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
Monday, November 27, 2006
Jeff Emanuel :: Townhall.com Columnist
Iraq -- An open letter to President Bush
by Jeff Emanuel
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Was the Copenhagen Global Warming Summit Walk-Out a Win for the U.S.?


Dear President Bush,

Now that you have had nearly a month to recover from the midterm election, I would like to humbly suggest that you once again focus your attention on the situation in Iraq, and its resolution.

There are two overarching concerns which I believe must be addressed immediately.

The first is the lack of a clearly-defined objective. What it is that we hope to accomplish in Iraq, and in the greater Middle East, must be determined. Then, both you and the Republican Party – which you lead, and which is still in control of Congress until the end of this year – must commit fully to that objective. Without a clearly defined goal, and without progress markers along the way, the undertaking in Iraq is less action with a purpose than a lethally directionless enterprise.

The second concern is the radically uneven playing field, with regard to the tactics, the techniques, and the firepower which each side is willing to employ.

Regardless of the reasoning behind it, we have been forcing our troops to fight with one hand (if not both) tied behind their backs – a situation which affords our enemies tremendous advantage.

From allowing “insurgents” to flee into – or to hide weapons caches within – mosques, to allowing our courts to rule that the due process granted to American citizens be afforded terrorists and enemy combatants, to refusing to forcefully interrogate captive terrorists (although when US soldiers were captured, they were not only brutally tortured, but beheaded and mutilated beyond recognition), combat in Iraq has become dangerously asymmetrical.

Make no mistake about it, Mr. President – these are extreme circumstances. We are fighting a war which extends far beyond the bounds of what could be defined as “usual combat,” and we must get a firm grip on this situation before it is too late.

What began as a war to increase the security of the United States, to depose a murderous tyrant, and to bring democracy to a region long known for dictatorships, quickly saw the successful removal of Saddam, as well as the strengthening of America's homeland security by causing terrorists to fight us there, rather than on American soil.

What did not follow, though, was the quick and easy pacification of a region which has long known brute strength as its only currency, and violence as its only bargaining tool.

If we are to defeat this enemy on a foreign battlefield now, rather than facing it on our own shores at some point in the future, then our only option is to stop playing defense, and take the fight to them.

Going into Iraq initially sent the message that America and her allies would not sit idly by while rogue dictators thumbed their noses at us, or while terrorists plotted to murder us all. It sent a message that the West was strong – and it made those who would do us harm take note.

Mumar Qaddafi got the message; within weeks of our invasion of Iraq, he was begging for the opportunity to give up Libya’s weapons of mass destruction.

Unfortunately, what has been happening since then has also made our enemies take note – but in an entirely different way.

Our enemies have long since noted America’s unease at the sight of its own blood being shed, and of soldiers in flag-draped coffins; thus, they have taken care to provide copious amounts of both. They have noted our refusal to pursue terrorists into mosques, or to return fire when civilians may be in danger (though they freely slaughter their own innocent without compunction), and they have used each of these to their advantage. Finally, our enemies have long since learned how to use America’s media against her – and they have done so spectacularly.

What must be done to reverse this tsunami of insurgent and terrorist advantage? What must we accomplish to call Iraq a success and to be able to leave?

The latter is something which must be decided immediately. Mr. President, we must define the mission, both in the short- and long-term.

Then, the next step must be taken: not only must our hands be unbound, but our gloves must come off. America has the greatest fighting force the world has ever known, and, though it has been successful in a great deal of the mission, we are once again being slowly bested on an asymmetrical battlefield.

We set a precedent when we sacrificed thousands taking and retaking the same square inches of jungle in Vietnam, and then fled the country, allowing it to be taken over by those we had ostensibly been dying to protect our ally against. We reinforced that precedent in 1983 when we fled Beirut, and further added to it ten years later, when we turned tail and ran from Mogadishu – an act which Osama bin Laden himself has credited with proving that America was a mere “paper tiger.”

Virtually no accomplishment is impossible for America, provided that her people and her leaders do not waver, and do not give up on the mission before success has been achieved.

Mr. President, those who rail against the war, against you, and against America herself must not be heeded right now. You must maintain your focus, and not allow this mission to be compromised. Every day that the fighting continues, more of America’s finest – real people, with real lives, real families, and real futures – are dying. Every one of them volunteered for this duty, and every one, to the last individual, is willing to give his or her life on a foreign battlefield for the cause of keeping America secure, and her people safe.

Abandoning this mission, or allowing it to be continued in this manner, compromises and marginalizes every one of those battlefield deaths, and further decreases the likelihood of accomplishing that goal for which each life has been given.

President Bush, your party – our party – lost this election. It may well have been a referendum on Iraq; certainly the two were not unrelated.

However, regardless of the election, of impending investigations, of media outcry, and of the opposition’s demands, here is what you MUST do, for the good of the nation: straighten your back, lift your head up, and reenter the arena, committed to, and ready for, the fight – and allow America’s armed forces to do what they do best, which is to fight and win wars, and to do so decisively, leaving no question in the minds of our enemies what the consequences are of taking on America, or of threatening her innocents.

Sir, I served, as did 25 million other men and women now living in this nation. Since the discontinuation of the draft, every person who has put on the uniform of this greatest nation the world has ever known has done so willingly, and with a full understanding of the risks involved – and, in volunteering for that service, has, in essence, said to any who would attempt to harm our innocents: “Here I am. Take me instead; for not only am I able to fight to protect the innocent among us, bit I am willing to die to do so, as well.”

Mr. President, you have asked our armed forces to fulfill that blood oath, and they have responded spectacularly, like the true champions and heroes that they are. Now we must make a request of you: fulfill the commitment you made when you decided to cash that chit with their blood, sweat, and tears by going into Iraq in the first place. That responsibility encompasses these two tasks:

(1) Establish the objective, set the mission, and allow your armed forces to complete it.

(2) Never, EVER allow yourself to waver in your commitment to their total victory.

If you can fulfill these responsibilities, then we can succeed. Our troops are both committed and willing, Mr. President – the rest is up to you.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Jeff Emanuel, a Special Operations military veteran, is a Leadership fellow with the Center for International Trade and Security at the University of Georgia, where he also studies Classics. In addition, he is a contributing editor for conservative web log RedState.com, and is a columnist for the Athens, GA Banner-Herald newspaper.

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

asymmetrical warfare
We don't have the stomache for it and never will. Insugencies can afford to take casualties at a ratio of 20 to 1 and still beat us, because we think the price we have to pay is too high.
We need to come up with a different stategy for taming Islamic Militancy other than engaging it on the ground.
That's Bush's challenge.

How to Fight Insurgencies
We know HOW to fight an insurgency. Just follow the rules of the very small American army that took the continent. Get on the enemies back, deny him sanctuaries, destroy his logistical base and run him into the ground.

General Sherman in fighting the Civil saw it as his job to make war so terrible that the enemy must quit.

So we know HOW. We just have let the left, like Ward Churchill and John Kery lie about what we do and make the United States and its' Military out to be the terrorists.

There are always casualties in war. If a terrorist runs to hide in a building and is not pointed out by the other occupants, destroy the building. Other ideas come to mind and if we did this the insurgency would be over in six months.

As to the aim of what we want in the Middle East, I don't think it is anything less than getting rid of murderous dictator's and establishing a functional representative democracy.

And if someone says that the Middle Eastern peoples can't function with democracy they are guilty of a racism more pernicious than attributed to conservatives.

A Tough Job,
But sombody has got to do it. With the advance in technology, robotics can be used to do a lot of the dirty work..
Would we rather spend the money,,or the lives?
Gather all the peacefull Iraqis in groups that are easy to defend and then just shoot anything that wiggles.
The ones that want to be freed and protected should willingly go to a place of safety for themselves and their children, just as the victims of Katrina and Rita had to relocate temporarily.
Shut down all the borders so that Iran and Syria and other nations that are sowing discord can not get in..
Selah

Send the Message
This article is so full of clarity, let's hope our government takes note. We are going out of our way to fight a "PC" war, and still not getting a shred of credit for it. The media just latch on to isolated incidents (abu Graib) and use it to smear our armed forces. For the sake of our troops, let's take the gloves off already. If a Mosque is turned into a fort or weapons storage facility, then why is it not a legitimate target? War sucks, but the longer we stay, the bloodier it gets for everyone.
Time to win it, send a message to the enemy, and go home.

By the Way
Thanks Jeff Emanuel, and all who have worn this nation's uniform, for your service.

Excellent Column
Excellent column. It is a pleasure to read and stands in distinct contrast with the drivel coming out of Washington D.C.. Mr. Emanuel's column contains the advice that President Bush should heed, not the nonsense that if reports are accurate, will be coming from the Baker Commission.

seansfm
Well said!
If they have so little respect for their 'holy' sites, then why should we worry ourselves over it? It is a nasty war and has been from the beginning and will be till it is finished.
I thank each and every soldier that has had to spend time overseas in any country to defend our freedom.
The MSM needs to have a large steel-toed combat boot swiftly placed in their butt.
If they do not appreciate what our soldiers are doing..let them go their butts over there and do it theirselves.
The MSM are collectively abusing the first amendment and should be dealt with.

DaieDaie MSM - Potential Steel Boot
Can a group of citizens, (a class), sue media for endangerment?

Could a class of citizens sue the NYT for revealing classified information during a war which endangers citizens.

Not a lawyer.
IVES

Understand Arab/Moslem Thought/Values!!!
The problem we have is that we aren't culturally sensitive enough -- while we are products of the Western Christian Liberal Enlightenment, the Arab and Moslem world has not yet had its enlightenment and they don't share our liberal (small "l") values.

I knew we would be in trouble before we even defeated Saddam when I saw the AP picture of the big American soldier with a wounded Iraqi soldier draped over his shoulders as he carried his foe off to be patched up. What we view as a sign of strenght (we are so powerful that we can treat our foe's wounds) and of basic human decency they view as a sign of weakness.

Seriously - a sign of weakness. They would steal his shoes or worse - and view us as weak for not doing likewise. This is how those people think.

Sure Islam might have its own Renasance, as a religion it is 500 years younger than Christanity and look where we were circa 1500 or so, but until then we need to be culturally sensitive to its values. The issue is not that we had unsupervised children playing games in Abu Garib but that we didn't do ENOUGH torturing. They would have respected us for that....

IVES
I'm not a lawyer either, but I once heard one say, "You can file suit against almost anyone for almost anything. Now.. winning that suit is a different story."

Cut and Run
We cut and run in any conflict we are in and Especially Korea and Vietnam. Even in WWII we seemingly turned half the world over to the Russians.

We are back to low or zero scoring by playing defensively again.


Readily...
This is THE plan...Take of the D**N gloves and fuhgeddaboutit!! Let's ROLL!
Readily should the US fight on the Iraq objective and COMPLETE THE MISSION,though the US will be the lone survivor!!!
That is a twist on acronym RANGER, second R,Ranger Creed. My Ranger friends taught that to me and I have never forgotten it. It actually goes like this...
Readily will I display the intestinal fortitude required to fight on the Ranger objective and complete the mission though I be the lone survivor.
Our soldiers have what it takes...Sir, Mr. President...will you support and defend? Let's getterdone!!

the nitty gritty.
Those who scream "racist" toward folks who question whether Islam is compatible with democracy are engaging in the same vile behavior the left embodies in its attacks against conservatives. It is not "racist" to raise the possibility that Shariah law may not possess the tolerance required in respecting religions other than Islam, as well as tolerating dissent, including the right to question or renounce Islam itself. In the Afghanistan we "liberated" from the brutal Taliban, a Muslim who had the gall to renounce Islam in favor of Christianity was compelled to flee the nation, for fear of his life, after Afghan mullahs issued a fatwa calling for his death. The few remaining Christians in Iraq and Lebanon are fleeing their respective nations due to persecution and war. Historically, when Muslim armies conquered lands, they forced the inhabitants to convert to Islam on pain of death, or placed them in bondage or dhimmitude, where they were treated harshly and made to pay exorbitant taxes simply to continue to live.
I agree with the author that we have never permitted our military to use its resources to defeat the insurgency and terrorists. But, the reason we did not so is precisly due to our commander in chief, who has steadfastly maintained that we are there to create a "democracy", not to obliterate Iraqis. So we are hamstrung. We can't destroy mosques or target for termination certain Iraqi communities where the insurgents and terrorists take refuge, because doing so would alienate Iraqis.
I also agree with the author that defeat in Iraq would greatly embolden terrorists worldwide. I just think the idea of invading that nation to install democracy was insane. Removing Saddam...a good thing. Believing Iraqis would abandon their centuries old blood, tribal and religious feuds...that was a most foolish belief. Some form of democracy probably would work among the Kurds, who pretty much have declared themselves to be a separate province in Iraq anyway. Can't imagine why....ahem.

EXCELLENT COLUMN
And it's a damn shame that our troops have been killed, tor toured and severely wounded fighting a war where politicians are more concerned about being politically correct. Wake up Washington DC! there is no such thing as fighting a politically correct war.

If the terrorist want to fight like cowards and hide their weapons in mosques, to bad, were going in.

It's time for our Commander in Chief to turn it up a notch, and fight this war with all the military strength that the US can unleash on the enemy. Doing so will send a clear message to any other little monkey leaders of third world countries who feel that they want to mess with the United States. Let the world know Mr. President that we are no longer concerned about the weenies in our political parties who are more concerned about being politically correct and their personal political carers than they do about the safety of our troops and our national security.

Mr. President, do your job and lead your troops, go out and kick some a** and take names later, our military has the capability. As the saying goes, just do it.

hntr admin
http://www.headsneedtoroll.org

A Quiet War
Before the elections, both 04 and 06, the tough work of this war had to concealed from the American voters...lest they cut and run.
President Bush missed a huge opportunity when he or Rove decided to hide the ultimate cost, soldiers returning in caskets.
The American People would have rallied in support of our effort in Iraq, even in our collective pain.
But when we get a strong sense that we are being kept from the truth, we become suspicious and doubtful.
President Bush received bad advice on the political management of the war.
He has to ask Americans to face the reality, to volunteer like never before, to stand up to the fight.

A Quiet War
Before the elections, both 04 and 06, the tough work of this war had to concealed from the American voters...lest they cut and run.
President Bush missed a huge opportunity when he or Rove decided to hide the ultimate cost, soldiers returning in caskets.
The American People would have rallied in support of our effort in Iraq, even in our collective pain.
But when we get a strong sense that we are being kept from the truth, we become suspicious and doubtful.
President Bush received bad advice on the political management of the war.
He has to ask Americans to face the reality, to volunteer like never before, to stand up to the fight.

the problem with "taking the gloves off"
The problem with this idea of "taking the gloves off" is that we don't know who we're fighting anymore.

Are we fighting the Sunnis? The Shiites? Only a small percentage of the carnage over there is due to foriegn jihadists.

Some of you people on the right need to wake up and realize what a complicated mess this is. What sense does it make to start killing Sunni's? What exactly would that accomplish? What would we accomplish by killing Shiites?

Do you folks really think that things will get better over there if we take a side in this civil war?

To me, the sign of someone who is delusional about the benefits of fighting this war is anyone who ever bought into this "fight'em over there so we don't have to fight'em over here" rhetoric. There is simply no logic behind this statement. It assumes that ALL of the jihadists are over there and NONE of them have ANY plans to attack us over here. If any of you really believed this nonsense you would believe that the FBI and CIA can just relax. We don't have to worry anymore because all of the jihadists are in Iraq. How absurd!

Time to face reality folks. All of this tough talk sounds noble, but it's delusional. And I think even President Bush is starting to realize that.

The truth is, we're never going to bomb our way to a resolution with Islamic extremism. We need to fight this battle on the ideology and reason and rhetoric. It is their ideology that is fueling their hatred so our goal should be to weaken their ideology. Unfortunately, what Bush is doing, and what this fool columnist is suggesting, are only going to further strengthen the ideology that undergirds their hatred for us.

When you find yourself in hole, stop digging.

Phylo out

Phylo
We can agree that the twisted ideology of the Islamo-Nazi sort needs to be countered. To be honest, I'm sick of this war because of the sacrifices Americans are being asked to make. If we continue this war, then we just need to finish it. Anyone who shoots at an American Soldier needs to be destroyed. All trouble makers in that region, from whatever group, need to be put on notice. It's a security issue, so that reasonable Iraqi's can take their country back. Iraq was supposed to be this "secular" dictatorship anyway. So what is the big deal about obliterating the enemy's base that used to be a Mosque? We can work on the hearts and minds later, what we've tried to do in that direction hasn't worked anyway. If we are not willing to win, then maybe we should just pull out. I have lost the will to continue the way we are trying to do it now. It is costing us too much, not accomplishing enough, and nobody seems grateful to the United States for ridding Saddam and trying to bring freedom anyway. We can try all day to be nice to our enemies, but that does not mean they will be nice back.

Total War
We could use a General like Sherman and a physicist like Edward Teller again. The war would get very ugly very fast; but it would be a long time before anyone wanted to wage war with the United States again.

GEM

A Conservative Plan For Iraq
http://www.controlcongress.com

Anyone who questions the lack of a realistic and comprehensive Iraq strategy is labeled a friend of fascism by the Republican leadership. House Majority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) recently said, “I wonder if [Democrats] are more interested in protecting the terrorists than protecting the American people.” Republicans are paralyzed with the fear of being thought ineffective on national security and the war.

Meanwhile, the Democratic leadership cannot seem to accept that—regardless of how we got there—we are in Iraq. They have not made a convincing case that an arbitrary phased or date-certain troop withdrawal is in the best long-term interest of the United States. Rather, they seem to think that withdrawal will undo the decision to have gone to war. Rubbing President Bush’s nose in Iraq’s difficulties is also a priority.

This political food fight is stifling the desperately needed public discussion about a meaningful resolution to the fire fight. Most Americans know Iraq is going badly. And they know the best path lies somewhere between “stay the course” and “get out now”.

Some Truths

1) Iraq is having a civil war between the Sunnis and Shiites. The Kurds will certainly join, if attacked. It may not look like a civil war, because they don’t have tanks, helicopters, and infantry; but they are fighting with what they have.

2) Vast oil revenues are a significant factor behind the fighting. Yes, there are religious and cultural differences—but concerns about how the oil revenue will be split among the three groups make the problem worse.

3) Most Iraqis support partitioning Iraq into Shiite, Sunni, and Kurdish regions. (Their current arrangement resulted from a pen stroke during the British occupation, not some organic alignment.)

4) Most citizens of the Middle East who support groups that kill and terrorize civilians—such as Hezbollah, Hamas, or al Qaeda—in part because of their aggressive stance against Israel and the United States, but also because they provide much needed social services, such as building schools.

5) Both Republican and Democratic administrations have spent decades doing business with the tyrants who run the Middle East in exchange for oil and cheap labor. This has been the one of the rallying calls of Bin Laden and Hezbollah—that we support tyrants who abuse people for profits. In fact, our latest trade deals with Oman and Jordan actually promote child and slave labor; it’s so bad the State Department had to issue warnings about rampant child trafficking in those countries.

6) Iran is using the instability in Iraq to enhance its political stature in the region. Leaving Iraq without a government that can stand up to Iran would be very destabilizing to the region and the world.

From the U.S. perspective, this is all mostly about energy. As things stand, a serious oil supply disruption would devastate our economy, threaten our security, and jeopardize our ability to provide for our children.

New Directions

Success in Iraq and the Middle East in general requires us to work in three areas simultaneously: (1) fostering a more stable Middle East region, including Iraq, (2) pursuing alternative sources of oil, and (3) developing alternatives to oil. To these ends we must:

1) Insure that the oil revenues are fairly and transparently split among all three groups: Shiite, Sunni, and Kurds based on population.

2) Allow each group to have a much stronger role in self government by creating three virtually-autonomous regions. Forcing a united Iraq down their throats is not working. Our military would then be there in support a solution that people want, rather than one they are resisting.

3) Become a genuine force for positive change, thus denying extremist groups much of their leverage. Driving a fair two-state solution to the Israeli/Palestinian problem should be our first priority. We should also engage in projects that both help the average Middle Easterner and Americans, such as supporting schools that are an alternative to the ones that teach hate and recruit terrorists. We should also stop participating in trade deals that promote child and slave labor by insisting on deals that include livable wages and basic labor rights.

4) Declare a Marshal Plan to end our Middle Eastern energy dependency with a compromise between exploring for new sources, reducing consumption, and developing of alternative energies. For example, we should re-establish normal relations with Cuba so we can beat China to Cuba’s off-shore oil. We should also redirect existing tax breaks for Big Oil into loan guarantees for alternative energy companies.

Once we no longer need so much oil from the Middle East, we can begin winning over its people by using our oil purchases to reward positive and peaceful behavior from their leaders. This would ultimately reduce tensions and encourage prosperity in the region.

We will have to live with the threat of Islamic radical terrorism forever; but these solutions are a start to reducing the threat. Both parties have to put politics aside and put together an honest and reasonable plan that the American understand.


A impassioned plea
But it is short on specifics. What does Jeff consider the goal? Beyond going into Mosques, what would he -- as a former military guy -- recommend in terms of "taking off the gloves."

Short of leveling villages and towns or adding enough troops to literally impose marshall law on the whole country, how do we find the shadow enemy. I agree that a better plan is needed -- I just don't see much commentary on what such a plan might be.

Shadroui:
I agree. People act like we can identify the enemy over there and are just not going after them. Not so!

Yo Phylo
Muslim extremists have continually shown their willingness to attack us wherever we show up as well as follow us home as they did after we left Somalia. What evidence do you have they will leave us alone if we leave Iraq? Pure logic says, if they did it up until now, they will continue the practice. You need to look at us the way they look at us, as infidels.
Everone is looking at Iraq as if a solution there will be the end of our conflict with Islamofascists (a term coined by a muslim cleric). That view is extremely myopic. If we have the stomach for it, we are in for decades of conflict with the Koranic view of Islam. Muslims are compelled by the Koran to instil Sharia law around the world by almost any means, including violence. Unless we are prepared to accept the 7th century thinking the Islamic madrassas are teaching young men, then get ready to continue fighting. Sorry Phylo, as much as you and I might not like to admit it, they will follow us home from Iraq or some other place.

Open Letter to the President
Sign me on to Mr. Emanuel's open letter with a big DITTO!

The goal is to bring the enemy to their knees and that means destroying, by any means possible, everyone who murders innocents. Those who subscribe to the creed of intentionally murdering innocent men, women and worst of all children, deserve no quarter whatsoever and I'm not referring to "collateral damage." I don't care if they're Shiite, Sunni, female, male or whatever. Find them and kill them with priority on the clerics and leaders of this evil system, but kill them we must. Unleash our military now.

Pissed off and fed up!
Never were the words of Samuel Adams more fitting than when applied to the pukes like the leadership of the left that America has had for the last forty years:

PACIFISTS
"Contemplate the mangled bodies of your countrymen, and then say, 'What should be the reward of such sacrifices?' ...if ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude (better) than the animating contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen!"

The President had better heed his own words. He had better stand with Liberty, and against pacifists, because pacifists are not for America. All they care for is their own interests, ease and comfort.

May God damn their souls as they ignore the souls of millions who seek Liberty!


Phylo
Attempting to counter the ideology of a zealot is a futile endeavor. As you state, this would be a rational thing on our part, but the problem is that any negotiating process requires a willingness to compromise on both sides to be successful. The Islamic fundamentalists have no such willingness. Their immutable position is "convert or die". If you know of some magic words that will bring enlightenment to these terrorists, please share them. Otherwise, we have about as much chance of converting them to a more temparate philosophy as I do of converting you to Conservatism.

I must agree here
One of our biggest problems is that we have a muddled concept of what the mission is. We stopped fighting in the middle of the war to start nation building and lost sight of the fact we were in a war! Nation building, infrastructure, keeping the lights on, rebuilding the economy...all of that has to wait until the enemy is finished off!

We didn't stop fighting the Germans to rebuild Dresden after D-Day and we didn't start trying to get lights on in Tokyo right after we finshed the Battle of Wake Island. Finish fighting the enemy, then worry about the P.R. war.

News flash - we are winning
This will come as a shock to posters who have bought the negativity of the so-called main stream media, but we are winning in Iraq.

Here's another shock. Things are going largely as Bush and Rumsfeld told us they would, although not in exact, precise terms.

Bush and Rumsfeld told us that Saddam's forces could be defeated quickly by our highly trained troops and their high-tech weapons. This turned out to be true.

Bush and Rumsfeld (and a dozen or so Democrats) told us saddam would get and use WMD if he wasn't stopped. This also turned out to be true.

Bush said Saddam was not yet an imminent threat to US security, but would soon become one if he wasn't stopped. A couple weeks ago the NY Times confirmed that Saddam was about a year away from having a nuke.

Rumsfeld told us the war on terror would be a "long, hard, slog". That is exactly what it has been and will continue to be.

Bush said there would be a self-determined, elected government in Iraq, and there is.

In 14 or 15 of Iraq's 18 provinces everyday life is literally a thousand times better than it was under Saddam. And even in the areas where foreign instigators and domestic death squads operate the murder rate is less than it is in the worst US cities.

What the MSM also doesn't tell us is that for the first time in more than 30 years real investment is being made in Iraq's economy and infrastructure; that the situation in Iraq is little different than it was in Germany after WWII or Russia after Glasnost.

What the MSM also can't tell you is what the death rate of Iraqis was under Saddam, and how it compares to now.

Many good things have already resulted from deposing Saddam, and many more will follow. What is tragic and inexcusable is that the left, including the so-called MSM, has used this war as a political football instead of understanding its importance to our national security, the war against terror, and the liberation of the Iraqi people.

Emanuel writes about troops having to fight with one hand tied behind their backs. It is not Bush who has done this. It is the left. The same left that has done everything it can to impede the war effort at every turn blames Bush for lack of progress.

The left has invested in our defeat in Iraq because they would rather choke on their own vomit than be forced to admit Bush was right about anything or did anything good.

An entangling net


In 1990 we (the intelligence community) were "smart enough" to foresee tribal and sectarian strife would be the result of overthrowing Saddam, and so the President did not venture to do so. Somehow, by 2003 the government had "forgotten" (or simply ignored) that foresight.

That is the past. What is the future. Iran has already looked past Iraq, through Syria and into Lebanon. It proposes to rearm Hezbollah and as a gift to Assad bring about the subjagation of lebabon, newly free, to Syria. The obvious quid pro quo is support for a renewed war on Israel's northern front. The only way to stop that will be through an occupation of Lebanon as we did in 1958.

Kurds -- except for the war with the Arab Sunni over the possession by the northern oil field -- are quiet. Unless we can find some reason to be able to have the Kurd territories become a part of the new Iraq, there is a potential for an independent Kurd homeland which will create huge pressures from southeast Turkey where the kurds are in the majority and northwest Iran (not a bad thing.) Turkey has told us that an independent Kurd nation will be dealt with by their army.

And then we have the rest to deal with. Without any oil reserves the Sunni provinces without an Iraqi federation can see only poverty. That is an economic and a military problem.

The majority Shia are under tremendous pressure. Iran is supplying arms to al Sadr and the Mahdi militia. Iran's objective is either the uniting of Arab Shia with Persian Shia, or internecine warfare continuing to weaken the country.

What we need to do is to pacify one by one the tribes -- the traditional form of governance and link them as appropriate into regional coalitions. Rewarding each for performance.

Anyone remembers the election ?
Does anyone on this site remember the thumping inflicted on the Republicans ? After 6 years of total ineptitude from the "Holy triumvirate,Rummy,Cheney and George" how about if they just 'don't do anything' and 'don't touch anything'?The constant claim that the Democrats don't have any plan for the resolution of this conflict sounds quite hollow in the face of such dismal record.If nothing else,trying to screw up as bad the Republicans did is a VERY hard to follow if not impossible.

Learning from History
There is a quote that has been repeated in various ways by both great and lesser individuals throughout much of recorded history. "Those that do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it!"

I have often wondered why that quote was said, said by so many wise men and so often throughout history. It is because we are determined not to learn from history. Many like to believe as humans we have advance so far intellectually and technologically that we only fight wars for evil reasons not because we are required to fight them to maintain our liberties, freedom, and way of life. Yet the "civilization" of Western Democracy is now in the minority on the planet.

We are opposed by ruthless enemies that have clearly stated they wish to do us extreme harm, to destroy us. Yet we are told that this is only their leaders not the people on the ground. The people want peace and prosperity. This is analogous to saying that fascism and communism came to power in the early 20th Century without support of large number of good citizens.

As Churchill said: "Let us learn our lessons. Never, Never, never believe any war will be smooth and easy.....Always remember, however sure you are that you can easily win, that there would not be war if the other man did not think he also had a chance."

Consider how we have responded to Islamic terrorism from 1979 until 2001 and that it appears we are returning to those days pre9-11, then we all must prepare for what is to come. It may just make 9-11 look like a minor event.

Good post wiseone
You said everything I had intended and MUCH more!

OUR war
Makoshark you are so right!

Jeff you have a great post and it shuld be on the lessons learned required reading for the Bush camp.

It appears that our way of conducting this war is not working. We use laser pinpointing weapons to minimize colatteral damage and get no credit for it. We do not target mosques due to our respect for religion when they do not respect either life of religion, even their brother muslims.

It is time to take the gloves off. No more nice guy, war is a time for killing and not for being PC. Why is al Sadar still alive? The same goes for the others that are preaching hate every day, take 'em out. Take the TV stations out and replace them with propaganda (yes that is what they will see it as, but if they can tell lies against us all the time we can tell our side often enough that perhaps at least some of them will believe it) that gives our side of the picture. We are not all bad and we need to show them some of "our side of the story" to start winning converts to our way.

We can win, we must win or we will lose big time. I will not live under schira law.

Ed

You can only win a war against an enemy
The reason we are fighting the war with one hand tied behind our back is the same reason we fought the Viet Nam war that way. We are not fighting a total war against an enemy. If the country you want to fight is divided between the good guys and the bad guys or as in Viet Nam the Communists and the non-Communists then it is a civil war or an internal situation and anyone who goes in to intervene will end up like we have in Iraq or like we did in Viet Nam. You should fight a war only when the entire nation and the people of that nation you are fighting are enemies not a mix of friends and enemies or you are intervening in an internal affair. We did not divide the Japanese into the good Japanese and the bad Japanese. All the Japanese were our enemy. The same was true of the Germans. When you have established that the nation and its people are your enemy then you can fight a total war without one hand tied behind your back and you have a good chance of victory with the best military force in the world. We cannot change the Middle East situation through warfare and invasion unless we are willing to declare all nations in the Middle East who do not go along with our agenda for the Middle East as our enemy and we are willing to utterly defeat such nations in all out war but this is not practical or desireable as there are nuclear weapons in the region and we don't have the ground forces to invade all the countries that fall into that category. The goal of many of those nations is the destruction of Israel and since Israel is our faithful ally we cannot agree with their agenda. We cannot establish security in Iraq when the security forces we have trained are infiltrated with death squads and when the police we have trained stand by and allow murder to take place before their eyes which happens all the time now. Unless we could purge the security forces of partisans for the destruction of the Sunni population then we cannot ever establish security in Iraq and with what many call a civil war going on in Iraq such a purge would be near impossible we would have to start over and try to train a neutral police and army for Iraq which would commit us to more time in Iraq than we are willing to spend so there are only some very unpleasant options left to us. We could solicit the help of other Middle Eastern nations including Syria and Iran to help us solve the mess we have created or we could break Iraq up which some say the Iranians would love to see happen. The third unpleasant solution would be to withdraw soon, turning security over to the Iraqis. The first one to try would be
involvement of other Middle Eastern nations. To stay and hope to bring security will just result in our bleeding ourselves indefinitely in the middle of a civil war and a terrorist insurgency.

One definition of insanity...
...is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. The author of this article seems to be attempting to resurect the "stay the course" mentality abandoned by even the most hawkish members of the current administration. This, despite the fact that the violence has gotten worse, not better, during the past year. To suggest, in this post-Abu Gahrib, post-Haditha massacre world that what we are chiefly lacking in this conflict is some sort of requisite ruthlessness is beyond absurd; it is pure madness.
In one respect I do agree with the author. Our military has been forced to operate at less than maximum effciency because of political correctness. It was not the political correctness of the liberal left however, it was the PC of this belicose, chicken-hawk administration that insisted that we invade Iraq under-manned, ill-equiped and without a plan for political stability. From ignoring the Powell doctrine, to firing Gen. Shinseiki this administration hobbled our army in the most disgraceful ways. Please notice that this is merely a critique of the conduct of the war; don't get me started about the validity of invading Iraq in the first place.

More sanity - I hope

I keep reading about "the Iraqi's, the Iranians, the Jordanians", etc. I submit that it is too much of a stretch to lump them all together even by country or state. We need to think of the Iranian LEADERS, and leave out the people. They are the sheep. We need to wage war with the sheephearders. We neeed to go back to the time when the tribal chiefs fought each other with swords or clubs and leave the people out of their folly.

Get al Sadar and his ilk, get Amadinejad (sp?), get the imams that are fomenting the hatred. GET THEM BAD AND PUBLICLY. The middle east history if full of examples of control by force. That is what the people know and respect. Once those sheep are led by a generation or two by a benevolent dictator will they then be able to understand what a republican (notice the small r) government is all about.

I hate to think of it, but I'm afraid that most of the top muslim leaders fall into the same category as al Sadar and company regardless of their country of residence. This bodes ill for the world I'm afraid, but it is either us or them, our way or their way. My choice is clear.

Ed

Jeff
There is no such thing as the "Powell Doctrine".

Attacking with overwhelming force has been in the military plans for centuries. For example, Gen. McClelland (US Army of the Potomac) was famous (some would say "infamous") for waiting until his army was in such a position (numerically) that defeat was impossible. It didn't always work. See also the Battle of Antietam/Sharpsburg; the Peninsula Campaign, too.

Powell was a "political" general, not some great military strategist. Powell was also not a combat general like Patton or MacArthur.

The left holds up Powell as the epitome of good military generalship; I'd say he's the antipathy of it.

Sorry, should be . . .
McClellan. (darn fingers!)

An Open Letter to President Bush
When President Bush landed on the flight deck of the USS. Abraham Lincoln ON May 1st, 2003 he was greeted by a banner reading: “Mission Accomplished,” and so it was.

Let’s go back to August ’03. The mission referred to was to take out Saddam Hussein (and that man needed taking out), the ‘battle-tested’ Iraqi army ceased to exist as a cohesive fighting force in but a few days of combat and, most important, Libya, Somalia, and Pakistan made haste to join the winning side—us.

If we had quit right there and then, leaving behind a note to whoever grasped power in Baghdad that they could have a repeat performance anytime they felt so inclined, it is exceedingly unlikely that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran, Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, Evo Morales of Bolivia (all three democratically elected) and Kim Jong-il of North Korea, would have dared to snap their fingers in a what-are-you-going-to-do-about-it gesture in Jonathan’s face.

But no, we had to go and try to impose a 'democracy' on a culture to whom the concept of a 'loyal opposition' is so absurd that it doesn't even merit consideration, and that a man can differ with you and still be an honorable person totally incomprehensible, is a recipe for disaster.

What are we now doing in Iraq? Win a war? We won it. To put it plainly, Arab armies stand no chance in a slogging match against a Western army; it is simply not in their military tradition. The Arab military genius lies in light cavalry tactics—they skirmish an enemy to death.

We are now faced with the same problem that defeated General Bonaparte in Egypt, that defeated the British and French in their respective mandates in the Levant, that defeated France in Algeria, that defeated the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, that defeated Israel in Lebanon and is defeating them in the West Bank. We are now facing a classical guerrilla war fought by a band of dedicated fanatics holding their own lives as well as Iraqi civilians of no account as long as they can kill us.

Right now our forces in Iraq face two enemies, namely Jihadists eager to earn their 72 virgins each (as an aside, what do the girl-jihadists get?), and the American media eager to play the "Gotcha!' game who, in the full knowledge that should they be captured by the Jihadists and on video decapitated after being made to grovel and beg for mercy, are eager to trumpet on top of their voices any behavior of our troops which does not conform to their idea how to conduct a campaign in which there are no rules, at least not from our adversaries.

Let’s face it our adversaries no longer fear us and why should they.

E. David Litvak

GunnyG
Have you sent BrianR on another secret mission?

Are We Willing to pay the Price?
I spent a year in Vietnam watching our government fighting a war it was both afraid to win and scared to lose. There were many other ways to fight that war than commit American ground forces. 50,000 men paid the supreme sacrifice for our blunders.

The American people need to be talked to like a Dutch Uncle on this matter. The question at hand is: How far do we go to save our nation? What limits do we set on how much military might we deploy? What is the limit at which we say, "enough?"

Whether one believes our invasion of Iraq was a mistake or not, we are, for better or worse, committed. Our enemies are different, but their tactics are the same: get the Americans to start counting body bags; blow-up buildings and kill American soldiers during peak media times for the greatest overall effect; do what is necessary to generate media-covered anti-war demonstrations; pander to the Democratic Party as a covert ally who will be counted on to "redeploy" the troops. And of course, political correctness rears its ugly face to put pressure on our troops and not the enemy, to fight with one hand behind our backs.

How far will we go to protect this nation? The mullahs and Imams "Know" we will not nuke them, so they are emboldened to take actions that could trigger a nuclear response; thanks to "world Opinion" and political correctness, we will not. One nuclear attack against nuclear weapons facilities would send a quick message to these middle eastern thugs that the gloves are off and it is showtime.

MyOpine & GunnyG
What has happened to BrianR?

Richard
Your last sentence was more powerful than Sam Adams' whole quote.

Dont forget.
The US invented guerrilla warfare (before we became the US) during the revolutionary war. How else would we have beaten the British who had a much larger and better trained force?

We should use those tactics again, and not just in Iraq. If Iran and Syria are involved, we are more than capable of incursions into their lands; why do you think we have Navy Seals, Marine Force recon and the Green Berets.

Iraq should also seriously begin an Intelligence bureau. They need to infiltrate these mosques and other groups fueling the sectarian violence.
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.