitarian disaster of Sunnis being slaughtered and driven out of the country will be a reality that will echo as painfully as the plight of the Vietnamese boat people a generation ago.
But if we are not willing to do what is necessary to win, then the only sane, moral course of action is to bring the troops home as fast as humanly possible. Such a humiliation should not result in a single additional death or injury to the men and women who have performed so bravely and selflessly in the face of blunder after blunder by their superiors.
To those of you who have taken the trouble to read this piece in its entirety, I thank you.
UPDATE 8/22
The Commissar weighs in with a comprehensive critique of Iraq of his own. He prescriptions are similar and he mentions something that I didn’t make clear.
I still support the policy that led us to invade in the first place. How is that possible given the failures to date? (Yes Dave, our policy will be a success when we are able to draw down the bulk of our troops and we are farther from that today than we were at the beginning of the year).
Those who see the war on terror as a police action fail, in my opinion, to take into account the rogue states that support and facilitate terrorism. Try as you might, you cannot seperate Saddam from Palestinian bombers (who he gave $25,000 to the family of the suicide bombers) or from radical fundamentalists who all evidence points to him getting closer to. It is also clear to any objective observer given the revelations contained in the Saddam papers, that the dictator and al-Qaeda were in close contact and were on the verge of consumating a strategic partnership in order to attack American targets.
This does not mean we attack willy nilly countries like Iran, Syria, Yemen, or Saudi Arabia. It does mean that we need a military as a credible threat and, in extreme cases, to effect regime change. There is a large military component to the War on Terror and I agree with the Commissar that Iraq was a logical target. The fact that the post war environment was botched unconscionably doesn’t obviate that point.
1:14 pm
[...] Right Wing Nut House » IRAQ: QUIT OR COMMIT The evidence that has been piling up the last three years against this Administration’s management of the war can no longer be dismissed as the rantings of dissatisfied bureaucrats or the partisan attacks of critics. Fiasco by Thomas Ricks, a respected military correspondent for the Washington Post, is an absolutely devastating account of the war and how the civilians (and some Generals) in the Pentagon not only made massive and continued mistakes in Iraq but also when confronted with the facts on the ground that refuted their rosy forecasts of progress, refused to change direction. This not only cost American lives but also helped the insurgency grow. [...]
1:24 pm
I am a firm believer that our position in Iraq will be a strategic placing when we battle with Iran …as for leaving Iraq, if we give up and let it go, Iran will take it over and we might as well say western civilization is soon to be a thing of the past. This is a clarion time in history, if we punk out now we should be prepared to eventually give up life as we have known it.
1:57 pm
Great post but I still think we are in transition in the Middle East and Iraq is just one part of the puzzle. Therefore, yes we in the middle of a violent, dangerous time in Iraq but the endgame has not played out. Yes there have been errors, but quite honestly I fully expected these and also this is typical in any major conflict.
Let’s look at the bigger picture. Iraq was all about establishing a strategic front by cutting off Syria from Iran, as well as surrounding Iran for the inevitable denouement in this war, which started in 1979. I still maintain it was a good move, the evidence being Iran’s continual attempts to keep American forces focussed on internal Iraqi matters, and not them, since the invasion. The signs are OK - we have 160,000 combat experienced troops on Iran’s eastern frontier; as well as assets and troops surrounding Iran. We are ready to move if needed.
Back to Iraq. The result of the war with Iran will determine the future of Iraqis. I’m a firm believer that once the mullahs are gone, much of the tension in the region, as well as Iraq specifically, will decrease. Within Iraq, Al-Sadr will lose his patron and his momentum. This will dramatically affect the violence between Shiites and Sunnis.
2:20 pm
I agree with the commenters above. Iraq is the strategic staging ground for the inevitable confrontation with Iran.
Personally, I believe Bush has been biding his time, quietly building his forces, waiting until after the midterm elections. I do not think he is going to leave a mess in the Middle East for his successor. I think he is going to wait until the time is right, then the U.S. and Israel are going to strike.
Once Iran is dealt with, as it must be, Iraq will stabilize. Then we can turn our attention to the real problem, Saudi Arabia.
2:31 pm
Iraq: All Exits Closed? Detours Where?
As everyone was focused for the past month or better on the Israel-Hezbollah conflict, the little matter of the ongoing spiral into chaos and instability in Iraq has tended to fall off the political radar. From Wapo today:
3:37 pm
We have been in Iraq four years. The Islamonazis have been preparing for this movement for 1200 years. Oh, I know, the U.S. has not existed for 1200 years, but remember we ARE the Big Satan.
Pull out of Iraq and what? Then Iran, which is the major source of the insurgency and is funding it, simply walks in, takes over and we lose our strategic foothold. Iran then has a clear path to Syria and Lebanon.
Did we think this was going to be a quick war? Did we think that after four years, we would have defeated an enemy that has been waiting centuries to take us down? But with the aid of the MSM, the American people really do not understand the stakes. All they see are the body counts.
If this president has failed on anything, it is his explaination to the American people just exactly what is at stake with the WOT. For the first time, he uttered the words “Islamic fascists”. We have been told how Islam really is a religion of peace. But anyone who has read the Quran and takes it’s mantra literally, would understand that is wrong. Do we expect to change one billion minds because we are such nice people?
We have two choices: be in this for the long (and I do mean long) haul, or give up and give the Islamonazis another thing to claim victory over?
The president needs to make clear what a lot of bloggers have been saying, we are in the fight of our lives, the most important one in our history, and we damn well better stick to our guns. We need to show the duplicity of the left wing with their anti-war rhetoric (give me the name of one publication that explains how CodePink is a friend of Castro and has Marxist beginnings?) and start telling it like it is.
Can anyone tell us what exactly it is that the terrorist want? What are their demands? I can tell you; it is an Islamic world. The return of the 12th Iman to secure the world for Islam under Islamic law. And unless that is what we are willing to settle for, we need to wipe off our sights, keep our powder dry and treat Iran as if we were already at war with them.
3:38 pm
But guys – Wolfowitz said the oil would pay for the war! Perle – he said we’d be greeted with rose petals! Bush says we’re winning, that Iraq is a real democracy! Cheney said it’s dead enders … last throes and all that! Don’t let me down like this … how are we going to get on with nation-buildin’ and democracy-deliverin’ if you keep up with negative posts like this???
5:43 pm
If we do go down in defeat in Iraq, I don’t know which I dread most… the Islamo Fascist celebrations throughout the Middle East, or the Looney Left conga line dances here at home.
5:50 pm
Rick
Exelent post!! If its up to me, we commit the resources to get this done now. I’ve been calling for this all along. If we withdraw, we will likely have to go back in later when things are even harder than they are now. The cry of the oppostiion should be to COMMIT MORE RESOURCES!! Even if we fail, we will at least be able to know we did all we could albiet a little late or perahps alot late.
6:48 pm
[...] UPDATE: Rick Moran with what at least is a reasoned opinion. I agree, it’s time to sweep up in Iraq. [...]
7:06 pm
“Simply put, the reason I have come to this conclusion now is that the enemies of Iraqi democracy have established a clear upper hand in the country and it is uncertain at best whether the situation can be retrieved at this point.”
There is no democracy to be an enemy of. This “democracy” is employing death squads, supporting Hezbollah rallies, arresting homosexuals, curtailing women’s rights, and imposing an Iran-style theocracy on our nickel. Getting into a lifeboat didn’t make one an “enemy” of the Titanic – it was the prudent and smart thing to do after all other options were exhausted. Do we throw endless amounts of good money (and good lives) after bad? Sorry, but you are now in direct opposition to the majority of Americans and the more you cheerlead for a lost cause the more marginalized you make yourself. You’d have a tad more credibility if even a single promise of a post-Saddam world had been met: all costs of the occupation and rebuilding paid for by cheap Iraqi oil, a beacon of democracy that would force neighbors to reconsider their own governments’ methods, Iraqis greeting us as liberators, troops home in six months, a cakewalk…remember? So the fact that now, three and a half years later, we are skeptical and pessimistic speaks to America’s waking up, not breaking down. All the talk of a free and democratic Iraq is now heard only on the fringes and rings increasingly hollow. Face it: you lost this one and there’s no resurrecting it. This is not the war we were told it would be, and the only return on our monumental investment has been tens of thousands dead, civil war, record-high oil prices, the alienation of our allies, America’s new persona as torturer, and the implosion of the Republican party. Get out the pom-poms and cheerlead til the cows come home. Luckily, cheap slogans – “as they stand up we will stand down” and “the insurgency is in its last throes” – are now fodder for Jay Leno, national jokes. In the wake of Bush’s incoherence on Iraq, even conservatives like Joe Scarborough are pondering whether our president is”an idiot.” Sorry Rich, I know your intentions are good, but you’d better step back and see this as it really is. It isn’t pretty.
7:12 pm
Odd isn’t it? The President in his 2002 SOTU calls 3 nations the axis of evil.The most important of the three was and is Iran.Yet he goes and spends his capital invading the weakest and least likely to threaten the US.So now,when we need it the most (if you believe that Iran enriching uranium is the worst of all worlds),the army is weaker and less able to fight a second front and at the same time deal with insurgents in their rear.
Of course,Iran is permitted,under the NNPT,to do exactly what it is doing.The same NNPT which our good friends Israel,Pakistan and India have not signed.
7:25 pm
Richard:
I have given what I believe a realistic assessment of the situation.
You, on the other hand, are exaggerating grossly.
The majority – the vast majority of Iraqis – do not support al-Sadr and his radical theocrats. If they did, the theocratic parties would have won overwhelmingly.
The major Islamic party, the SCIRI is NOT in favor of establishing Sharia law nor in having the mullahs run the country. They are, if you had been paying attention, the first Islamic DEMOCRATIC party in the world. The Iraqi constitution, ripped by liberals because it wasn’t written by James Madison, is the first of its kind in the world. It does not use the Koran as basic law but rather is inspired by the Koran – a huge difference.
The weakness of the government leads to independent death squads (those connected to the Interior Ministry are inspired by a foreign country – Iran) as well as crackdowns in the street by thuggish mullahs on gays. As for “curtailing women’s rights” give me a break. Most nations in the 3rd world “curtail” women’s rights.
As for the rest, perhaps you should step back and see where we’ll be when you get your wish and we cut and run. And by that I mean ANY TIMETABLE NOT GEARED TO WHAT IS HAPPENING ON THE GROUND IS CUTTING AND RUNNING. Any arbitrary timetable period.
A timetable is immoral. It is asking men to fight and die even after the war is lost. At the moment, there is a chance the situation can be retrieved to the point where the Iraqi government will be able to handle the insurgency. But first, those who are not loyal to it (al-Sadr and the militias) as well as foreign meddlers must be dealt with.
And your take on the American people’s position is also exaggerated. People disagree violently with the way the war is being conducted. They hate Bush. But if you ask the question should we leave Iraq to chaos there has been a consistent majority that says no.
So there are polls…and there are polls.
7:35 pm
We (sort-of) leave Iraq…
my proposal is to remove our troops from populated areas. Keep them out of sight of the crazies who are shooting one another. Stop using our troops as a buffer between the idiots who are killing each other. Deploy our troops where they can be brought t…
7:41 pm
A manifestly insecure staging ground where our troops will be outnumbered by hostile natives….great.
7:47 pm
Rick: it doesn’t really matter that the majority of Iraqis don’t support the crazies. The only issue is whether our sticking ourselves into the fight helps make America safer or whether it doesn’t. And NOBODY (sorry for the caps, my finger slipped) has shown – or even made a really good argument – that bringing democracy to Iraq would do the least bit to keep America safe. It’s a theory that frankly isn’t sound enough to justify keeping American soldiers in harm’s way. As I posted, giving crazies the vote only ensure that crazies get elected… it happened in Gaza, it happened in Lebanon, it happened in Iran (and, to many liberals, it has happened here at home). Here’s a question: if the majority of Iraqis really truly were interested in peace, why aren’t more of them out patrolling the streets, turning in the insurgents and doing more to advance their supposed interest in peaceful, liberal democracy? Sure, they say they want peace, but they’re not willing to do a darn thing to really make it happen, are they? And if they’re not willing to stand up for themselves, why should America send its young to die for them?
7:52 pm
Are you seriously saying that the effect on Iraq doesn’t matter?
I happen to think that it does and that, regardless of the decision reached in the end, the reasoning behind it should MOST DEFINITELY take into account the effect on the lives of the people we forced into this mess. Anything less is simply dishonorable.
7:53 pm
I hope you feel better now….But now when you passed that gallstone you can enlighten us what your plans are?
Milan
7:59 pm
You make some fair points, but I also think some of your arguments are arcane. You can write about how good the constitution is in theory, but what does it mean? Is it being enforced? Is it being taken seriously? You can argue about who’s Sharia and who’s for true democracy, but where is the country actually heading as reflected in its actions (such as the arrest of gays)? We need to look at it from an ontological perspective: what is actually happening there and can we still control events there?
I think most Americans, like myself (and I was an early supporter of the war) are deeply confused and conflicted about what we should do next. No, we don’t want to leave Iraq in chaos. Just as in 1972 in Vietnam, we want to get out with as much “face” as we can so that we can say, “We went in, we eradicated the Saddam tyranny, we gave them the tools for democracy and it is up to them now to make it work.” And I predict that is exactly what we will say, in a scene errily reminiscent of Vietnam – because, tragically, there is simply no other choice in the matter, because any hopes of “winning” in the way Bush originally promised we would are down the toilet. I trust you saw today’s article in the WaPo by Kenneth Pollack and Daniel Byman? It spells out just how crushing our problems there really are, and these are not hysterical leftists. The story, with its blunt examination of the catastrophe that would follow all out civil war in Iraq, is the stuff for nightmares. As is the alternative, staying and slowly bleeding to death. I’m afraid there are no good choices, but calling on Americans to show more “resolve” and more “will” is a futile exercise at this point. Our trust has been betrayed, and Bush cannot rally us as he could on September 12, 2001.
Strange similarities, too, to Germany in 1918, when the war efforts collapsed and the German government literally imploded. All of us (at least those with their eyes wide open) feel that we are now at that critical juncture, at the edge of a precipice, and we’re scared to death that Bush could force us to jump. We have lost all our faith in our government (and the polls do make this very clear) and no one knows what’s next – all we know is that there are no good choices, and whether we begin to pull out or plan to send in more troops, there’s going to be unparalleld bloodshed to come, all for a goal no one can define anymore.
8:03 pm
Count me among those who believe we are in Iraq and Afghanistan to put pressure on Iran. I believe the Administration thought that BEING THERE WOULD BE ENOUGH. The Cheney wing, anyway. (Remember “we will be welcomed with flowers, as liberators”, and “our war in Iraq will be paid for with Iraqi oil”? Same group. The goal was noble, the wisdom perhaps terrible.
Well, we are there in Iraq and Afghanistan, but being there has not been enough for handling Iran. In fact, Iran is operating with complete impunity, arrogance, and freedom. Iran just keeps on winning. We have a choice to make: Begin applying serious pressure, including military pressure, or leave.
No one wants violent war. Yet, looking at the alternatives, this may be a case where the violence of an all-out war is by far the best choice. Count me in, then, among those who expect a war against Iran to begin sometime in the year following our November elections.
8:21 pm
Rick, kudos to you for at least approaching reality. But the question that you pose (“Do we make one, final, massive attempt to alter the deteriorating situation by committing more resources to the war while at the same time giving ultimatums to both Syria and Iran to halt their clandestine and outrageously illegal assistance to the terrorists who are murdering thousands of civilians every month?”) is a question that should have been asked in late 2003, when it was clear that the pre-war prognostications of the cheerleaders were way off. Sorry, but we are years too late for any “final push.”
I admit that I opposed the war from the beginning. I believed the WMD excuse was always crap and I will always oppose a war based on lies and false pretexts. I also believe that validating the doctrine of preventive, aggresive war was insane in the nuclear age.
Having said that, once we did invade, I never believed that a stable, Western-friendly government was an impossibility. But the administration did everything in its power to screw it up.
You state: The major Islamic party, the SCIRI is NOT in favor of establishing Sharia law nor in having the mullahs run the country.
This only proves the incompetence of the Bush administration. The Bushies were handed a gift on a silver platter: Sistani. A Shia leader who, while predictably skeptical of the U.S, was willing to work with us (we did deliver them from Saddam). Moreover, Sistani didn’t want to impose an Iranian-style thoecracy Iraq.
But instead of taking this gift, the Bushies got cute and greedy. Rather than focus on nation-building, they prefered to foist Chalabi on the Iraqis and engage in nation-looting and war-profiteering.
BTW, “liberals” don’t rip the Iraqi constitution for its existence. They rip the unbearably naive assumption that its mere existence can guarantee the words that comprise it. Some of us remember that the Soviet Union, technically, guaranteed human rights and individual freedom. An unenforceable law is no law at all.
As for “curtailing women’s rights†give me a break. Most nations in the 3rd world “curtail†women’s rights.
This is the exact same kind of denial that the White House engages in. I don’t even understand how you can claim to fight Islamic extremism if you can’t tell the difference between how women were treated in a secular country like Iraq and how they are being treated now.
8:30 pm
And to all the nutballs above who think the American people would trust this administration to lead a fight against Iran and Syria: get real.
When the adults are back in charge we can begin to discuss confronting Iran and Syria. Until then, the children need to stay away from daddy’s gun cabinet.
8:38 pm
If we believe that this war with radical islam is a conflict that will define our generation its benefitial to put it in a perspective.
We invaded Iraq three and half years ago.The real cold war started in 1948(by establishing communist regimes in Eastern Europe).Three and half years after that in the year 1951 things didn’t look good around the world for western democracy.Mac Arthur was just removed by Truman,war in Korea was in stalemate with no end in sight,few years back Soviets detonated their first atomic bomb(and in two years they developed hydrogene bomb),Josef Stalin was planning third world war,communists ruled China for one year and all over Eastern Europe show trials were in progress.
But in 1951 United States didn’t quit, didn’t whine,didn’t withdraw…..It took thirty eight more years until communism finally decomposed and croaked.
I think little bit of patience and endurance is in order…..
Milan
8:39 pm
Space: while I wholeheartedly agree with you that this administration can’t be trusted to deal with Iran and Syria, just who are the adults you are referring to? Please, just please, don’t tell me they have a ‘D’ after their name…
9:11 pm
Milan, back then, in 1951, Americans were generally in agreement that there was a very specific threat(the USSR) against which we had to stand united. And we did. Today, the threat (as far as Iraq goes) is far less clear, and unfortunately the terrorism that now runs rampant there was brought about by our invasion. Ironically, the war in Iraq causes us only to degress from the real clear threat – Islamic jihadists. America was 100 percent united in September 2001 and ready to do whatever had to be done to fight this threat. Bush, by sidetracking us and crippling us, has generated infinite disappointment for those of us who really wanted to se OBL and his operation destroyed.
The “whining” over Iraq is not a symptom of childishness or lack of resolve. It is a cry of despair over a war that, due to poor execution, now cannot be won, and that no longer makes sense.
9:15 pm
More courage. 50,000 more troops? You can’t find them and the trucks to convey them. Not now. That’s not even enough troops. Pollack in the WaPo today writes of 450,000 troops. That would have to be OUR troops. Maybe a few battalions less, if we count on the best Iraqi formations. Maybe…
What it comes down to is a draft. I do not mean this in the Rangle-esque threat of a draft resolution to scare voters from the GOP. If you want to achieve something stable and productive in Iraq, you need a draft and a substantial resupply of the US Armed forces… You will need to raise taxes.
It is immature and wrong to simply leave Iraq to this evil. It might be wrong to stay as well. But, it would be wrong damned by the best intentions. Those intentions are only honest if they are also earnest. Yes, it’s draft and taxes.
There’s no “surge force” left in our military—we can’t send divisions to the problem overnight. Much of the equipment is in need of repair. Many battalions are drained of ardor, though morale is remarkably resilient and a credit to the force.
There are three options, as I see it. Cut and run (maybe just to Kurdistan). Fight the way we are now and lose eventually. Or, fight with overwhelming force and a half million Americans in the country.
9:17 pm
Oh and the only way to make a draft work politically is to hold major administration officials accountable. Cheney and/or Rumsfeld would have to go. Perhaps the top-dog himself. A resignation or two or nine and then a draft, or vice versa.
10:10 pm
steve sturm:
Your comment is barely worth responding to. However, on the off chance that you have a fraction of an open mind, I will indulge you.
Nothing is killing this country and hastening our demise than the idiocy of Americans who treat politics, particularly foreign policy issues, as they treat professional sports.
I can accept the Red Sox fan who thinks all Yankees suck because it is part of sports. But that thought process does not belong in politics. Anyone who would argue that either major party has nobody who is thoughtful, serious, and educated about foreign policy issues is a moron in my book.
I can think of Republicans, including Brent Scowcroft and Colin Powell (when not following the orders of idiots), who I would call adults. I might not pick them for my own cabinet, but they aren’t living in fantasyland.
Frankly, I do not know the party affiliation of many of the people that I would look to for guidance, as many of them have spent their careers in the military and avoiding open partisan affiliation.
Many others, such as Richard Clarke, William Cohen, Anthony Zinni, James Webb, are currently associated with the Democratic party but are either former Republicans or served in Republican administrations (including the present Bush admin!)
Some others, such as Wes Clark or Paul Hackett, are openly and unapoligetically Democrats, but have more military combat experience than 99% of the Bush administration combined.
As I said, there are some Republicans who I would call adults. But considering how few of them realized the incompetence of the Bush team back in 2002 and 2003 (and how many continue in their delusions), I wouldn’t go praising the party as a whole.
10:29 pm
Let’s stay with comparison with cold war for a while.After all I am a child of the cold war(born in Czechoslovakia in 1957).
There’s no doubt we made some serious blunders in Iraq and the whole”war on terror”conflict.But let me remind you several huge blunders United States commited in conflict with communism:
FDR’s total lack of understanding of murderous character of Stalin’s regime,almost complete dismantling of American military after WW2,Yalta conference(now here is an example what happens if United States retreats),Berlin crisis(after death of Stalin Soviet Union was in turmoil and was prepared to give up Eastern Europe but United States didn’t take advantage of this opportunity),Bay of Pigs and finally charade of”detente”(at the time when Soviet economy was falling apart and population of Soviet Union and all satellites was disillusioned and couldn’t wait to give up on communism we helped to put Soviet Union on life support and gave them almost two additional decades of existence).
Yes…we made some huge mistakes in this current conflict.But we made blunders in all previous wars. And ultimately we prevailed…not because we conducted mistake-free wars but because we stuck with it.
Milan
10:47 pm
[...] Maybe they are not single points. Maybe they are related. I happen to think they are. Instead of discreet points and events, I see underlying suspicious coordination. Sectarian violence in Iraq begins to accelerate where it really had not been a major problem.Apparently driven by Shi'ite militias of a cleric tied to Iran. PKK elements (living in an area 10 miles from the Iranian border) suddenly start offenses into Turkey. An Iranian proxy begins a war in Lebanon. [...]
11:23 pm
Watching the Bandwagon Go By
I’m looking at Rick Moran’s post on the virtual hopelessness of the situation in Iraq and I’m afraid all I can do is shake my head in mild annoyance. I suppose I could take all this wailing and gnashing of teeth seriously if Rick wer…
11:25 pm
Give it up, Milan. You can’t compare the war in iraq qith the Cold War. Stalin and his heirs had the bomb and threatened to point nuclear missles at us from Cuba. Saddam, evil butcher that he was, was a man in the twilight of his power with no weapons and no threat to speak of. I can see giving all we have to save us from nuclear destruction. I can’t see our giving all we have for a fruitless quest to bring democracy to a people who are in every way – culturally, religiously, historically – not interested in democracy. We have better and more important things to do. At the risk of raising the chorus of Godwin’s law, Hitler was very famous for insisting until his very last day in the bunker that through sheer force of “will” and “resolve” and “sticking with it,” the Nazis could repel the Russians and Americans from German soil. It sounds good and all-American to have this can-do attitude. But there somes a point when we simply have to ask: is it working? What do have to show for our investment? Is our strategyu correct?
Great new op-ed in the NY Times today (pay-for-view only) by a military analyst during Vietnam. Let me quote a couple lines:————————-
THREE years into the Sunni insurgency in Iraq, everyone from slicksleeved privates fighting for survival in Ramadi to the echelons above reality at the Pentagon still believes that eliminating insurgents will eliminate the insurgency. They are wrong.
There is a difference between killing insurgents and fighting an insurgency. In three years, the Sunni insurgency has grown from nothing into a force that threatens our national objective of establishing and maintaining a free, independent and united Iraq. During that time, we have fought insurgents with airstrikes, artillery, the courage and tactical excellence of our forces, and new technology worth billions of dollars. We are further from our goal than we were when we started.
Counterinsurgency is about gaining control of the population, not killing or detaining enemy fighters. A properly planned counterinsurgency campaign moves the population, by stages, from reluctant acceptance of the counterinsurgent force to, ideally, full support.
American soldiers deride “winning hearts and minds†as the equivalent of sitting around a campfire singing “Kumbaya.†But in fact it is a sophisticated, multifaceted, even ruthless struggle to wrest control of a population from cunning and often brutal foes. The counterinsurgent must be ready and able to kill insurgents — lots of them — but as a means, not an end.——————————-
If by “will” and “resolve,” you (Milan) mean we should stay the current course of trying to kill insurgents, I’m afraid it’s a doomed enterprise. And I’m afraid it’s to late to try to do it the right way, via hearts and minds. All my hopes for that evaporated the dy the Abu Ghraib photos were released. That was my personal turning point, as I know once those we set out to liberate hate us, we’re screwed. And the rest is history.
11:26 pm
Sorry, left out the source of my long quote: Terence J. Daly is a retired military intelligence officer and counterinsurgency specialist who served in Vietnam as a province-level adviser.
11:30 pm
i can’t believe what i’m hearing: people actually considering a new war in iran—with the same ham-fisted application (i.e., bombing with gay abandon). facing this dilemma without iraq on our backs would be one thing; now we (could) have 130k troops trapped in mess-o’potamia should the persians decide to muck up the persian /arabian/american(?) gulf with a blockade at the straits of hormuz. think about consequences this time…clearly, unlike the last.
11:35 pm
As usual those who talk of continued conflict and war talk of winning as a end unto itself. Furthermore, these people give us no hint of what they define as a winning situation. If I were to put a dozen of these like minded idiots in the same room I would get a dozen different opinions as to what winning means. Such foolish, foolish people. They haven’t a clue. They honestly believe that the result of every armed conflict is to win and to lose, when in fact the opposite is true. No one ever wins. We are all losers.
12:20 am
excellent, well-reasoned post.
in all lost battles, there is the same explanation: too little, too late. and so it is here.
there are mistakes in all war plans. hopefully there is an understanding of the mistakes and a change in plan. bush’s greatest blunder is refusal to adapt his battle plan to the changes on the ground. it reminds one of stories of hitler in 1945, moving nonexistent divisions on a map.
the only question is what is the best interest of the US at this point in time. all the arguments re image or street creed are irrelevant.
a rule comes to mind: when you find yourself in a hole, the first thing is to stop digging.
quit or commit may not be ideal but each has it advantages. the present course is a known disaster.
a short war is mostly military. a long war is as much political and social as military. we are now in a long war.
no more tax cuts in a time of war, put the nation on a war footing, ask for universal sacrifice, stop using the war for political advantage, invite the dems into the war council, sell war bonds, use hollywood to make patriotic films. In short, get serious.
unite the country by declaring war or get the hell out
12:50 am
“in all lost battles, there is the same explanation: too little, too late. and so it is here.”
Absolutely. So interesting to see the consensus here, in a self-professed right-wing blog (and one of the few I really respect)as commenters nearly unanimously refer to it as a lost cause. in all lost battles, there is the same explRich was right, the president’s inability or unwillingness to admit mistakes and to reconsider has wreaked havoc. Such a man should never be president. It calls to mind a classic quote from HL Mencken about the kind of person who runs for president:
“[A]ll the odds are on the man who is, intrinsically, the most devious and mediocre—the man who can most adeptly disperse the notion that his mind is a virtual vacuum. The Presidency tends, year by year, to go to such men. As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart’s desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.” – H. L. Mencken, in the Baltimore Sun, July 26, 1920.
12:50 am
MidEast Crisis 122: August 20, 2006
Muslim militants who volunteered to fight against Israeli troops in Lebanon hold toy guns during training exercises in Solo, Central Java, Indonesia. Iraq: Quit or Commit by Rick Moran @ Right Wing Nut House “If we are not willing…
1:53 am
I believe that we did not adequately plan trhe war. I believe that we did not commit enough troops to begin the war.
I agree with your belief that the best way to better secure Iraq is to send MORE troops and not to reduce troops (to which peaceniks will say “this is an escalation… ‘just like Vietnam’” – because they have tried to compare every U.S. military action since Vietnam to Vietnam).
One thing I disagree on is that the enemies of Iraqi democracy have the upper-hand. I do not believe they have the upper-hand, however, they have enough of a hand to prolong the fragility of Iraqi democracy.
4:00 am
War? What’s That?
Iraq has mostly slid off the radar screens of bloggers these days, eclipsed by the Lebanese drama. Here’s a summary (no links necessary; nothing has changed in months):-Sunnis bombed Shiites-Shiites bombed Sunnis-Iran is ...
4:43 am
Hi, I’m what you’d call a Shinseki Democrat. You us, the ones who thought the war was a mistake but when it became clear it was going to happen anyway said, better send enough troops to do the job.
George Bush as suckered you all and he hasn’t the balls to do what it takes to win. Some of us have been saying send enough troops to do the job or leave for two years.
You just caught up to the reality of how pigheaded and wrong the man you voted for is. He’ll keep smirking that smirk and you’ll wonder just what it will take to save the troops left in Hell.
4:49 am
Hot Or Cold, Not Lukewarm
In other words, no withdrawel. There is, in my opinion, but one fair possibility: the US should raise the number of troops in Iraq. Of course this will not just be the best thing for the US but also for the West (and Israel) as a whole. This means that…
6:00 am
[...] From a commenter at Right Wing Nuthouse: TD Said: [...]
6:03 am
I reached this conclusion 6 months ago. There’s no good solution. Maintaining the status quo is feasible (we can do it for a long time) but pointless- it’s not attaining our goals. Leaving will be horrific- handing a victory to radical crazies everywhere. Doubling up is not a meaningful option politically or militarily- let’s be honest. Powell, Scowcroft, Baker- the Bush 41 realists- were the grownups. They understood a simple proposition: in the Middle East, just when you think you’ve hit rock bottom, there’s always something worse. Cf. Hamas in Palestine and Hezbollah in Lebanon.
The real ME threat vis-a-vis the United States remains economic, not military, at least for the next decade.
6:22 am
Bush 41 held up invading Iraq in the first Gulf war because he foresaw a lot of what’s happening now. Bush 43 could have benefited from a talk with Dad.
6:29 am
While the original post was thoughtful and raises a lot of valid questions, I find the comments section far more alarming and dismaying. It seems that so many righties have now bought into the fantasy that we are actively engaged (or at least desperately need to be) in a holy war against the religion of Islam across the planet, and that somehow a “final battle” against the nations of Iran and Syria is going to magically solve the world’s problems, terrorism will cease, everyone who survives in the middle east will convert to Christianity and flowers and peace will spread across the world.
This is a fantasy. Do you know how many Muslims there are in the world? Hint: it’s in the billions, not millions. And the majority don’t even live in or near Iran and Syria combined. The vast majority of them also apparently don’t feel like they are involved in a war of conquest.
Even if this fantasy were true, the prospects of a war with Iran, either now or in the near future, are too horrible to contemplate. You seem to think that we can just declare war, turn on the machine, and Iran and Syria will fold up like a cheap suit. It boggles the mind to see such war mongering, oversimplified minds at work.
6:35 am
Jazz:
The “fantasy” is in your own mind. Not one single commenter here has said one single word about converting Muslims to Christianity. You just made that sh*t up out of whole cloth.
Neither has anyone said a war with Iran and Syria would solve all of our problems. More made up sh*t by you.
You’re a serial exaggerator and an ignoramous to boot.
Try again…
7:06 am
[...] Rick Moran says QUIT OR COMMIT: Simply put, the reason I have come to this conclusion now is that the enemies of Iraqi democracy have established a clear upper hand in the country and it is uncertain at best whether the situation can be retrieved at this point. [...]
7:08 am
Rick: I agree with your disappointment, but what of those poor Iraqis who have trusted us and will be murdered if we leave? What of those throughout the world who suffer and whose only hope lies in a strong United States? What of our potential allies who will look on our surrender and never trust us again? What of the innocent children who will be condemned to fight an even larger, bloodier war because we did not? I would rather die myself than see this come to pass.
7:13 am
Better yet, Rick, if you’re going to write this kind of crap, address it to the person who deserves it: President Bush. Tell him to shit or get off the pot.
In any event, stiffen you spine.
7:21 am
Oh really, Rick? Let’s take a look at what Bondservant said in comment number two.
“I am a firm believer that our position in Iraq will be a strategic placing when we battle with Iran …as for leaving Iraq, if we give up and let it go, Iran will take it over and we might as well say western civilization is soon to be a thing of the past.”
Notice the “when” (not “if”) we “battle with Iran.” And failing to do so will be the end of “western civilization.” That doesn’t sound to you like a statment that all out war with Islam in Iran is not only inevitable, but neccesary and presumably will lead to some good result?
How about TD in post number three?
“The signs are OK - we have 160,000 combat experienced troops on Iran’s eastern frontier; as well as assets and troops surrounding Iran. We are ready to move if needed.”
And GwainsGhost in the very next post?
“I agree with the commenters above. Iraq is the strategic staging ground for the inevitable confrontation with Iran. Once Iran is dealt with, as it must be, Iraq will stabilize. Then we can turn our attention to the real problem, Saudi Arabia.”
Holy crap, that one’s got us attacking everyone over there, including the Saudis?
And for Pete’s sake, go back and read retire05’s comment at 3:37 pm. All of the frankly demented rambling about the “islamonazis” who have been waiting 1200 years for a chance to attack the United States and a laundry list of countries we apparently need to invade and bring to their knees.
Seriously, Rick. While perhaps not spelled out in exact words in response to this particular post, you certainly spend enough time cruising the wingnut blogosphere to have seen it all before. What do you think they are talking about? They’re talking about (and simply eager for) a holy war. And you’re claiming that they DON’T think this is going to solve all of our problems with Islam? Then why the hell would they be suggesting it, Rick?
Nice try? Right back at ya. I know you have a kneejerk reaction to defend anyone who’s defending the neocon principle of democracy at gunpoint and the defeat of Islam, but these people continue to preach a mindless, violent “solution” to a problem that calls for a completely different approach. You don’t defeat terrorism with armies. I would hope that we’re finally starting to learn that, though the cost of the lesson has been ungodly high.
7:46 am
Jazz, apparently your knowledge of jihad is very, very limited. Perhaps you should pick up a copy of the Quran and read it, in the literal sense. And perhaps you would also like to provide all the readers with my “laundry list” of nations that we need to invade. Dealing with a nation as if we were already at war with that nation is a hellofa lot different than invading that nation.
And since you claim that we don’t defeat terrorism with armies, maybe you can provide us with your enlightened suggestions on just how we can defeat terrorism.
You seem to take offense at my term “Islamonazis”. Maybe a little history lesson in how the Mufti aided and abetted the Hitler government would serve you well. Ever bother to notice how the Palestinian army marches? How about the Arab SS troops? Ever heard of them? Or the fact that Saddam’s uncle fought for Hitler and Saddam was a big, big fan of Hitler’s?
And while you are providing an education for all of us you could give us the terrorists specific complaints against the U.S. I would imagine it will include a “laundry list” of all the human rights violations the U.S. is guilty of (in your mind) against the Muslim world.
The terrorists understand two things: jihad (death or slavery to all infidels) and violence. Sitting around singing Kumbaya with them will only provide you with the separation of your head from your shoulders.
8:02 am
Anyone who does not recognize that the Saudis are a large part of the problem we face is a fool.
Their Wahhabi sect preaches hatred, intolerance and jihad in maddrasas across the world. Does anyone pay attention to what they’re teaching in these ‘schools’? All funded by petro dollars, I might add.
Granted, they don’t pose such an immediate threat as the mullahs in Iran, but ulitmately they must be dealt with. Or this war is going to go on and on into perpetuity.
Our options are very limited. We can either take Lawrence Auster’s advice, over on View From the Right, and completely divide Islam and the West, which would require rounding up every Muslim in the West and dumping them in the desert. Or we can take the fight to the terror masters and their sponsors. There are no other options.
Mr. Moran makes some excellent points, but I don’t think our choices are to commit or quit. Quitting is not part of the American character.
8:18 am
“Dealing with a nation as if we were already at war with that nation is a hellofa lot different than invading that nation.”
Please at least be intellectually honest enough to not back off from your statements on some twisting of semantics. Those two descriptions are barely different. Being “already at war” with a nation involves, sooner or later, either invading them or being invaded or fighting them on somebody else’s property.
As to understanding “jihad” it’s very different than understanding Islam, unless your brain has been rotted away by overdoses of Ann Coulter and Rush. We have a mosque here in my home city with a huge membership. The vast majority of them are not even of middle eastern lineage, and in their street clothes I bet you couldn’t pick most of them out of a lineup. Fine people, quite a few of whom I work with, who are horrifed by the actions of the few radicals who are causing all the trouble.
“maybe you can provide us with your enlightened suggestions on just how we can defeat terrorism.”
Glady, though I typically find that these types of conversations with closed minds are fruitless, I feel obliged to keep shouting at the ocean. How do you deal with terrorists? The same way the Brits did last week with that bombing plot. (Even though those chuckleheads had a plan that would have been almost impossible to pull off. They were still looking to try and needed to be dealt with.) You use good intelligence and special operatives, you investigate them, find them, prosecute them, and either lock them away or execute them. They are criminals, not a nation unto themselves. You deal with them like criminals and treat it as a federal police action matter. I seem to recall you righties were all cheering the Brits wildly for that one. Keep notes on it. That’s how you deal with them.
“You seem to take offense at my term “Islamonazis—
I take offense at all of the attempts by you and your ilk at painting the entire Muslim world with one brush. It may be true that the solid majority (though hardly all) of terrorists are Muslims. It’s also true that they are a group that only numbers in the thousands out of more than a billion people. It is equally true that the members of the most violent gangs in America’s inner cities (crips, bloods, m3, et. al.) are blacks and hispanics. That does not, however, mean that we insitute a plan to ship all of the minorities out of America. We’re at “war” with gangsters… not all African Americans or Mexicans or Cubans, etc.
“you could give us the terrorists specific complaints against the U.S. I would imagine it will include a “laundry list†of all the human rights violations the U.S. is guilty of (in your mind) against the Muslim world.”
Again, gladly, though it will do no good. There are undoubtedly quite a few complaints that some of the more radical elements in the Islamic world have agains the West and the United States in particular, but number one on almost every single list would have to be Israel, and you already know that. The righties just don’t admit it, that’s all. And of course, by simply admitting it, I will now once again be tarred with the broad, knee-jerk brush of saying I’m an anti-semite, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Anyone who even suggests that it might be time to reexaming the United States policy regarding Israel is some sort of traitor who needs to be executed, apparently. But there’s your answer since you asked. That’s their number one complaint.
Be sure to keep the oxygen turned on in the echo chamber, retire05. Lack of fuel to the brain can cause serious and permanent damage.
8:41 am
[...] So forgive me if I have been a ‘downer’ lately; it’s not to bug you or depress you, but because I believe the things I am writing about. As Rick Moran put it in a long, excellent piece that I recommend you read in its entirety: …[I]t would pain me if my honest opinion drove people away from this site. But I realize many readers who have been following my evolving position on the War in Iraq know how pessimistic I have become over the last six months about the chances of that bloody land achieving anything like a stable, democratic government. For them, it may come as no surprise that I have reached a point where I believe we must make a decision as a nation about whether we want to continue our involvement – which would mean an increase in resources and a direct confrontation with Iran and Syria over their massive support for the terrorists and insurgents – or whether we should pack up and go home. In other words, escalate or leave. [...]
8:50 am
Iraq: Quit or Commit
I personally don’t agree with Rick Moran’s assessment of the situation in Iraq or his assumptions about Bush’s thinking on the issue in this piece. That said, it’s worth reading—a fierce debate is brewing in the comments, as the left points to it…
9:01 am
Only serfs believe that Freedom and Democracy are easy roads to take.
10:07 am
Wow, Monday morning and already so many comments…
Rick,
Overall, I agree with your analysis of the current situation. Where I depart company, however, is your second proposed solution. Adding more troops and “resources” will likely not