Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Friday, May 04, 2007
Dave  Karle :: Townhall.com Columnist
Standing up for victory
by Dave Karle
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


Courage and Commitment

It was easily 130 degrees at 11:00 a.m. and both the American and the Iraqi soldiers were hot and tired from the hard training. An Iraqi soldier kept falling behind during the training, so finally his Iraqi squad leader pulled him over to me and started explaining in Arabic that he was in pain from an injury and asked that he sit out during a portion of the training.

Suspiciously, I asked him to show me this injury. As he pulled up his pant leg a fresh bullet hole appeared – he had been shot on his way to work by a gang of insurgents. The young Iraqi was afraid if he missed training he would be kicked out of the unit.

At that moment, I thought to myself, how many Americans would be willing to look him in the eye and tell him that America should withdraw because his people don’t have the courage and commitment to rebuild their country?

Changing Our Strategy

I have witnessed firsthand the mistakes made on the ground in Iraq. From April 2004 to March 2005 I lived and worked with an 800 soldier Iraqi combat unit north of Baghdad. When I arrived, there was very little equipment, no vehicles, and the AK-47 ammunition was corroded and unusable. Perhaps most importantly, over a quarter of the unit was missing along with their weapons. However the joint American and Iraqi Task Force successfully changed the landscape.

We secured better ammunition and weapons, created facilities that were usable for training and living, and acquired vehicles. None of this would have been possible without American soldiers on the ground. Mentoring the Iraqis in the workings of a modern army, while challenging, was critical to the foundation of a democratic Iraq.

There is a misconception that creating the Iraqi security forces should be entirely self sustainable. It is an unrealistic view, in the near term. It takes time. By my estimation, it takes, at a minimum, the better part of a year to create a battalion.

Language and culture barriers, insufficient numbers of trainers, sub-standard or non-existent equipment, and perhaps most importantly the ongoing daily violence all added time to the process. It was very frustrating.

Change was needed, and the surge of additional troops seems like a vital step in the right direction.

John McCain is the only presidential candidate who was calling for more troops in Iraq and a change in strategy when it should have been implemented years ago. To turnaround the worsening security situation, and succeed in Iraq, we needed more forces.

We have a very long way to go, but the first stage of the surge has resulted in decreased violence in Baghdad and progress in political reconciliation. It is a small but welcomed sign of hope for Americans that believe in winning.

General Petraeus’ plan of moving soldiers off the bases and into the population, living and working closely with their Iraqi counterparts will certainly help the security situation as well.

And most importantly, it will forge an even more effective mentoring relationship between American and Iraqi forces.

The Stakes

While some have argued for wholesale retreat in Iraq, Senator McCain understands that we must not leave Iraq, and the region, in disarray. John McCain understands that if we just pick up and leave Iraq it will certainly be a security problem for the United States for many generations to come.

Abandoning the Iraqis will result in chaos, genocide, and leave al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations a safe haven from which to regroup and launch future operations in the region and beyond. I know this because I’ve seen it with my own eyes.

There is a good option for an American victory – surge the troops, let General Petraus do his job, and support leaders like Senator McCain who to continue to do the right thing.

With today’s partisan political grandstanding, John McCain has shown tremendous courage and resolve in continuing to stand up for victory in Iraq. He has been on the front lines in advocating for a more comprehensive strategy for a long time, and it is encouraging to see him choose policy over poll numbers.

John McCain has said that he would rather “lose a campaign than lose a war” and I believe Americans would rather elect victory than ensure surrender.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author

Dave Karle was a Staff Sergeant in Operation Iraqi Freedom from November 2003 to April 2005.

Be the first to read Dave Karle's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.

Thanks for your column and your service
Dave,

Thanks so much for your service, you and the other soldiers have my eternal gratitude. Thanks also for a very insightful column. If you have time I would love to see a followup on how you see the ROE impacting what you are trying to do. This may not be a subject you can address at this time, but many of us here at TH would be very interested to hear how the current ROE are viewed by the soldiers in the field and their officers. Polly, Peppermint and Wiseone sum up this point well in their posts.

Thanks again.

TO; Lilly
Let me tell you one thing right up front. I don't like you or any other left wing coward telling me that I like to see our service people killed and wounded.

If the Clinton Administration had not have cut the Army from 900,000, down to 400,000, we would not be sending troops on multiple extended deployments. And also, in case you didn't know, this is a war, and people do get hurt. Ours, and the enemy's. Why do you anti-war types allways harp on our casualties? How many of the enemy have we killed and wounded? I bet it is many times more.

Can you substantiate your claims about the Iraqi soldiers? If true, then the Bush Administration needs to look into it and do something. I have supported the President from the very get-go on this, but I have never liked that he is allways trying so hard to be nice when he realy just needs to jump down some throats and chew some butts out. he needs to get tough with the Iraqi govornment and let them know that we are getting to our limit with our ability to help them.

I was very angry when I first learned of the Iraqi Parliament's idea of taking a two month vacation. Maybe they are picking up bad habits from our own Congress. but again, if the Bush Administration was a lot harder on them, the idea of a two month break would have probably never came up.

It may be a shock for you to hear this, but I am not completely happy with the way the Bush Administration planned and executed this war. I think it was a bad mistake to disband the old Iraqi army. Most of them were conscripts to begin with, and they were no big fans of Saddam. I also beleive it was a mistake to set up a totaly American interim govornment led by an American. I also think we went into this with far fewer resources than we realy would have needed. And, I say rifts in Iraqi society and the potential for sectarian conflict were also badly underestimated.

Yes, I do beleive the vast majority of liberals are spineless cowards. I also see how they are always sideing with our enemies at every turn. Just look at Nancy Pelosi's trip to the Mid-East a while back, trying to act like the secretary of state. She was asked not to go by the Bush Administraton, but went anyway. Now, you tell me? Is that not undermining our efforts? Harry Reid's comments at a news conference the other day about "we have lost the war, and there is no point in the troop surge" were disgusting, and a slap in the face to all who have served in this war. The democratic presidential hopefuls are all running on a platform of outright surrender in this.

I also deeply resent the way you assume that I care so little about my country and countrymen. You, and others like you, should get down on your knees, bow your head, and not say a word in the presense of a man like St Sgt David Karle. Not a day goes by that I am not thoughtful and thankful for the sacrifices made for my freedom. David Karle, and many others have fought for my freedom, and I am showing my gratitude by working hard on a real job (Do you have a real job?) and fight for them by getting on the internet and confronting people like you.

Lilly
It's clear you do not believe this war is a good cause. Those who believe it is one, do not consider American blood to have "gone down an Iraqi toilet". We believe it to have been shed with valor to protect our freedoms.
Let not your heart be troubled over the Iraqi parliament recess: I think you will find that they will become enlightened about the message that sends at this time. They are yet fledglings.

To Rigolette_Rat
I have read that Iraqi soldiers are free to go home whenever they want to and that they refuse to serve outside their home area. As far as I know, these two conditions do not apply to American troops serving in Iraq, who are now showing significant mental health problems due to length and extension of deployments (this information was announced 5-4-07 by the Department of Defense Task Force on Mental Health). Then of course there's the little matter of, what is it up to now, 3600 dead Americans and around 50,000 wounded and maimed?

We keep hearing that Iraqi soldiers are getting better and braver and just need a little more time to "stand up". Baloney. They have had longer than we fought in World War II. Enough already.

Right-wing comments that liberals crave defeat, hate America, love terrorism etc are ridiculous. You may just love pouring American blood down the Iraqi toilet, but some of us are sick of it. Literally, sick. Meanwhile we have spent billions to build Iraqi infrastructure, most of which has in fact NOT been built, while here at home our own infrastructure is crumbling.

See also my previous post about the Iraqi Parliament taking a two-month vacation this summer. Our soldiers, Marines, and National Guardsmen will not be taking at two-month vacation.

How can you care so little about the well-being of your own countrymen and your own country?

Two Months of Vacation
I would be interested in townhallers' comments on the announcement the other day that the Iraqi Parliament will be taking a two-month vacation this summer, the entire months of July and August. This would be the same summer for which we have surged our troops to defend and protect the Iraqi people.

For more details, google "two months vacation Iraq".

PREACH IT BROTHER!!!
Thank you for your service! It takes one hell of a man to deal with 130 deg heat with all that gear on, not to mention having a bunch of crazies trying to kill you!

I have beleived for some time that the whole truth is simply not being told about the situation in Iraq. I wish Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and the rest of the "We have to loose the war so democrats can win in '08!" crowd would have to face men like yourself, and the wounded Iraqi soldier you mentioned.

It also exposes the liberal bias in the mainstream news media. All we hear and read from most media outlets are stories of disaster, defeat, and dsepair in Iraq. You would swear that the enemy is in control of them!

Maybe, it is because liberals, being the spineless cowards that they are, despise the honor and respect given to those who are courageous.

I realy wish stories like your's would get more attention, then maybe support for victory would be more widespread, instead of all this "surrender by a certain date" B/S.

Best post is by Polly
Polly correctly observes that peace follows VICTORY. World War I was "settled" by diplomacy. Unfortunately the treaty that ended it did nothing to eliminate the root causes. Instead, some of those causes were exacerbated.

The result was WWII.

Drive-by-posting is so full of Democrat do-do he can't see or think past the end of his nose.

He doesn't even have his polling information correct. Both Giuliani and McCain beat Mrs. Clinton or Obama head-to-head. But good ol' dbp claims they can't even beat the "weakest" Dems, which include Edwards and Kucinich, who rank fourth and fifth among Democrats, behind "undecided".

I like Karle's column, and he has my thanks and appreciation for his work and his service to our country. But I also agree with con posters who want no part of McCain for Prez. If McCain had shown the same resolve on all conservative issues for the last six years that he now is showing at campaign time on Iraq he could be trusted. But it is just too, too convenient for him to suddenly turn hard core conservative on Iraq at campaign time without changing his tune on campaign finance reform, immigration, Gang of 14, treatment of prisoners, etc.

I don't trust him. My first choice is Duncan Hunter. My second is Fred Thompson. I don't think we're going to get anyone better than these two.

You are right to a point
Lynne you are right but i dont think you can leave these other two major players in the middle east out. Our government says Iran is supplying weapons to the shite insurgents and Syria too. But then again we support the shite led government in Iraq and the Iranians are shite as well.When you get involved in middle east politics you get what you get. A mess.

Better think twice
Starting a war with Syria and Iran. Think we have enough troops to do that? Start lobbying bombs over in there and you will kill more civilians than bad guys. Our troops are spread thin enough and starting a draft would not fly.

Syria and Iran
What at tremendous tribute to the resolve of some of the Iraqi people. Imagine wanting to keep going in 130 degree heat after being shot in the leg.
Sgt. Karle, please answer this question: If we know that IEDs are made in and supplied by Syria and Iran, and that they are responsible for the deaths of magnificent uniformed personnel, why do we not launch a few Daisy Cutters in the direction of Damascus and Tehran. War is War.

the reality of staying there
Again no one is mentioning just how long we will be there in Iraq. The pres needs to come clean and let the american people know we will be there a long time. Its an ongoing war on terrorism and the political situation is not even close to being what it needs to be. At least let the american people know the reality.

David, An American Hero
I'd like to give my heartfelt salute to David Karle and so many others like him who are serving their country and the cause of freedom. On the homefront, people like me are trying to do our part in the War on Terror.

On my TH site (click on name above), I'll be writing soon on why I believe Robert Novak has outlived his usefulness for conservatives and is essentially carrying water for the Democrats. In the past six days, 820 people have read my daily columns, 230 of them yesterday, including my in-depth, MSM-free analysis of the Republican debate. I hope David Karle and 200-or-so of his fellow Americans will come and visit. God bless, David.

steve

Dave Karle
Thank you for your service. Words cannot describe my pride and admiration for all of you fighting for us in that inhospitable place.

driveby
Generally wars that end in political solutions do so after the other side has been trounced and sees no other way.

We have nothing to offer the terrorists that will make them lay down their arms. The diplomacy that sounds so good to you is viewed as weakness by them.

Trounce them first, then diplomacy.

Unfortunately, any attempt to explain why we can't surrender is automatically pronounced "fear-mongering" by the Dems.

Libs get Maggie's Drawers
One of the points that Dave Karle made was that setting up an army is not a quick and easy thing.

Liberals think that establishing an effective military force is accomplished by merely issuing uniforms and weapons, then teaching the "soldiers" how to march.

It takes a decade or two to make a civilian into an experienced senior NCO or field grade officer. It takes over 20 years to turn a civilian into a general.

The wounded Iraqi soldier obviously had the motivation to continue in that training. The USA cannot afford to abandon soldiers like that.

Mr. Karle
Thanks for your service. You have the support of many of us irregardless of the MSM and liberal posters who think repubs are against the war. What repubs are upset about is the war has not been fought aggressively enough with soldiers having their hands tied. It's not the war itself that we don't support, it's the way it is being fought. Hopefully Gen. Petraeus can change that.


http://peppermintsplace.townhall.com
I just posted chapter 18 of Juliet's diary.
Michael Moore gets some active interrogation

Two Months of Vacation
To all of you who are confident that any minute now the Iraqi government is going to turn into George Washington, John Adams, Patrick Henry, Thomas Jefferson, and Benjamin Franklin:

Please know that the Iraqi government has just announced that it will be taking a two-month vacation this summer. That would be the same summer during which we will have increased our troop strength for the protection and relief of the Iraqi people.

I am not making this up. Who could make this up? Google and you will see that it's true.

Conservatives, liberals, surely we are all united in our outrage. We MUST have benchmarks as part of any appropriations bill. No more blank check, no more free lunch for Iraq. Bush must learn the Arabic for that good old American saying, "S*** or get off the p**".

Honesty and planning
Karle writes: "Abandoning the Iraqis will result in chaos, genocide, and leave al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations a safe haven from which to regroup and launch future operations in the region and beyond." -- This is what opponents of the invasion said from the beginning. An underfunded war that ends in defeat will increase terrorism, not reduce it. The Generals told Bush they needed 300,000 soldiers so Bush gave them half that.

"There is a good option for an American victory – surge the troops, let General Petraus do his job, and support leaders like Senator McCain who to continue to do the right thing." -- The right thing today is what it was 4 years ago, double troop levels. If Republicans don't have the guts to propose that, we should get out now.

Dave...
DAVE: thank you for your service to our country. God Bless you always.

If we were voting today, my vote would go to John McCain for the very reasons you cite. It's a long way down the road to the election however, and I would support a different candidate if one emerged who I thought had a more solid chance of winning against Obama (who I predict will be the D nominee). Right now, McCain's the man.

DAVE'S NOT HERE
Hey Dave,just a little Cheech and Chong humor. However, I used to be a McCain fan back in the day before he lost the first election and spent the rest of the time grandstanding and actively working against Bush to put himself in charge (gang of 12 anyone?) I can't vote for McCain either. I was considering Guliani, but he just said he supports Roe v Wade, so no Supreme Ct appointments for him. I am waiting to see what Fred Thompson does. I'd probably vote for him, and he's on your side too.
Godspeed, Dave.

re: Liberty writes:
My take on the situation is that the Republicans have become to insular. They speak with their backs to everyone except Republicans.

You have to give McCain credit for doing things like going on the Daily show and trying to form phrases, conservations and ideas that can be consumed by the left.

All the other candidates are doing their d**ndest to insure their rhetoric on lands within the confines of the Republican Radar.

The Political reality is this. Democrats can get away with confining their rhetoric to just their base and turn their back on conservatives. Republicans on the other hand half to make a show of being able to dialog with people who are not Republicans or they will be ignored.

You cannot dismiss the popular will of 2/3'rds of this country without paying a political price. Yes, being in Iraq may be the right thing to do but now the heat is on with the Republican candidate to win over the Public. I did not see any attempt by any candidate to engage the general American public in convincing them even with a simple sound-bite that the war in Iraq needs to continue.

There is a hackneyed, but fitting, phrase that Americans want Republican Presidents who are a "Daddy" figure that will tell them the right thing to do and lead them, even if reluctantly.

Well, Americans are not looking for Daddy to tell them what to do right now. Bush used up all the Daddy desire. Now Republicans are going to have to speak to the American people and not ignore popular will or suffer the political consequences.

John McCain is the only Republican willing to address the average American and validate their opinion about the war in Iraq. When George Bush does it he sounds like he is condescending and patronizing. Just like a Dad to spoiled brat who is hedging temporarily to buy time until the appropriate moment comes along for administering punishment.

We may be there a long time
I really dont think we will ever leave Iraq without having a presence there. The war on terror is ongoing and the political situation is way too fragile. The is so much ethnic tension and with a shite majority the sunnis and kurds have to feel they have no voice. Traditionally the group previously in power is always ostracized and since the sunnis are a minority they really do feel justified in feeling they have no say.Yes there was an election but the majority shites won overwelmingly because they are the majority. Now some will say majority rules but come on we all know how this plays out. Seems like the best thing is a split Iraq in three parts with each ruling there own part or a shared leadership of all three groups. this really is there struggle and we really cant do anything about it. A difficult situation to say the least.

Ron Paul is Certainly Principled

And he has my personal admiration in that regard.

But it bothers me not a little bit that Rep. Paul actually WOULD look Staff Sgt. Karle's Iraqi trainee in the eye and tell him "best-a-luck, buddy, we're outahere!"

If Ron Paul, miraculously, turns out to be the Republican nominee, I'll vote for him. But our military (and the thousands of Iraqi people who put their trust in us) deserve better.

drivebyposting
The only problem with your analysis, is that McCain is NOT a conservative! With the exception of Dr. Paul and possibly Tom Tancredo, none of them deserved to even mention the name of President Reagan. Reagan called himself a "libertarian conservative". The vast majority up there last night were nothing but a pack of big government statists, with an R behind their names. One-worlder, pro-amnesty, big government, gun-grabbers.

So NO, McCain will not have my vote.

Thanks Dave Karle
Thank you for your service. I must respectfully disagree about John McCain's ability to lead this country.

contiued
Iraqi government, the middle East, and rebuilding our alliances with Britian and the U.N. will be essential to securing the best strategies in fighting the war on terror. We cannot go it alone and I think just as John McCain is not concerned with just appeasing the conservative base today, he will have the best chance of opening the diplomatic doors tomorrow.

Godspeed! Dave Karle!

Dear Dave
Dear Dave,

Thanks for your service.

Let's call this this post "The Big D". Going for alliteration here. Besides the Dear Dave, I'm referring to two words: diplomacy and Democrat.


Watching the debates last night it was clear that none of the candidates can beat one of the big D's, Democrat. When voters go into the booth in 2008 for President, many are going to vote whichever candidate has a D. Same is true with the R where some people are going to vote R regardless of the candidate. It is clear though, in 2008, any Republican candidate has to first demonstrate they can beat even the weakest of Democrats given the 2/3 public opposition to the war in Iraq and the swing voters will be pulling the lever on the big D.

I will say this. John McCain tries. He is one of the regulars on John Stewart's Daily Show. Which brings me to my other big D, diplomacy.

Republicans right now have real diplomacy issues with:

1.) Iraq
2.) Middle East
3.) U.N.
4.) Democrats
5.) American Public

The concept of "win" in Iraq at some point has to transition from guns to statesmanship. While Bush has had many gun surges in Iraq, he has had no diplomatic surges.

I think John McCain is the only candidate with any track record of trying to communicate with those outside of the GOP. Bush went on record early on saying he was a "uniter" but has failed to live up to that notion in every way imaginable.

We cannot pretend that the "win" in Iraq can be accomplished by guns alone. At some point diplomacy must begin in Iraq, with the Middle East and finally within the U.N itself.

Most Americans at this point realize that Bush has no plan for diplomacy, and hence no plan to win.

It saddens me that your service using arms does not have the requisite commitment of equal diplomacy to secure the rule of law in Iraq once the succession of violence has been won.

I feel we owe it to you, to all the folks in the Armed Services to put into place the diplomatic commitment. All wars eventually end in political solutions if they end.

Going forward Republicans need to beat the big D. They need to convince swing voters not to just pull the lever on whomever the D candidate happens to be. In fact, if I were running the show right now I would be relying heavily on polls that just asked Americans about whether Democratic or Republican part designation is enough to insure their vote in 2008.

Ronald Reagan was a great diplomat who could meet with world leaders and make things happen. Bush's one main ally, Tony Blair, has had his political career and history ruined by his loyalty to Bush.

Mitt Romney is going to be too busy defending his conservative credentials with the conservative base to enact any real meaning diplomacy demonstrations. Likewise with Rudy Guiliania.

While I disagree with John McCain on a whole slew of issues, he's most definitely preferable to the Big D.

I agree with you that I think McCain is the best that's been put forth. But I think it goes beyond just supporting military action in Iraq to get the win. Diplomacy with the Democrats of this Country, the next Iraq


Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.