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!
Login | What's Hot
  • 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
Wednesday, April 09, 2008
Rich Galen :: Townhall.com Columnist
General Protect Us
by Rich Galen
Forward Print Share Single Page
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?


From Gen. David Petraeus' opening remarks to the US Senate Armed Services Committee:

Security in Iraq is better than it was when Ambassador Crocker and I reported to you last September, and it is significantly better than it was 15 months ago when Iraq was on the brink of civil war and the decision was made to deploy additional forces to Iraq.

Last September Democrats were frothing at the mouth as they looked for reasons to declare "The Surge" in Iraq an abject failure.

Unfortunately for the MoveOn.org wing of the Democratic Party, General Petraeus proved to be the military equivalent of Chief Justice John Roberts - intellectually honest and factually powerful.

Democratic Senators - whose staffs had labored for weeks to develop the "killer question" which would embarrass Petraeus - only served to expose the Senators to be the self-promoting, ill-prepared, unproductive academic pygmies they are.

Gen. Petraeus and Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker had to sit through hours of political theater - mostly amateur political theater - while the Senators postured and the two men at the pointy end of the sword patiently parried.

At one point in the proceedings, Petraeus tried to explain to the Senators that they shouldn't look at the up-tick in violence over the past few weeks in isolation to the overall improvement of security in Iraq.

A significant percentage of Middle Eastern men have attended college in the West. It is not at all unusual to ask someone where he went to college and have him answer something like Colorado State.

The point here is, the bad guys understand the nature of the media. Over the past few weeks they have returned to their first principals: If you want to influence the Western press, toss rockets and mortars into the Green Zone where the Western press will report it.

The bad guys knew that Petraeus and Crocker would be testifying this week, so they increased their bad behavior to attempt to influence policy.

Obviously the American media were specifically interested in the questions posed by the three remaining candidates for President, John McCain, Hillary R.(!) Clinton and Barack H.(!) Obama.

On Fox yesterday morning, I suggested that Obama needed a map to find his way to the hearing room.

This is the actual transcript, according to the Washington Post, of Obama's first question:

Should we be successful in Mosul, should you continue, General, with the effective operations that you've been engaged in, assuming that in that narrow military effort we are successful, do we anticipate that there ever comes a time where Al Qaida in Iraq could not reconstitute itself?

Read it again.

See? You can read that as many times as you like and it will not make any more sense than it did the first time.

Now say these words to yourself: President Barack H.(!) Obama.

Make you feel comfortable?

Later in his questioning, Barack H.(!) Obama asked this of Ambassador Crocker: Can you respond a little more fully to Senator Boxer's point?

Let me tell you: If it weren't for Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) would be the dumbest member of the US Senate. So Obama depending upon anything that Boxer asked is an open admission of his lack of preparation.

The Democrats in Congress must take care that they are not seen as rooting for failure in Iraq.

Americans are, by our nature, optimists. We may be exhausted by this war, but we will never be so weary that we want our military personnel to lose.

General Petraeus is representative of the hundreds of thousands of Americans who have answered the call to duty in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Given that, it is politically very dangerous for Democrats to try and paint Petraeus as anything other than a patriot.

Share:
Forward Print Single Page
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author

Rich Galen has been a press secretary to Dan Quayle and Newt Gingrich. Rich Galen currently works as a journalist and writes at Mullings.com

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

Join The Debate!

Post Your Comment
(22 comments so Far)
View in ascending order     View in descending order
Reply # 1
Date: Apr 9, 2008 - 11:35 AM EST
We need more than a condom here.
I agree with Rich Galen that after years of this administration's incompetence and bungling on Iraq, Petraeus and his crew have rescued the disaster of the Bush approach on Iraq, and turned it into a manageable mess...short-term anyway.

I guess that is progress...of a sort.

God knows we'll take anything we can get! At this point.

Still, we did bribe Sunni warlords and tribesmen in Anbar to turn their fire from us, and to Iraq's small contingent of Al Qaida.

But there is still this problem of lack of allegiance to the national government.

Sunni tribesmen are loyal to their tribal elders and to their warlords, not to al Maliki.

And I think it fair to say that Basra demonstrates al-Sadr is far from loyal to the al Maliki government.

So, yes, I agree with Galen that to withdraw now would turn a Bush fiasco into an unmitigated disaster.

But the longterm problem is this:

WE pay Sunni insurgents to go after Iraq's small band of Al Qaida. These Sunnis are doing it because they are compensated, and because they envision the day they will again be in control of Iraq. There is no loyalty on their part to the national government.

I thought the whole purpose of our post-invasion effort was to wean Iraqis away from their tribal loyalties, and to a national government, so that reconciliation can occur.

But with our inducements to Sunni tribes, we are in effect empowering the tribes at the expense of the already barely existing national government.

That, friends, ain't a propitious development.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 2
Date: Apr 9, 2008 - 3:49 PM EST
Rich
Is the "Surge" succeeding or failing.Please note the "Participles"!
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 3
Date: Apr 9, 2008 - 5:35 PM EST
For JD
You already had your Julius Caesar, he crossed the border into Iraq 5 years ago. It took the American forces (backed by the largest airforce and missile force in the world) three weeks to reach Baghdad, and defeat an army that had lost its interest in fighting a long time ago.

Your Julius Caesar even put on a flight uniform, pretending he landed the plane on the aircraft carrier, and proclaimed that mission was accomplished.

From that time on, your Bird of Triumph started moulting, until he became what he is now, a pathetic little chickenhawk, hiding behind a decent general, who has been given an impossible task. Petraeus knows that unless he toes the line Bush and Cheney have put down, he will be out on his ear, like all the generals who were forced to retire before him.
But, you should be satisfied with your chickenhawk. You seem to favor a situation where the Constitution is trampled, and the separation of powers destroyed, until Bush is unaccountable to anyone, and can have life and death powers over the American people. That situation is called American Fascism, and you seem very comfortable in it.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 4
Date: Apr 9, 2008 - 6:41 PM EST
JD
And what would your role be, in this fantasy straight out of "Ben Hur?" I can see you as a lanista. Yes, that would be perfect.

Sorry, but I don't think we can fulfill your dream. We didn't do that in Germany, we didn't do it in Japan. It has something to do with a country losing its soul, with such behavior.... No matter. You wouldn't understand.
You know, the British had a much more developed sense for empire; they conquered vast lands and held them with a handful of bureaucrats, and few forces. Divide and conquer. But even they had to beat it out of Iraq, after 30 years of a messy occupation.
No, it's bad enough that we messed this job completely. Not that we couldn't have done it better; but the job was left to people who think with their pen!ses, and had contempt for and complete ignorance of the enemy.
One of the rarest commodities in Iraq are soldiers who speak Arabic. Yet the army discharged 16 teachers of Arabic from its language school. Their crime? They were gay.
Speaking of idiots...
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 5
Date: Apr 10, 2008 - 4:01 AM EST
Jerabaub distortions PT 1
Jerabaub claims falsely "Still, we did bribe Sunni warlords and tribesmen in Anbar to turn their fire from us, and to Iraq's small contingent of Al Qaida."

First point is the first Sheik in Iraq to join us did so without any compensation. This was reported by Gen Petraeus in his testimony.

Second, let’s define a “Bribe” since Jerabaub may have trouble with our language.

The following definitions are Webster’s on line:

Bribe: money or favor given or promised in order to influence the judgment or conduct of a person in a position of trust

Salary: fixed compensation paid regularly for services

So on the one hand if you use it loosely everyone’s Salary is a bribe. However, traditional English language usage separates the two, in that if you show up for work on a schedule and perform services or duties at a set wage you get a salary.

The SOI are both Sunni and Shia, this is a point Jerabaub knows or could research but fails to mention. In Anbar, of course, they are all Sunni because that is an almost all Sunni province. In areas to the South and East of Baghdad such as Wasit province where the majority Shia live, the SOI are Shia. I am not aware if there is Kurdish SOI or not so I am not in a position to speak on that.

The SOI get paid an hourly wage and wear a distinct uniform. They have specific duties that they do and set hours they work. They do more then fight AQI, they help us set up roadblocks, identify JAM extremists, stop the emplacement of IEDs (roadside bombs), and help us discover weapons Caches. For example Gen Petraeus pointed out we have found more weapon caches in the first four months of 2008 then we did in all of 2006. It also cost us less to pay the SOI then it does to repair the damaged vehicles they prevent.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 6
Date: Apr 10, 2008 - 4:04 AM EST
Jerabaubs distortions PT 2
Jerabaub claims falsely, and for the second time in two days, “I thought the whole purpose of our post-invasion effort was to wean Iraqis away from their tribal loyalties”

Well rather then repeat what I wrote yesterday I will just say that weaning Arabs away from tribal loyalties was never a goal. If he has an “OFFICIAL” source that says so, provide us a link.

Tinsldr2@yahoo.com or hit me on the blog
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 7
Date: Apr 10, 2008 - 8:01 AM EST
Ask this simple question...
“Americans are, by our nature, optimists. We may be exhausted by this war, but we will never be so weary that we want our military personnel to lose.”

SOME Americans feel this way. I’m not sure if most do.

Ask this simple question to any Democrat: Do you want to win the war? And more than likely, you’ll receive a convoluted response in attempts to deflect the question. Many have staked their political careers in defeat and are now doing the Texas two-step trying to survive. And sadly, they’re eight year campaign to demonize President Bush has succeeded, which keeps their flock firmly in tow. Kool-Aid anyone?
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 8
Date: Apr 10, 2008 - 8:23 AM EST
Tinsldr
I don't think you are on very solid ground if your argument is that the U.S. has no problem with Sunnis continuing to emphasize tribal loyalties at the expense of national reconciliation.

It matters little whether it is part of the "surge", or more general approach to Iraq, the U.S. cannot argue that we have a vested interest in Sunni allegiance to tribal elders and warlords, rather than the national government.

I agree to your criticism of my use of the term, "bribe". Perhaps "financial inducements" would have been more appropriate.

I am sure the SOI program is of great benefit.

I hope Iraq does turn around.

The upcoming elections hopefully will clarify matters.

In prior elections(post invasion), Sunnis did not vote in large numbers. They boycotted the elections. If they vote in large numbers this time, that WILL be an encouraging development.

If in the elections, the slate of candidates identified with the al-Maliki government does well, that too will be a most encouraging sign.

If, however, the party of al-Sadr does well, that will not be a good sign.

I know you think I distort matters, but I simply am not buying all the hoopla this administration presents on the war.

Having said that, I reject a premature withdrawal. I believe the loss of life and financial costs of the war were not worth it.

But we are there now, and must work to bring about a stable Iraq. I am sure we agree on that point, anyway.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 9
Date: Apr 10, 2008 - 11:24 AM EST
The question that should have been asked
It is not questioning the patriotism of General Petraeus to observe that, at the end of the day, he will tell Congress what his civilian masters have told him to tell Congress. The example of what candor does for the military career was clearly demonstrated by General Shinseki's fate. Had I been at that Congrssional hearing my question to General Petraeus would have been a simple one: Why, after five years, has the U.S. Army been unable to train and put into the field a reasonably competent Iraqi army? In WWII, we turned rank civilians into trained troops in less than three years - an army that went on to defeat a significant portion of the 20th Century's best army - that of Germany. So, what is the problem here? As a former Army officer I'm tired of the excuses I keep hearing from the general officer ranks. The cold, unpleasant fact is that a continued large scale military presence in Iraq means career opportunities for the professional officers - the "ticket punching" mentality is still around and a combat command has always been the penultimate career enhancer. Even allowing for so-called cultural differences, it is obvious that our training methods and theory are failing - or they are, to use a term all veterans will appreciate, "eyewash." The best trainers of Third World peoples into good soldiers were the British - black, brown, whatever - the Brits could turn them into good fighting units. Why not ask their advice - it might save a lot of American lives and treasure.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 10
Date: Apr 10, 2008 - 11:43 AM EST
ACKKK please excuse my last post
Was in the process of composing a reply and hit post somehow prematurely.

jerabaub states "the U.S. cannot argue that we have a vested interest in Sunni allegiance to tribal elders and warlords, rather than the national government."

The reality is the typical Arab both Sunni and Shia Always put tribal allegiance before national allegiance. To think that we can change this way of thinking on their behalf in the short term is both arrogant on our part and lead to failure.

However, the two options are not mutually exclusive. If the tribal sheiks see that it is in their best intrest and intrest of their people to work within a constitutional framework then there can be a measure of stability.

Much like many Americans hate the current administration, the typical Sunni will never like a Shia dominated central gov. However if they see that it is in there best interest to participate then that will be the type of reconcilliation progress that we are looking for. As Jerabaub corectly states the Sunni participation in last election was minimal, and the Sunni Sheiks are regretting it as they are denied power.

With the help of the SOI in ferreting AQI out of Sunni dominated enclaves we can work towards bringing the Sunni leadership into the governmental framework.

Just my opinion.

Flag as Offensive

Reply # 11
Date: Apr 10, 2008 - 12:31 PM EST
Wolfgang and ignorance of military
Wolfgang shows a lack of knowledge of both the iraqi military and military in general.

he states "Had I been at that Congrssional hearing my question to General Petraeus would have been a simple one: Why, after five years, has the U.S. Army been unable to train and put into the field a reasonably competent Iraqi army? In WWII, we turned rank civilians into trained troops in less than three years '

First, at the outbreak of WWII we had a trained and standing Military that formed the Cadre of a new expanded military, a gov infrastructure to control that Military, Facilities to train new recruits, and we were not being attacked on our mainland. Our logistic systems were in place even if the equipment wasnt off the assembly lines yet.

Secondly in many of the first battles we waged in North Africa our troops did not perform well. It took us quite awhile for the US Military to get rolling right in WWII.

The Iraqi Army Is making huge strides. They went from nothing to 10 Divisions in about three years. While you can train a PVT or a LT in a matter of months, to develope senior leaders, logistic systems, communication systems, command and control structures, planning cells and everything else needed to field a fighting force, takes years. In WWII we had trained Officers and NCOs that we could promote as the Military expanded. We already had the Pattons, Bradleys, McCains, and Marshalls. The Iraqi Military is starting without that edge.

The constant improvements the Iraqi Army is making are incredible. But a key to any Army is the civilian control of that Army. So before you can even talk about an Iraqi Army you had to have an Iraqi Gov. At the start of WWII for the US we had that key govermental instution in place not trying to create it from scratch.

To be cont...
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 12
Date: Apr 10, 2008 - 12:44 PM EST
Wolfgang Pt 2
Wolfgangs talk of officers wanting to "Ticket punch" and his insulting the integrity of is further malarkey. The Military is here because Congress voted for the President to have the Authority to send us here. Gen Lynch carries with him the personal burden of every Soldier in the Task Force that died. You can see it in his face when he talks. The Brigade and BN commanders feel the same. It is not about a ticket but about Duty.

Secondly, there were no flasehoods or misrepresentations given by General Petreaus or Admiral Crocker. The falsehoods and distortions came from the other side of the Aisle. Its not like the general wants a promotion (he can't get any higher) or like he needs the job and cant make more money with his pension and a civilian Job. What possible reason would Wolfgang have to disrespect General Petreaus?

Oh and the post I sent prematurely and referenced above has been removed.

Tinsldr2@yahoo.com
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 13
Date: Apr 10, 2008 - 1:09 PM EST
Rebuttal
Tinsldr2:

Either you are one of those loathsome neocons who puff your chests out and proclaim patriotic support - from the comfort of your living room recliner - or you are the very officer type that I criticize - the "ticket puncher." In either event, your own knowledge of military history leaves something to be desired.

Don't misinform people about all those "resources" we had at the beginning of WWII. At the 1941 Louisiana maeuvers troops used brooms to simulate anti-tank guns because the equipment wasn't there. That wonderful regular army cadre you wax ecstatic over - George Marshall had to prune a LOT of dead wood out of it. The time line I gave for our forces in WWII is correct, considering that large scale drafting commenced in 1941. Yes, the U.S. Army was taught some hard lessons in North Africa in 1942 - Rommell was a good teacher at Kasserine Pass - but the learning curve was very quick - research the battle of El Guatar. By the June 1944 invasion of Normandy, the efficiency of our divisions was steadily increasing.

As for the Iraqi debacle, my criticism stands. Using your logic, because of the sectarian problems inherent to Iraqi politics, there never will be an effective Iraqi army - there will always be the excuse of a lack of civilian control. Bushwaa! The fact is that excepting four or five battalions, those ten divisions you crow about cannot mount any kind of operation on their own - there is still a desertion problem. And if you deny that the current officer corps doesn't engage in "ticket punching", you don't know the military. And for the record - my bona fides are eleven years as an infantry officer - I've seen the system up front. What are yours?

Flag as Offensive

Reply # 14
Date: Apr 10, 2008 - 1:37 PM EST
Wolfgang Bonafides
You just made my point.
You state
"At the 1941 Louisiana maeuvers troops used brooms to simulate anti-tank guns because the equipment wasn't there. That wonderful regular army cadre you wax ecstatic over - George Marshall had to prune a LOT of dead wood out of it. '

Exactly. There was an Army in 1941 that was holding Manuevers. As an Infantry officer of 11 years, (senior CPT most likely) you probably participated and know the importance of Staff exercises. There was an infrastructure and Cadre. There were bases posts and training areas. There wasnt an insurgency going on. The folks of LA were not blowing up (other then racial incidents) the buses carrying soldiers to training.

As for the Iraqi Army (IA) that is standing up from nothing there is a large problem of communication infrastructure and logistical support. The training and readiness is increasing as is the civilian control and MOD structure. In 05 the IA brigades were under US Divisisions, today the IA Brigades are starting to take the lead in operations, are manning joint security sites (JSS) with coalition partenrs and take all directions from the Iraqi MOD. We have no direct tasking authority over Iraqi Army units. That is a move in right direction.

A good source of info is http://www.taskforcemarne.com

For Wolfgang, As for my "bonafides" 4 years enlisted infantry on the active side, 5 reserve enlisted infantry, and 16 years signal corps Officer on the Active Side. Kuwait 94, Bosnia 96, Kosovo 2000, Iraq 05-06, and Iraq March 07-until present. As I have 20 minutes before DFAC (chow hall) closes send me an email to Tinsldr2@yahoo.com and I will send you an email from my Army account with a picture of me with Iraqi Soldiers. I think we can both be trusted to maintain annonymity.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 15
Date: Apr 10, 2008 - 2:00 PM EST
Support of Tinsldr2
The US Government also adopted a policy of inflating the officer ranks after WWI. This was for the reason Tins mentioned above; it is easy to train a PVT, but takes years to train quality officers and NCOs. As a result, the staff structure was pushed downn into the battalion level. As a result, we had many more officers that actually need during the peace between WW I and II. That enabled the US to rapidly increase the size of the military after 12/7/41.
I doubt we would be able to do that today because of the current of anti-americanism that is so virulent amount the leftist of this country.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 16
Date: Apr 10, 2008 - 2:03 PM EST
Tinsldr
As of the end of 1939, U.S. Army had a mere 190,000 army soldiers, and by the end of 1941, about 1.4 million. From the attack on Pearl Harbor onward, that number skyrocketed(8.2 million by war's end). We had a minimal standing army when Pearl Harbor occurred.

It is interesting that of all active duty soldiers who served in WW2, about 2/3rds were DRAFTEES.

Given that WW2 is regarded by most historians as our military's finest hour, one might reflect upon the fact that this force was mostly draftees.

Perhaps Bush should have considered the character of force utilized during our military's finest hour when he decided upon the complexion of the force for Iraq, and whether the need for a draft might be appropriate.

I think we both know why there was no way Bush was going to ask for a draft for THIS war.

After all, Bush did tell us our contribution in this war on terror was to "go shopping". I think we get the gist of what he deemed to be an appropriate "sacrifice" for the ordinary American.

I enjoy your postings. I respect you, and I respect your service. You are a fine American. And I hope my remarks do not anger you.

But I disagree with your contention that Sunni tribesmen allegiances to their Sunni sheiks and Warlords will be transferable to a Shia national government. Can happen? Who knows? It is against their nature. The fact we must erect barriers and walls to seal off Sunnis from Shias in Baghdad ain't an encouraging sign.

I understand your point about SOI. I agree with it, from the standpoint that putting money into the hands of Sunni tribesmen make them want to build small businesses instead of bombs.

I really think Wolfgang makes great points about how quickly American troops became battle-ready, and how, after four years, Iraqis still are not up to the task.


Flag as Offensive

Reply # 17
Date: Apr 10, 2008 - 2:16 PM EST
Civil War


Over the past 2 weeks there has been a MAJOR UPTICK in Violence in IRAQ.

None of it has been attributed to Al Qaida.

Why are we there?
Are we joining the CIVIL WAR?
Which Side are we fighting for?
Sunni's that used to be Insurgents or part of Saddam's Army and now being paid to be Our Awakening Force?
The Sons of Iraq Vigilantes?
The Shiites that we are paying $300/mo?
The Shia controlled government?
The Mehdi Army?
The Kurds?

I thought the LATEST REASON for staying in Iraq was to DEFEAT Al Qaeda there so they do not come here to kill Americans.
Between the Allied Force of 160,000, the Awakening Force of 70,000 and the 430,000 Iraqi
Security Forces (660,000 Total) shouldn't we be focusing on the remaining 6000 Al Qaeda Terrorists? Apparently we have killed or captured 4000 Al Qaeda over the past couple years.
So if we stay focused 100 years, $5 Trillion, 8000 more Dead Troops, 30,000 more Wounded Troops may not be necessary
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 18
Date: Apr 10, 2008 - 5:35 PM EST
Truth be told ...
Dear Mr. Galen:

In your column you write: "We may be exhausted by this war, but we will never be so weary that we want our military personnel to lose."

Truth be told, it was President Bush who threw in the towel when, four years into the war, the Commander-in-Chief of the most prodigious military in the world stopped talking about the prospects of victory and began warning the American people of the "consequences of failure."

The most evident consequence of Iraq War failure is the surge itself, which Mr. Bush was forced to order in 2007, finally abandoning the disastrous path he had taken with his Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, whom John McCain has repeatedly declared was responsible for a "terribly mismanaged war."

On March 20, 2008, Town Hall columnist Cliff May wrote that "One can say the occupation of Iraq was bungled." ..."The result of so many errors and misjudgments (by Rumsfeld et al) was catastrophic."

Is it any wonder that the late Town Hall columnist and Conservative leader William F. Buckley, Jr., as long as two years ago, called the Iraq War "Pres. Bush's failure"?
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 19
Date: Apr 10, 2008 - 6:56 PM EST
Questions not Answered
Questions not asked of Petraeus:

What I would ask:
Approximately how many Al Qaida Terrorists were in Iraq when you assumed Command?
Approximately how many Al Qaida Terrorists have been Captured since assumed Command?
Approximately how many Al Qaida Terrorists have been Killed since assumed Command?
Why did over 1000 Iraqi Security Forces go AWOL in the 7 day Basra Battle?
Were you in charge of training any of those that fled their Posts?
Do I have the Allied and Iraqi numbers correct?
160,000 Allied Forces
430,000 Iraqi Security Forces
70,000 Iraqi Awakening Forces
For a total of 660,000 charged with maintaining the peace and defeating Al Qaida.
How long will it take the 660,000 to DEFEAT the less than 6000 Al Qaida Terrorists?
How many more Billions of Taxpayer dollars will it take to DEFEAT the less than 6000 Al Quida Terrorists?
How many more American lives will it take to DEFEAT the less than 6000 Al Quida Terrorists?
How many more American wounded warriors will it take to DEFEAT the less than 6000 Al Qaida Terrorists?


According to Top Generals in Iraq March 15, 2008:

"Al-Qaida in Iraq, which did not exist as a coherent group before U.S.
troops invaded in March 2003, probably now numbers no more than 6,000,
according to U.S. intelligence estimates. It may have been closer to
10,000-strong before the severe pummeling it took last year,
when it lost its main bases of Sunni Arab support.
It controls no cities but is still active in pockets
through much of central and northern Iraq."

US Troops joined Iraqi Security Forces to fight Shiites in Basra and Baghdad over the past
couple weeks.
Are we there to Kill or Capture Al Qaeda Terrorists or are we there to fight a CIVIL WARS of Shiites against Shiites, Sons of Iraq against everyone and Sunni against Shiites?
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 20
Date: Apr 10, 2008 - 6:58 PM EST
It's a CIVIL WAR STUPID!
Over the past 2 weeks there has been a MAJOR UPTICK in Violence in IRAQ.

None of it has been attributed to Al Qaida.

Why are we there?
Are we joining the CIVIL WAR?
Which Side are we fighting for?
Sunni's that used to be Insurgents or part of Saddam's Army and now being paid to be Our Awakening Force?
The Shiites that we are paying $300/mo?
The Shia controlled government?
The Mehdi Army?
The Kurds?
The Sons of Iraq?
The Outlaws in Basra, Baghdad and Mosel?
I thought the LATEST REASON for staying in Iraq was to DEFEAT Al Qaeda there so they do not come here to kill Americans.
Between the Allied Force of 160,000, the Awakening Force of 70,000 and the 430,000 Iraqi
Security Forces (660,000 Total) shouldn't we be focusing on the remaining 6000 Al Qaeda Terrorists? Apparently we have killed or captured 4000 Al Qaeda over the past couple years.
So if we stay focused 100 years, $5 Trillion, 8000 more Dead Troops, 30,000 more Wounded Troops may not be necessary.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 21
Date: Apr 11, 2008 - 5:54 AM EST
Title Says it All
The title and this statement say it all: “The goals of the Democrats and both al Qaeda and al Sadr insurgents are the same: the defeat of the United States in the war in Iraq.”

Anti-win proponents froth at the mouth with anger when someone points out this fact. Why? Because it’s true! That is the reason you won’t see any dissenting comments denying this. It is undeniable.

I posted this yesterday to a similar article and its applicable here:

Ask this simple question to any Democrat: Do you want to win the war? And more than likely, you’ll receive a convoluted response in attempts to circumvent the question. Many have staked their political careers in defeat and are now doing the Texas two-step trying to survive. And sadly, they’re eight year campaign to demonize President Bush has succeeded, which keeps their flock firmly in tow.

Sadly, many misguided Americans hate Bush so much, that defeat in Iraq will mean victory for the Democratic Party.
Flag as Offensive

Reply # 22
Date: Apr 11, 2008 - 11:39 AM EST
In The Now
Seventy percent of Americans do not approve of this war. They are all traitors? Al-qaida in Iraq is a minimal force, and the Sunnis in Anbar province are fighting them. The real Al-Qaida is in Afghanistan and Pakistan. You heard Obama say that he would foght them there. All Democrats approve of fighting in Afghanistan. It's Bush's mistakes that have us stuck in the middle of civil war in Iraq. There is nothing in Iraq that you can call victory. That war is unwinable, not even if you call a draft and send in half a million more soldiers.
What is "victory" for you? How would you win it?
Flag as Offensive
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.