Friday, November 23, 2007
|
|
The New Iraq
|
|
Posted by:
Hugh Hewitt at
8:42 AM
|
From Charles Krauthammer:
[D]ecades of Saddam Hussein's totalitarianism followed by the brutality of the post-invasion insurgency destroyed much of Iraq's political infrastructure, causing Iraqis to revert to the most basic political attachment -- tribe and locality. Gen. David Petraeus's genius has been to adapt American strategy to capitalize on that development, encouraging the emergence of and allying ourselves with tribal and provincial leaders -- without waiting for cosmic national deliverance from the newly constructed and still dysfunctional constitutional apparatus in Baghdad.
Al-Qaeda in Iraq is in disarray, the Sunni insurgency in decline, the Shiite militias quiescent, the capital city reviving. Are we now to reverse course and abandon all this because parliament cannot ratify the reconciliation already occurring on the ground?
Do the critics forget their own arguments about the irrelevance of formal political benchmarks? The transfer of power in 2004. The two elections in 2005. The ratification of the constitution. Those were all supposed to be turning points to pacify the country and bring stability -- all blown to smithereens by the Samarra bombing in February 2006, which precipitated an orgy of sectarian violence and a descent into civil war.
So, just as we have learned this hard lesson of the disconnect between political benchmarks and real stability, the critics now claim the reverse -- that benchmarks are what really count.
This is to fundamentally mistake ends and means. The benchmarks would be a wonderful shortcut to success in Iraq. But it is folly to abandon the pursuit of that success when a different route, more arduous but still doable, is at hand and demonstrably working.
Read the whole thing, and the WaPo piece on the distance traveled and the long way yet to go. Against this backdrop, the attempt by Democrats to defund victory is easily the most callous political act since the American left forced the Democrats to abandon South Vietnam and Cambodia to the horrors that followed.
|
|
|
but imagine if we had adopted the Petraeus model soon after the occupation. Well the best time to plant an oak tree is years ago and the second best time is right now. |
|
Which our Lib-Left friends practice constantly. Just read the many who'll be Klustering their Kosroid words here by Saturday. Promise.
They know nothing about the history of war. Care less about the countless catastrophes that have happened by Winning Sides as they learned, adjusted, took losses and failures and ultimately succeeded. From pre-Homer until now.
They, unlike the great Krauthammer, are 7th Grade Hall Monitor Types. Fingers just a wagging. Eyebrows just a arching. Hurrrumphing with disapproval. And, always SUPERIOR.
Yep. Superior Midgets. |
|
Against this backdrop, the treasonous behavior of the Bush administration in refusing to lift a finger against those truly responsible for the rise of Al Qaeda and the attacks on 9/11:
http://www.asecondlookatthesaudis.com
And the bombing of the Golden Mosque in Samara in February 2006 that Krauthummer makes such a big deal about, guess who pulled that off? It was a gang of 8 insurgents, 4 of whom were Iraqi Sunnis, and 4 of whom were Saudi Arabian.
How many times will the Saudis attack and sabotage this nation before we get a cluse? I'm not holding my breath (especially after reading this blog)! |
|
|
if you were the POTUS what would you do? |
|
Let's just ask the American people one simple question, shall we?
"Do you believe that any success, the rosiest of success stories possibly told, could be worth the 1 trillion dollars and counting?"
The horse has already left the barn.
The cost has been too high already Hugh.
|
|
Question, Hugh.
Americans: Do you wish to be losers at this critical time in our history? Follow up: Keeping 9-11-2001 in mind, do you think it's a good idea--at any price--to cut & run from our committments?
Ba-da-Bing. Like dat. |
|
Forget for the moment the question of lives and dollars spent in Iraq, let's talk world politics.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2007/11/22 /international/i012818S32.DTL
John Howard just had his political a** handed to him , following Tony Blair and many other world leaders.
The "Blow up the U.N." crowd found here on Town Hall is out of touch with most Americans. When the next invasion of Iraq happens, and it will, we would like to see Bush Sr.'s scenario repeated, not Bush Jr.'s.
The first Iraq war had a strong coalition and most of the cost was eventually paid for by the likes of Japan, etc.
Not so the second Iraq war.We are baring 100 percent of the trillion dollar cost. It is difficult to imagine how much more world alienation could take place than what Bush Jr. has wrought.
And that is an EXPENSIVE proposition. We will not have allies so readily and easily available to join us in our anti-terrorist endeavors.
The current administration's immaturity in thumbing their noses at every world power has been a price too high paid. A price too high in, and of, itself... regardless of how many lives and cash was spent.
Having the world as your ally is huge. Having the world as your enemy is foolish.
Would success today in Iraq have been worth it given the price paid in political standing in the world? No.
Face it. This war has been a catastrophe of major proportations from Abu Grab to billions in cash walking out the door unaccounted. 150,000 rifles unaccounted for.
No matter how rosy the final outcome, how major the win, it will be nothing when compared to the costs. Iraq is a country of 30 million people and we've blown our political capital with the remaining 5 billion people for what?
|
|
...because our allies have deserted us--NOT!
Um. When was Tony Blair defeated? His party is still in power. John Howard, bless him, has held the post for a record length of time. 500 combat troops will now be doing support duties. Gasp!
Germany--Conservative & supportive of Bush. France--Conservative, busting a huge strike and supportive of Bush. Canada--Conservative and supportive of Bush. UK--Labour and supportive of Bush. Austraila--we have no reason to believe that the new Gov't will be 'anti-Bush', now do we? |
|
You're joking. I just KNOW you're joking. Thanks for the laugh, Lad! Loved it. Uh-Huh. Yo.
Cabalista: Driveby was joking. I'm sure of it.
Had to be. |
|
Rather than discussing the various ideas for "succeeding" in Iraq -- a condition which has yet to be clearly defined by the Bush Administration (i.e., we do not know where the FINISH line is) -- we really should be investigating the BushCo's amorphous justification for the necessity of our invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq, with an eye toward impeachment and/or prosecution for war crimes.
But the wanker Dems care more about "the prize" of the White House rather than doing the job the American people elected them for, so "impeachment is off the table."
If our invasion of Iraq was not truly justified (remember, they had neither attacked us, nor did they pose an imminent threat), we need to consider how to repent before a watching world, and how best to put Iraq into the hands of the Iraqis to stand or fall on their own. (US servicemembers do not take an oath to liberate foreign nations or "nation-build," and we should at the very least allow any of them who so desire to come home with honor. Their "mission" -- liberation from Saddam and the Baathists -- has already been accomplished, after all.)
Frank in Phoenix
An anti-THIS-war evangelical conservative
"Cursed are the proud; they shall inherit the quagmire.
Cursed are the warmongers; they shall be called sons of b----es." |
|
and the aftermath of American involvement in war is less than impressive. Sad, really.
Conservative, my A**. |
|
Drivebypostings concerns that the US has alienated the rest of the world in Iraq is the typical reaction of liberal foreign policy democrats who are more concerned that countries and people like us.
The bottom line, Driveby, is that the US is leading with an eye on what is best for America. Our foreign policy should not be designed to make friends with other nations it should be disigned to support US goals and aims.
The one thing I can't figure out about you liberal defeatists is that you always say diplomacy is always the number one choice to solve a problem. Well...if that is the case, why isn't every US diplomat at the state department clamoring to go to Iraq and the Middle East to solve this problem. You would think that if they were really dedicated to proving that diplomacy works, they would be living in the middle east.
sorry driveby, you and your "invested in defeat" liberal friends need to step aside and let us real Americans defend our nation. |
|
Take it to him, lad!
I never ever get over it. The stark realization that they really ARE "invested in defeat." They are grinding the enamel off their molars at the good news from Iraq. They can't stand it. The truly do hate their president more than they do our Dark Age Butchering Enemies. A Moral Desert. |
|
|
|