Join The Debate!

Iraq, what next?

Our presence in Iraq is a primary incendiary factor. Iraq cannot and will not improve in security or most any other measurable factor as long as the US has the sort of presence there it has now. So the question is not one of whether there is a timetable for large scale withdrawal or we wait for conditions to improve. Conditions will not improve significantly while we remain. So that leaves us only with a timetable to withdraw AND the very important problem of what can be done to make sure the aftermath of our withdrawal does as little damage as possible. This is quite different from the false dichotomy of stay until things somehow improve or just simply walk away on a fixed date.

We are fanning the "evil of jihadism" every day in Iraq. Is our presence really about fighting what we are strengthening. No, that would be utterly illogical.

Dr. Sowell is right

Dr. Sowell could not be more correct. We are funding our enemies!
The most obvious solution would be to quit buying Middle East oil.
Duh!
Rather than spend two trillion dollars on a “peace” we can’t win, how about spending that amount on developing alternative fuels?
There is a 200-year supply of coal under Montana, that can be gassified to make it into liquid fuel. It just lacks the capital. It also lacks the political will, but that’s another comment.
Let the Islamofascists keep their oil. May they choke on it.

Keep 'em away from our soil!

While I agree with everything Dr. Sowell said, the most significant thing he wrote was, "Our only choice is where to fight it, over there or over here." Our troops may be protecting American interests of all kinds in Iraq. But, engaging those folks on their own turf and away from ours has to be the most important mission. Too bad the message from 'home' is always "You're over there for nothing!"

How NOT to Win a War

Just as we did in Vietnam, our country is losing yet another war. A counterinsurgency war cannot be won-- all you get is a stalemate. Washington would welcome a stalemate, but not the mullahs. Every general in history knows that to win, you must take the horror of war to the population of your enemy-- just as our grandfathers did in WW2 and our ancestors did before them. The islamists will not leave us alone until they have faced the full wrath of the sword. So go ahead, pull out of Iraq. Perhaps after the next terrorist attack, we will finally let the Marines do what must be done.

A Conservative Plan for Iraq

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

READ MORE

http://controlcongress.com/uncategorized/a-conservative-plan-for-iraq

Ken in Tenn

My apologies for posting so late here. Thank you for another excellent and thought-provoking post.

I actually agree wholeheartedly that our engagement with the Islamic world must be comprehensive rather than solely in terms of the oil trade and military conflict. My military arguments are made not for the purpose of supplanting or ignoring other important factors, but to counter the usually false military ideas and concepts being propounded by others.

I don't have a lot of time this morning, but reading your last post, the principal thing I'd say is that the rest of the world living with the Islamic world will entail jihadism being eliminated.

Just as eliminating international Bolshevism didn't mean that the citizens of former-communist nations, or Western socialists, had to be eliminated, so eliminating jihadism doesn't mean that Muslim populations or Islam have to be eliminated. It DOES mean, however, that nothing short of the end of jihadism can be acceptable to our security.

Because extremist Islam is less oriented on the modern nation-state than predatory Marxism was, I think it's hard for many Westerners to see that the West has already been engaging Islam in non-military/non-decisive ways for decades, and that the outcome has been much like the outcome of engaging the Soviets and their proxies in non-military/non-decisive ways. That is, an expansion of the threat to Western liberty and security, at the expense of populations subjected to despotism and brutality.

It is an error, in my view, to see the history of Western/American response to Islamic terrorism as starting with the invasion of Afghanistan in October 2001. America's response, per se, started with our national response to the Iranian attack on our embassy after the Ayatollah's coup. Europe's started even earlier, as that continent saw terrorist attacks in the decade prior to the Iranian revolution, including the attack on the Israeli athletes in the Munich Olympics in 1972.

The names, faces, sponsors, and methods of Islamic terrorism have shifted somewhat since its first major inroads into the West. The big break occurred with the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. Terror groups and state sponsors (e.g., Libya and Syria) that had relied heavily on Soviet support declined significantly over the next decade, and were supplanted on the international stage by Al Qaeda and the Islamic Brotherhood; state sponsorship from Iraq and Afghanistan; and training grounds in the Horn of Africa rather than Africa's Mediterranean coast.

(Iran's sponsorship of terrorism has been consistent throughout this period, but it has not produced attacks outside the Middle East. Few Americans understand this distinction. Iran was behind the attack on our Marine security force in Lebanon, and numerous kidnappings in the 1980s an 1990s, but all of them were mounted in the Middle East, primarily Lebanon. The attacks in Europe, Africa, Asia, and the Americas have all been conducted by Sunni jihadists, whose state sponsors in the 1990s were the Taliban and Saddam.)

After Islamic terror attacks on the World Trade Center in 1993, on our barracks at Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia in 1996, on our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998, and on USS Cole in Aden, Yemen in 2000, America had responded with law enforcement measures, rhetoric, and a few dozen Tomahawk missiles. I personally regret the Tomahawks because they were pointless, but I would also suggest they hardly qualified as a military response to terrorism.

Meanwhile, we continue to engage with the Islamic world through aid and trade. We are into Anwar Sadat's commendable Egyptian overtures to Israel, now 30 years ago, for billions of dollars in aid to Egypt. We are a principal bolster of the Gulf Cooperation Council of nations in the Persian Gulf, which has produced such benefits as negotiations and peaceful agreements between Gulf nations on the status of islands with implications for oil rights.

Well, there's much more I could write about our various levels of engagement with the Islamic world. Bottom line: I dispute the idea that we went straight to military force after the first terrorist provocation in 2001.

I certainly don't regard our whole history of engagement in the Middle East as being positive and brilliant. I think our worst errors have been made when we thought we were being "realistic," as for example alternately arming Iraq and Iran; prizing "stability" over dealing with sclerosis and unrest (as in pre-revolution Iran, or in Saudi Arabia); or thinking it was clever to "let" the Soviet Union act as a counterweight to one regional actor or another. It's not an excuse, but it's a reason, that until about 1990, the security problem of the Warsaw Pact vs NATO drove everything else we did.

We could do a lot better in our comprehensive engagement strategy in the Middle East, no question. But America actually takes a long, long time to respond anywhere with a commitment of decisive military force. That's our history, and so far we haven't strayed from it. It took us nearly thirty years to respond with massed force to jihad.

I think our strategy will evolve rather than remain exactly as it is today. I think it will have to, as it produces changes that DEMAND the evolution. I am very much in agreement with those who wish we would make more of an ideological, human appeal to the Islamic world -- although I should stipulate that I don't agree with those who say we have turned everyone in Iraq against us, and turned them all into jihadists, by toppling Saddam and occupying the country. Most Iraqis are not politicized in that way, and would-be jihadists from any nation were galvanized already.

But the human connection Reagan had with the opponents of Bolshevism, I would like to see in our president with Muslims who repudiate jihad. I guess where you and I differ is in our assessment of what role military action will play in engagement with the Islamic world. I believe we can't eliminate jihadism without it, and I also believe that jihadism is a form of evil, like predatory Marxism, that will retreat into the shadows if it is administered a grave, psychological defeat.

It turned out that we DID have to threaten the Soviet Union by putting it into an economic and conventional military corner it couldn't get out of, in order for its bad attitude to go away, and its subject peoples to be released. Negotiating with the evil that was predatory Marxism only enabled it, and awarded it a form of legitimacy it did not merit. So it is with jihadism.

The bottom line is this: I don't fear that being firm and non-accommodating with the evil of jihadism will only increase its power. If the Cold War has taught us anything, it is that that fear is unfounded. Evil will flee when it is confronted with confident determination. We have only started to do that with jihadism -- but the jihadists have been waging war against us since the 1970s.

I would rather advance against jihadism quickly, instead of pursuing a de facto policy of containment for decades. The record of doing that in the Cold War is that it produced an increasing number of casualties among whole populations, while we congratulated ourselves on Marxist tyranny not having yet reached OUR shores.

I doubt that the effort it would take to make quick headway against Islamic jihadism is politically possible. It may even be better for the process to be more prolonged, as that will give Islamic peoples in our wired world more and more opportunity to interact with the rest of us, and we with them, as their political situations evolve. I'm encouraged by seeing political dissidents in countries like Egypt, for example, asserting the human rights to freedom of thought that we take for granted in the West -- and doing so via the Web, of course.

I have no doubt that Arabs and south Asians are simply human beings, who don't desire to live under vicious oppression excused by an appeal to shari'a, and who have the capacity to live in polities invested with civil liberties; probably in a way rather different from the Western way, but still one that cultivates opportunity and tolerance. Their histories at various times, in fact, indicate exactly that. If you know any personally, you know that they are gregarious, hospitable, funny, and very, very inclined to talk and think about God; natural believers in conspiracy theories, but resilient and hard-working, extremely skilled traders and savers, and even more categorical about some things than Westerners. They're wonderful people with a lot going for them, and eminently suited to self-government, even if it's not exactly as we would do it.

We will not help them get there -- and thereby improve our own security -- by letting jihadism go another 30 years conducting unanswered attacks on the West, or among the Islamic peoples themselves.

[This was a lot longer than I originally thought it would be...:-)]

davidmclain,,,

Kid.
Glad that you have many of Sowell's books and are a fan. To bullet point it as you have:
1. Spare me the juvenile undergrad legal studies 101 crap. You'll get a break when the author rightly slaps you hard enough to know that he believes US presence in Iraq doesn't soften, lessen, or soothe anything.
2. One never knows when war is over. Vietnam begat the Cambodian massacre and it was Bin Laden's choice to go after USA military while our "humanitarian" mission to get Aidid victimized Somalis.
3. Terrorism is growing in Iraq not because Iraqis are growing it.
4. Terrorists driving the US out of Iraq will mean a huge victory. Not for you or me or your kids or my kids. It means a future conflagration of greater magnitude and of greater suffering, death, and destruction. Shoddy and egotistical reasoning from Dr. Sowell has nothing to do with it.
5. War was invented by economic circumstances, kid, and the sooner you understand that, the older and wiser you might enjoy.

Please read this prayer for the troops..

Lord, please save us from these misguided members of the "Project For A New American Century" and those who blindly follow them. Have mercy on their souls, for they know not that violence begets violence. When ignorance and arrogance sire the child of conflagration with the whore called "power," please end not your beautiful creation. This counter-productive occupation distracts them from the protection of their homeland. This, our insane adventurism abroad, our reckless dismissal of innocent life, and contempt for those who work for peace, we pray you will bless. Lord, we should have struck the evildoers in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, we forgive those who embezzle money from the United States in order to weaken and distract us. When satans minions blowback upon our shores with righteous anger and furious vengeance, do not blame the useful idiots of the neocon tribe. When
"post 9/11" becomes obsolete because of Chlorine tanker or shopping mall shoot-out massacres, punish the Freeper not. Your wrath shall not be directed at the misused and abused soldiers of the United States Armed Forces. Lord, blame the editors of townhall.com, and smite them.
Oh yeah, and Cheney, Addington, Chalabi, Wolfowitz and Feith too.
Fire out.

DEFEAT

Pulling out of Iraq will be considered a victory for the terrorists on an international scale. They are prepared to fight for 100 years. Their goal is not control of Iraq but control of the world. They will read a pullout prior to our military victory as weakness and it will embolden them. This fight will not stop with Iraq. They have made it crystal clear that they are going to wipe is off the face of the earth. We have terrorist cells in the USA and they are ready to jump.

Dyerje, GeorgThomas and others...

It has been an interesting and thought-provoking discussion today, much better than the usual he said - she said name-calling on these posts. This is the way Americans should debate issues. Perhaps our friends in D.C. can emulate us one day.

Dyerje, let me thank you for sharing your perspective and knowledge with us on TH. In my two years here, you are among a handful of people who constantly make me think by bringing fresh ideas and new insights to the discussion. Your background gives you a perspective that is valuable and needs to be heard. Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts.

Your background is military and mine is political and historical, although those distinctions are often fuzzy. One cannot consider a military problem outside its political and historical context, just as one cannot study history and politics without learning a little about warfare. Yet in many ways, the disciplines are opposite sides of the same coin. The goal of political leaders is to find solutions that avoid warfare, while the role of the warrior is to find solutions when politicians fail. War, as has been said, is politics by other means, hopefully a last resort when there must be a clear winner and a clear loser.

My problem with this administration is that it used warfare as a first resort to the challenges and provocations we faced. From before they took office, the ideological underpinnings of those who comprised the Bush’s foreign / defense policy team were to use the American military to remake the Middle East. In the post-Cold War era, they saw our military as an unchallengeable force that could be used to break the Mideastern status quo and create a new balance of power that would favor America, Israel and the cause of democracy. Laudable goals to be sure, but short on historical and political understanding of what really makes the radical Islam and the Middle East tick, at least in my judgment.

Now bear with me here, this really is going somewhere beside the tired and typical Bush-bashing.

Let me take a moment to be uncharacteristically charitable to the Bush administration. Progress in any human endeavor can be elusive, sometimes measured as much by failure as it is by success. If you remember Thomas Edison’s long trials in inventing the incandescent light bulb, they were characterized by years of failure yet Edison still took an optimistic scientific approach. He insisted that he had not failed in more than 100 attempts; he had instead succeeded in finding more than 100 ways that did not work and had therefore moved that much closer to the one way that would work. In much the same way, Bush has found many ways that have not worked in combating Islamic extremism, thereby eliminating them and moving us closer to our goal.

I think science can further instruct our efforts. Sometimes major scientific breakthroughs result not from Edison-style trial-and-error, but from looking at a problem in an entirely new way. Just as Einstein’s general theory of relativity was a paradigm shift in our way of looking at the universe, perhaps we need a paradigm shift in our way of looking at this problem. If what we’re doing isn’t working, maybe we need to look at the problem in a new way to see if it can give us some new ideas of how to succeed.

Our goal isn’t to win a war in Iraq. Our goal isn’t even to win a war against global terrorism or Islamic extremism. I think our eventual goal must be to find a way to peacefully and prosperously co-exist with the Arab and Islamic world. Preconditions to achieving this goal, at a minimum, must be to find ways to bring them into the world’s political, economic and social mainstream.

Let’s remember that this once-proud and advanced region has bypassed many stages of modern civilization, including the development of philosophical, social, religious and economic institutions that are necessary for the growth of liberal democracy, political and religious tolerance and technological advancement. Not to be condescending, but the region’s many problems have caused them to fall far behind most of the industrialized world in many phases of development.

In some ways, the blessings of oil wealth have proven to be the region’s greatest curse. Thomas Friedman has postulated the fascinating First Law of PetroPolitics, which basically states that as the price of oil rises, the pace of freedom in oil-rich nations declines. As oil wealth flows into national coffers, repressive regimes raise their expenditures on military and police power to control their populace. As oil prices decline, these same nations must find other sources of wealth. This often results in them tapping the latent entrepreneurial talents of their people, leading to technological development and political freedoms more in keeping with today’s global economy. It is no accident, in Friedman’s opinion, that those Mideastern nations with the least oil are the ones leading the region in economic and social development that benefits all their people, not just the elite at the top.

But to open the region to both economic and political development, don’t we need to win the war against Islamic extremism? Isn’t it necessary to defeat the extremists and terrorists to provide the necessary security to the region? In short, isn’t winning the Global War on Terrorism the first step toward our goal? In this new paradigm, the answer is no.

Unfortunately, we have seen first-hand that the political collateral damage of fighting this “war” is greater than the benefits that we can derive from winning it. The harder we fight this enemy militarily, the more we fail politically. That doesn’t mean that we don’t need to succeed. In fact, I wholeheartedly agree that our long-term goal of reaching amicable political accommodations in the Mideast is crucial on many levels. But to succeed, we need to redefine the meaning of success. In this new paradigm, where reaching political solutions is the goal, we should listen to what many of our generals have told us.

Flag officers like Abizaid, Batiste, Zinni, Shinsecki, Sheehan, Odom, Powell, Keane and others, many of whom either led troops in Iraq or were involved in the run-up to the war, have all broken publicly with the Bush administration’s strategies. While there are many disagreements they have aired, a common thread of their critique is that we cannot use the military to enforce political solutions. Our military is the best in the world at war-fighting but military power is inherently unable to make political peace.

I understand precisely what you are saying about offensive vs. defensive strategy. I simply think that just waging war on terror is the defensive posture. We are fighting their war on their ground and allowing them to reap the full political advantages of the conflict without any compensatory advantage of our own. I'm not sure what winning a conflict like this looks like. I do know that radical Islam does not need to win; they simply need to keep fighting. Even in defeat, suicide bombers and guerilla tactics keep us engaged. Advantage bad guys.

What I am arguing, perhaps not with sufficient clarity, is that a more robust offensive effort begins with the non-military components of power. Again, this is something we once understood in America before every challenge had to be faced with a military response. It is the "soft power" that can win the peace by marginalizing and containing the radicals. Look at the article I cited in my 3:32 PM post for the ways it helped us win World War II, and how we have forgotten those lessons to our great disadvantage.

They /we are at it again

Reply to Boromir's Horn:

So, we have invaded Iraq to avoid the introduction of Sharia law to the USA or Germany, or else we are supposed to keep our troupes there because upon invading Iraq we have discovered the imminent threat of such change to our legal system.

I must admit, I have not considered this aspect yet.

I am sure, however, Mr. Sowell will soon inform us about it, especially when you let him in on it while the thing is being plotted.

It is just amazing how much engaging in a war can teach one about the tremendous host of previously undiscovered reasons to go to war. Good thing we are at it.

georg thomas

it must seem very strange to a person from germany that another region of the world would adapt the masdness of hitler as their chosen path to world power. In spite of the trillions of dollars theses muslims countries have recieved in oil revenues they chose to let a few live as potentates while the vast majority live in abject povertty. The have illiteracy rates approaching 70%, allow unbelievable cruelty to be perpetrated on their own citizens and treat their women like slaves and property to be punished severly should they fail to obey every command of the male dominated society. They preach hatred from their moisques with a perverted promise of a sexual paradise if the die while killing non-beleivers. They have this belief it is their destiny to rule the world under some banner of sharia justice. The question becomes how do you stop the coming nightmare. We hear that Europe will be the next battlegroundf. For the sake of your people and the various countries there I hope this will not be the case, but reports that muslims refuse to assimilate into countries that have offered them a safe refuge is scary when the muslims talk of bringing the blood-cult killings to your homeland. I wish you luck in avoiding some horrific episode but sense that we will all be fighting on the same side to preserve our common western culture

giving over their sons and daughters to

mike from tucson says of "they" and "them"

"...they are even devoted to...giving over their sons and daughters to die... In the West, few of us see that method of warfare as anything but barbarously cruel."

I happen to live in a place, where I can see every day young American soldiers horrifically maimed and going crazy before your eyes - an endless stream of sons and daughters once given over by their parents to fight a war considered right and necessary.

I do not think that parents make or are prepared to make such sacrifices on facile grounds, but they are always at danger to make them based on false assumptions. I do not know about the Muslims you are referring to - but it is my duty to tell you that the parents in the part of the world that I know are led to take these momentous decisions on the basis of false assumptions.

They come to realize "that method of warfare as... barabrously cruel" - believe you me.

I know what to do.

We will find the war-mongers that took us into the absolutely unnecessary and de-stabilizing war, which has murdered 100,000's of innocent people and even an embryo or two, I'll warrant, and we will start prosecuting them. The evidence of crimes against humanity is abundant: Does "Shock and Awe" sound anything like "Terrorism" to anyone? Gravity does not cut beams cut into 15 foot lengths and blast them sideways: Gravity pulls things down, and friction slows down objects when they hit eachother, in case nobody noticed, duh! Oh, we have a lot of work ahead of us. But then, those criminals will be gone, and we can start undoing the other disasters, which the cabal of criminals has ignorantly marched us into. Do you think it's going to be easy keeping every major coastal city of the world from being inundated with the polar ice cap melt? I think we will have our hands full. But the good news is, the vermin will be gone.

Optimism

Dear Ken,

Do not regret your age. Your maturity is our benefit. I have learned from every line you have written. Thank you.

America is older than it thinks, and it is the oldest among those countries in the world that have made a serious effort to understand and achieve civilization. It is the country of liberty. Liberty has a memory, and that memory is awakening today.

It is America's age that I have in mind, when I say, I firmly believe that it will achieve Victory - by remembering its foundational tradition and living it
again more fully than in the past years.

Even in these heated debates, I sense that America is seriously searching for its roots, which have given the world the best there is.

Ken, it is great, is it not, to think young, as you do, from a mature point of view.

Frankly, I watch America from a distance, living in a far away place, and I envy America, because owing to its deep-seated tradition of liberty it can think young from a mature point of view.

Just look at the Ron Paul movement - boy, do I envy America!

Hal0

How I love irony! You rant and rave about ignorance and a lower intellect all the while blissfully ignorant of the fact that you have no knowledge of which you speak. Thanks, I needed a little humor this afternoon.

Boromir's Horn

"The Islamic extremists don't give a camels a$$ how you treat them, they want world domination come hell or high water."

Even assuming you are 100% correct, how is that different from the old Soviet leaders? Are you old enough to remember Kruschev banging on the table with his shoe, saying they would bury us? I am, unfortunately. By the way, Nikita, how did all that work out for you?

The beauty of winning the peace in the Middle East is that you don't have to win the war. And if warfare against the likes of al Qaeda only makes them stronger, the less we fight, the stronger we get and the weaker they get.

Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Qatar and others where bin Laden tried to stir up trouble didn't have to defeat him militarily, they simply contained him. They cut off his funds, cut off his access to recruiting new followers and chased him to a cave in Afghanistan.

For Zawahiri and his Islamic Jihad group in Egypt, they lost all support of the Egyptian people after a series of attacks on tourists in the 1980s and 90s. Like the Sunni sheiks in al Anbar province, the Egyptian people eventually rejected the excesses of the radicals. They would not help them, conceal them or tolerate them anymore. That's why al Zawahiri joined bin Laden in the cave.

It is the "soft power" that we have failed to mobilize in this effort, not only in Iraq but throughout the Bush administration's foreign policy. The reason, if you read the writings of those who were leading Bush's team, is that their big new idea was to use the American military to remake the status quo in the Middle East. No more diplomacy, alliance building or any of that wimpy stuff. Let's just drop the gloves and dance. And as it turned out, it has worked out about as well as Kruschev's burial idea.

Ken in TN

I find it interesting that you bring up Sayeed Qutb but then ignore his message. Have you read Milestones?

Inkling revival

Thanks for your sane discussion as well.

Actually I think our vital national interests are being harmed in a variety of ways. It won't stop until we quit dancing to the jihadists tune.

Modern radical Islam, going back to Sayeed Qutb, has thrived upon oppression, insults, humiliation and conflict. They are professional victims, just like those who like to blame everyone else for their problems. Islam is threatened by the West. We have invaded their lands. We have insulted their religion. We have oppressed and humiliated them, or so goes their narrative.

This is what bin Laden dreamed of while sitting in his mud hut in Afghanistan, using this Arab "victim complex" to get people excited about his radical solutions. And we have given him everything he wanted and more than he could possibly have hoped for.

The result is that, first, the Iraq conflict has created more terrorists than bin Laden could ever have recruited on his own. Many studies have shown this, starting with our own National Intelligence Estimates. The one released today confirms that al Qaeda is as strong today as it was when it carried out 9/11. It doesn't sound like our strategy is making much headway.

Second, even those Islamic people who don't want to kill us don't like us very much. All the polls from the region show America is reviled, distrusted and viewed as a cause of instability. It wasn't this way even 10 years ago. This is not going to help us protect our vital interests in the region going forward.

Third, the Iraq conflict has taken our eyes and attention from those things that could make a positive impact on the Mideast equation. America was once viewed as an honest broker who could mediate conflicts in the region. Now we are a participant in conflicts in the region and distrusted by many of the participants.

Finally, we have isolated ourselves in the world. Even our allies have left us on this one, not because they are weak but because they have long seen that our efforts are counterproductive. Our whole approach has only served to make the region's problems worse, opening the door for Iranian hegemony and possibly broader conflicts.

Sometimes when you find yourself deep in a hole, the first step forward is to stop digging.

I do believe that we must protect America's vital interests. I'm not anti-war, I'm just anti-stupid. If our approach is continuing to produce all the wrong results, it might be time to look at a new approach.

Thighmaster asks a good question. If we don't fight them, how are we going to beat them? I started touching on some of that in my 3:32 PM post but it deserves elaboration.

First, we have to define our goal. I would argue our goal isn't to win in Iraq. Our goal isn't even to defeat Islamic extremists. Our ultimate goal is to find a way to live peacefully, prosperously and honorably with the Muslim world. I'm not talking about sitting around a campfire roasting marshmallows and singing Girl Scout songs. I'm talking about reaching the kind of political solutions that will not only enable us to co-exist within the Mideast but also to cut off the air supply to the extremists.

Strangely enough, we once knew how to do this before we insisted that every problem had a military solution. Consider WWII. Our military efforts were just part of a much broader strategy that enabled us to win the peace after we won the war. Yet many of those strategies have been forgotten. The excellent piece at this link is a good start to begin remembering what we have forgotten: http://web.mit.edu/cis/pdf/Audit_10_06b_VanEvera.pdf

The Cold War is also an excellent reference for how to defeat an enemy without resorting to military conflict, which is what the enemy feeds upon. Sure there were a lot of stumbles along the way, but the policy of containment eventually defeated Soviet-style communism, which was a much more dangerous threat than radical Islam. In fact, containment is pretty much what the moderate Arab regimes did to bin Laden, al Zawahiri and their radical brethren in the 90s with devastating results.

I think the first step must be to change the paradigm from winning a war to winning a peace. If we look at it from that perspective, it suggests a whole new series of steps that might actually work.

How to fight without fighting

In a spirit of respect - another reply to Thighmaster

Reverse the (foreign) policy of the last 50 years. The US has massively encroached upon the area in question - we have been over there, not the other way around, until very recently.

Stay at home, mind your own business, take protecting the borders seriously, stick to the Constitution, set a good example and in no time American Greatness will become the emulated ideal that it used to be.

Believe me, the world is waiting for America to show its real and unbeatable strength - restoring the Greatness of (constitutional) America - that is Victory.

And unlike Mr. Sowell (see prior posts by me) who considers staging a coup to bring America to its senses -, I firmly believe in the American people, they have it in them to make the USA the shining city on the hill, and they will prevail.

thighmaster

Since you mention oil and seem so sure that it is totally unrelated to our foreign policy, you might want to do some quick research on oil, afghanistan, pipeline and unocal. I think you will find it quite interesting.

Dear ThighMaster

Reply to ThighMaster:

Not with a word did I suggest an oil conspiracy. I made a comment on Sowell's ad hoc justification for the war, according to which US soldiers in Iraq need to ensure oil supplies - great economics, Mr. Sowell. (Imagine Mr. Bush telling the American people in 2002: Gonna have our troupes get ya some some oil from Iraq).

Ron Paul takes the same position as does the CIA, suggesting that ill-conceived and aggressive US foreign policy (not the American people) provokes blowback, and that 9/11 must be viewed in that light if the motives of the likely perpetrators are to be properly appreciated - an indispensable prerequisite for preventing further harm to the American people.

The best foreign policy according to him, the Founding Fathers and the great majority of the American people (unless tricked into misperceptions as in the case of the Iraq war) - no entangling alliances, no meddling in the internal affairs of other countries.

Halo

Wrote: "America's smartest, greediest, toniest, most ambitious folks would not be seen dead in a uniform, and that includes the sons and daughters of legislators who send the forces out to fight in vain. For every Pat Tillman there are a thousand Bush daughters."

This turns out to be false. Studies of the distribution of volunteers to the military show volunteers from every zip code in the US, roughly in proportion to their proportion of the population. Most tellingly, the proportion of children of US Senators and Congressmen who have volunteered for military service is slightly HIGHER than the proportion from the general population.

The propensity of the "wealthy" to avoid service is just another fantasy from the Left, which declares itself Knight Valiant for its willingness to joust imaginary foes.

lolo

Sorry there wasn't any history and little common sense in Dr. Sowells article.

Ken in Tennessee

Ken, if more opponents of the war voiced their objections the way you've voiced yours, there would be a genuine national debate, the outcome would probably be sensible policy, and you'd probably have more support from the right than you imagine. Thank you for debating sanely.

You wrote: "It is also an enemy that thrives on conflict or jihad. That makes it a political tar baby for us because the more we punch it, the more strength it gains. We can win every battle in Iraq, but the political collateral damage is continuing to harm our national political interests in the Mideast and the world."

Are you talking about the resolve of Islamic peoples to continue to fight the West? I haven't seen any indication that this is greater now than it was 5 or 6 years ago; quite the contrary. Al Qaeda appears to be having some difficulty recruiting people to act as bombers, and frequently has to coerce them.

The claims of international disapproval seem to be based on the noise being made by elements that ALWAYS make noise when Republicans do things. They don't complain about Democrats, because they're philosophical cousins to the Democrats. So if the noise we're hearing from abroad is your criterion, you can always say the Republicans are "ruining our reputation overseas," but the objection doesn't mean much.

US soldiers in favour of pullout

Trifle, the first:

70% of Americans want an end to this unspeakable war, sick and tired of being shamelessly misled about the purpose of the Iraq invasion.

The pretexts, sequentially introduced when the last pretext lost its credibility: (1) WoMD, (2) ridding Iraq of a dictator, (3) introducing democracy (by way of "fire and sword", the very essence of the word "jihad"), (4) discovering a heart for the Iraqi population (500 000 of whom had been killed as a consequence of 10 years of US bombing and embargo-policies, these casualties having being assertively qualified by Albright as "worth it", (5)containing terrorists that did not exist prior to the US invasion and today do not represent a danger to be contained by conventional military actions such as practised in Iraq, while very capable of entering a country, like the USA that does not care to protect its own border, (6) Sowell quite openly suggests that the US military must fight to ensure oil supplies - while, in fact, Iraqi oil is not vital to the US, it would be available if it were not for the US invasion, and most importantly: whatever the oil policy of a sovereign country, no other country must be allowed to alter it by force; leaving moral issues aside, military coercion does not work (see present day Iraq), and it is stupid, as countries considered however evil never fail to try to reap the benefits from selling oil.

Trifle, the second:

Warning since 1998 about an US attack (of an unjust kind), voting against the Iraq War when it was about to be started, consistently against it ever since and now proposing immediate withdrawal - Congressman Ron Paul, surprise, surprise, is the most popular Republican presidential candidate amongst US military personnel.

One of the reasons for this may be that, quite unlike Sowell, many of them have first-hand knowledge of what is really going on or very strong reasons to seriously think about what the truth is.

http://ronpauldelaware.wordpress.com/2007/07/16/military-favors-ron-paul-over-mccain/

Inkling_revival, your post to dogjudge

...was right on the money. The libs are constantly misreading the facts and twisting them to fit their own scenerio. BTW America was winning militarily in Vietnam right up until the leftists in our own country caused us to pull out. North Vietnamese generals have since revealed that they were prepared to sue for peace and were taken completely by surprise when our troops were ordered out.
Although I am not sure today just what difference that a victory would have made because the South Vietnamese people quite obviously didn't give a damn which side won just so long as they left them alone to tend to their rice paddies and livestock.
We are not getting the truth from the leftist news media about how the typical Iraqi
thinks about living under their own form of democracy. Where are the infamous liberal polls they always flood us with during our own election time? We saw the Iraqis get out to vote in great numbers and at great risk of life, which shows me they are serious about having an elected government. But, what we get is total silence about the Iraqi grass roots from our media. What we get is artful negative spin that's meant to demoralize the American troops and the citizenry.
Our leading military people say we are winning militarily, our leading liberal Democrats say we are losing miserably. I, being a retired Marine am opting that the generals are telling the truth and that the politicians are being politicians, i.e. lying through their teeth.

Dyerje

As always, you have thoughts worth considering. I see you have taken up von Moltke's ideas in several recent posts and you are absolutely correct from a military standpoint.

But two additional thoughts to consider.

First, turn the strategic situation on its head. The enemy is in exactly the same strategic position that we enjoy in Iraq, only with a shorter logistical tail and all the political advantages. The big question is, do we have them right where they want us?

They are also in a defensive position in a forward area of great strategic importance to us. They can carry on their campaign relatively cheaply, while ours -- with a much bigger footprint -- is sapping the strength of our military and our treasury. And they have the political advantage of the Sunni-Shiite civil war on their side, forcing us to fight them with one hand while trying to referee domestic Iraqi political and military conflicts with the other hand.

That is our major strategic problem today in Iraq. We chose the ground, but we did not choose wisely. In fact, I would argue that we stumbled into the von Moltke model rather than making a conscious effort to do so. If anyone chose this situation, it was our enemies.

The one thing no one anticipated in the pre-way planning, at least in my readings of the literature, is that foreign fighters would be lured to Iraq to take up the cause, much less the growth of home-grown jihadistis like AQI. Our plan, if you can call it that, was to take out Saddam, do the "greeted as liberators" thing and either make a rather quick exit or, if you believe some theorists, establish a forward base to project power throughout the region.

It was bin Laden who had the strategic vision of shifting the battle from the "near enemy" to the "far enemy," thereby drawing America into the fight. This allowed him to stir up anti-Western hatred, portray this as a war against Islam and radicalize thousands or even millions of new followers. He thought the war would occur in Afghanistan but Iraq has served his purposes just as well. And ultimately his purpose is not military, it is political. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are not going to be militarily won by the guerillas, but we are losing the political battle each day we continue fighting.

And that is the second major problem to consider. You correctly noted that this is a transnational enemy with goals far beyond the outcome of the next street battle in Fallujah or Baghdad. It is also an enemy that thrives on conflict or jihad. That makes it a political tar baby for us because the more we punch it, the more strength it gains. We can win every battle in Iraq, but the political collateral damage is continuing to harm our national political interests in the Mideast and the world. The radical strain of Islam we are fighting is a political bonfire and we cannot put it out by continuing to throw gasoline on it. We have to cut off its oxygen supply.

You know I respect your military experience and admire your thoughts, but I think we have to shift our paradigm to conduct a more effective effort to defeat Islamic extremism. Some of the tactics the more moderate Arab states used to put the bin Laden-style extremists on the run in the mid-90s are worth study. By the time they were done, bin Laden and al Zawahiri were down to a few dozen followers, about out of money, running out of food and holed up in mud huts in Afghanistan, where even Mullah Omar distristed them. It was not until bin Laden and Zawahiri joined forces and declared war on the West that his fortunes began to rise.

The Bush administration, I'm afraid has been a perfect foil for bin Laden's strategy. They have seen every problem in military terms, which plays precisely into the conflict that radical Islam needs to survive. In short, we have inadvertently helped them every step of the way and then wondered why the problem was getting worse.

How's them for some talking points there, indyconantidim?

Pianogirl,

put down the glass of koolaid, child! Your simplistic response is a fantasy-nothing more. It has no bases in reality. Let us know when you grow up.


On Dr. Sowell's article:

He is 100% correct in his intelligent and eloquent analysis of this situation. And, true to form, his challenge went unanswered by anti-war types. Is anyone really surprised by that? Some here bash Dr. Sowell for using comparable information from previous wars to apply to this war. I don't know anything more ignorant than that. Yes, previous wars DO have some application to this war. HECK! I'd go so far as Hannibal and the Roman army as applicable. Hannibal was a great military leader and while he won many battles against the mighty Roman forces, his own government cheered him on. But, the moment he returned to Carthage to ask for their assistance, they all responded, "This is your war-not ours." And turned their backs on him. Carthage soon fell under Roman boots.

That is the same thing I see happening with liberal Democrats today. They and all other anti-war types will be our greatest downfall. They abandon reason and our troops (and PLEASE don't tell me you support the troops but not their mission-that is an outright lie!) to our known enemies. Only two entities can destroy the US: God and OURSELVES! The liberal left is doing all they can to destroy us. They are the enemy within. Someone posted a concern that we will turn on each other. That is a valid concern. But remember who is pushing such a turn. It isn't the reps or conservatives.

As far as pulling out of Iraq now, that is 100% foolish. Yes, we still have a presence in Japan and Germany as well as other countries. Not to control them but to protect them from our mutual enemies. But I suppose all the peacenik anti-war types don't want our real allies to be protected. Well, real Americans won't abandon them. So, no, we won't be leaving Iraq anytime soon. Get used to it!

Kens Comment

Ken,

Your rant at the end was dead on! You could have added Rosie to the list.

dogjudge - what are the casualty rates?

dogjudge incompleteness

"The terrorists can and do simply leave the area we're in to attack in another spot on another day."


And each time they do, how many of their dead comrades do they leave behind, hmmmmmm?

Coalition military forces in Iraq have had many pitched battles, lesser engagements, and air strikes against the enemy, which surely includes Al Qaeda terrorists and their assorted Islamic allies. Care to venture a guess as to what their casualty rates are, or do you prefer to live in your rose colored fantasy universe?

dyerje

Wrote: " For whatever reasons, the Bush administration has had great difficulty communicating strategic ideas."

When the Bush administration finally gets a fair hearing from historians (which may be quite a while, since the vast majority of historians these days are BDS-infected leftists), this will be the subheading. Bush is actually not a bad leader, as far as vision and execution goes. His major failing is an absolute inability to get his point across to the public.

inkling_revival

Your wasting you breath trying to reason with dogjudge judy. His DNA is predisposed to disagree.

Convert, Submit, or Die

I read some of the comments concerning Dr. Sowell's latest article, and I must admit that many of you sound quite knowledgable about history, religion, American imperialism, and those wacky neocons that have gotten us into another fine mess. All of the reasoned analyses were quite enlightening, but then again, I'm a big fan of intellectual insanity. To me the situation facing Western civilization is really quite simple.

1) Islam is on the march, and unlike us, Muslims do not abort their children, so their numbers continue to grow.

2) In some European nations, the Muslim population could achieve majority status within the next few decades. Some of these nations possess nuclear weapons.

3) The Koran offers "infidels" three options - convert, submit, or die. There are no other choices.

We cannot reason with people who wish us ill for no other reason than that we are different from them. Are Islam's teachings racist? You decide. Does the Koran teach tolerance for other religions? You decide. But while you're busy considering your politically correct response to my comments, understand this - Muslims will continue their collective jihad until the goal of world domination has been achieved...or until they've been defeated.

Hard choices lie ahead. Does life under Sharia law appeal to you? Or will you join the fight to protect what you value - no matter how long, no matter what cost?

dogjudge, you're just wrong

dj wrote: "There is not ONE military person, including Petraeus, who feels that the Iraq war can be won militarily. That is a neo-con pipe dream."

This is simply false.

What you're misreading is a statement from Petraeus in which he acknowledges that there is a public relations side to the war; that is, that in order to win, we have to win a public relations victory as well as a military victory. When he says "We can't win militarily," he's not saying we're in a tactically unwinnable position (we're not at all), but that simple tactical victory won't be enough.

Please go back and read dyerje's post from 12:22 PM today, which explains the strategic position from the view on the ground in military terms. We're actually winning the military battle pretty decisive, and if f***ing IDIOTS like you would stop believing the deliberately negative spin from the leftist press, we'd be winning the PR war as well.

dogjudge asks wayfinder

What are our interests in Iraq?
I would say that OUR interest is greater stability in the Middle East.
Iraq holds the potential to become a free society. A model for its troubled neighbors.
That's in our interest, and in the interest of the entire world. Long term goal.

inkling_revival

Any time. It really came home to me recently that people don't realize this. For whatever reasons, the Bush administration has had great difficulty communicating strategic ideas (and I'm not convinced the senior personnel even understand this particular idea right now).

But if you study war, you realize that the elder von Moltke had it right:

"A clever military leader will succeed in many cases in choosing defensive positions of such an offensive nature from the strategic point of view that the enemy is compelled to attack us in them."

This type of success is especially rare and useful with guerrilla fighters, because their very nature is to fight independently of "territory" and "position." To force them to fight in a particular place, where you have the initiative, and have prepared the battlespace with organization and a plan, is a real success.

We could have prepared the battlespace better in Iraq, and we've been playing catch-up on that. But we've achieved even more than I think we originally expected, by forcing the terrorists to fight us over territory.

The organizational and resource advantages WE have are significant in a fight like that -- as they are NOT, in a fight on the terrorists' terms. We're in the best position we are likely to be in for some time to come, with the current situation in Iraq. We must capitalize on it to inflict a serious, real defeat on the terrorists.

Inkling-revival

Appriciate the come back although i do have reasons for my predictions. Your idea is that Iran will dominate for religios affinaty Iraq. That will not happen. Iraqis although predominately Shia are also Arab. Iran is Persian. Remember Saddamm hated the Persians and I have a feeling he wasn't alone. They can't be brought together. As to Al-Quida working with Iran, I think it is a matter of convinience as both are together only as an alliance to remove the U.S. from the Persian Gulf. When we leave all bets are off between them.

Iraq will not come under the domination of Iran except through conquest and that is off the table for Iran as the people there are pretty tired off the present power structure and will hopefully fall if the people can be empowered.

Democrats own defeat

Like Vietnam, the leftists have bought so much ground in the concept of "an unwinnable war" that the war MUST be lost or they lose all of the political capital they have invested. Nor are the leftists ignorant of the fact that the professional men and women of the United States military might just give the nation a victory, and they (the leftists) can't allow that to happen.

Doc Judge

I have a plan. Why don't we just ask Bin Laden to pull down his pants and kiss his behind. Then we apoligize for offending his religion. Then get down on our knees and pray for forgivness. Then we can all go home and live happily ever after.

Dr. Sowell

This is just way too much history and common sense for the anti-war idiots. Furthermore they think if we pull out now they themselves will not suffer the consequences. I will tell you one thing, if we pull out and a bloodbath ensues, I do not want to hear one more word about Darfur and Africa in general.

inkling_revival

Don't forget the time honored classic "Bush lied people died". That one has had legs for awhile now.

What Then?

Dr. Sowell asks a good question and one that as an opponant of this war I would like to answer. Power abhors a vaccum and what we have now is four players trying to fill it. Sunni, Shia, U.S., and Al-Quida or like proxies. When we leave it will be for the strongest to win and that will be the shia. A strong man will come to the for and take power put the sunni down, eliminate Al-Quida and rule with a iron fist.

He may or may not free Kurdistan. If he does they will come under the domination of Turkey and basically we will be back to where we were befor the toppling of Saddamm. It's the way of the Middle East and the sooner our leaders realize it the better. Lets just hope this time the new strong man doesn't invade one of our monarchical allies. Then all will be well in the world!

Amphetamines

Incognito:

I once encountered an individual who was addicted to bennies and dexies (he called them) and would stay up all hours, sometimes not sleeping for days. During those wee hours, if he had no one to verbally force his wild, insane views upon, he would write ad nauseam in the same non-sensical manner as you did when you wrote at 2:06 AM today. I think you have exhibited his same symptoms.

It is my hope that you'll lay off the speed, go see a doctor and get some sleep. Perhaps then you'll be able to think and write with lucidity.

A Reminder

If Democrats are counting on Iraq and the fear of attack to win them the White House in 2008, Republicans already used those same elements to keep themselves in the White House in 2004. Does no one remember Bulldog Cheney being brought out of his cave to rattle his chains and growl at us that a vote for Kerry meant the likelihood that we would be attacked?

dyerje, thank you

I did know we were winning in Iraq because I've been periodically visiting milblogs and reading Michael Yon and Bill Rogio, among others. I wasn't aware of the strategic success of forcing guerrilla warriors to fight on our plan, though. This is very helpful analysis, and we need to hear it a lot more frequently.

This is the part where I'm deeply disappointed in the public face of the political right. They were cowed into "Mistakes were made in Iraq" almost 2 years ago by the dishonest reporting of the American press, just as they were in Vietnam. This time, they should have known better. The truth is, we're kicking extremist butt in Iraq, and pinning their worldwide efforts to a single, desperate battle that they simply can't win. We should not be saying "Mistakes were made." We should be saying "This is what a winning campaign looks like. We're WINNING."

'Cause that's the truth.

dogjudge

"I'm sorry, but you fall into the terrorist behind every tree category"

Sure, just my paranoia. Look around the world. How many conflicts going on right now do not involve radical islamists? This is not a few nutcases, this is a worldwide movement. To claim otherwise is to ignore the obvious. My plan would be to do everything possible to try and make Iraq and Afghanistan stable successful democracies and put a huge investment into finding the world an oil replacement for energy. There is no short term solution to this.

beyond the pale

How appropriate a statement.... and they know we're all bark, that's the real problem. The PC's have placed a short chain on our military for too many recent wars.

usual simplemindedness

The debate is between people who think it would be better for the US and Iraq if the US pulled out of Iraq sooner, and those who do not. Wanting to pull out after certain conditions are met is only a form or wanting to pull out if there is reason to think that those conditions will be met. To advocate pulling out as soon as things get better, when there is no reason to think that things will ever get better, and then to claim you are advocating pulling out is blatently dishonest.

Similarly, nobody thinks that our presence in Iraq is irrelevant to the war in terrorism. In fact it is a great handicap to our fighting terrorism. The terrorists poor resources into the region because there is nowhere else they can so easily inflate their importance by killing Americans, and by taking advantage of our increasing unpopularity. The simplest way to end this great boon to the terrorists would be to pull out.

Of course they will claim victory and try to benefit from it. But it seems unlikely their success at benefitting from our pulling out would be nearly as good as their success from benefitting from our presence.

My prediction if we bail

Iran will increase it's activities in Iraq in support of the Shia fundamentalists. They will commence wholesale killing of the Sunnis. The Kurds will declare itself a separate nation as they have been wishing since day one. Saudi Arabia will invade from the West to support the Sunnis. Turkey will invade the Kurds from the West. None of this will be reported by the MSM (same thing that happened in Cambodia) until the general invasions occur. Once Saudi Arabia is engaged with Iran in Central Southern Iraq, Syria will come down through Western Iraq and invade Saudi Arabia from the North East. The house of Saud will fall and Iran will take nominal control of Saudi Arabia.

When things finally settle out, Iran will have nominal control of everything in the Middle East except Israel and Turkey. Turkey will negotiate turning over the Kurds to the Iranians. Turkey will change it's profile from a NATO member and "nominal" Western nation to an Islamic nation and drop out of NATO. Turkey will then adopt Sharia law and become yet another radical Islamic nation.

All of the other nations in the Middle East will adopt pro-Iranian policies and evict any U.S. presence in their countries. The only U.S. military base that will be left in the region will be at Diego Garcia. The Democrats will call for it to be closed because it may be considered to be inflammatory by the Caliphate.

Gasoline will reach prices of $10.00 per gallon and hybrid cars will finally become cost effective. The Democrats will blame the Republicans.

apoplectic

I'm sorry, but you fall into the terrorist behind every tree category.

A plan.

How about this.

Terrorism is not a United States problem. It's a problem for the world to solve.

As far as Islam is concerned, President Bush has succeeded in tying the hands of just about any new president for the coming decades.

I don't care how powerful the US is, we are now totally hamstrung about pursuing terrorists in any countries other than Iraq and Afghanistan.

What country in the world is going to allow the US to come in and do ANYTHING?

Now you want to give us your great insight, or what you feel the Bush insight is, and tell us YOUR plan to combat terrorism?

Bumper Sticker Slogans?

That's simply another Democrat talking point. They may be slogans, but they're the truth.

The key point to understand is that if we pull our forces out of Iraq, in whatever capacity, we lose influence. It demonstrates to the future that American committment isn't worth squat.

I've considered partitioning. Clearly I think the Kurds could use their own nation, but I don't think they're the idiots some people make them out to be. If they have their own country, then we'd have to be there protecting them for the duration because they have no military force to speak of. They'd have no port to the sea, so that makes developing an industrial base prohibitive to exports you can deliver by plane or railroad or truck. This means also that whatever industrial base they come up with it'll be seriously curtailed by the fact that Turkey and Syria, not to mention Iran, hate their guts. If Iran or Syria take over the Baghdad region, that pretty much isolates the newborn Kurdistan, and that'll make Kurdistan ripe for conquest by someone, likely Turkey, who has the most to gripe with them about. Turkey would see no problem making an agreement with Syria or Iran for that enterprise. Unless, of course, we still have a military presence among the Kurds. And now, how long are you willing to keep troops in the region if it came to this? And, do you really think al Qaeda and other factions wouldn't try to strike us there?

The reason that al Qaeda strikes us in Baghdad and the Sunni Triangle is because that's where the press are at. The press, including al Jazeera, sees "Sunnis killed by Shi'ites," and "Shi'ites killed by Sunnis," which only foments more and more chaos in the region, not to mention the psychological impact of seeing bombs explode on the nightly news in America, as evident by the fact that people like Thomas Sowell have write articles like this detailing why it's necessary for us to stay and win, no matter what it costs, no matter what it takes.

Frankly, I think we should, instead of thinking of pulling the troops out, think about expanding the number of troops to, say, 300,000, plus an escalation of additional carrier task forces and a surge in Air Force assets ready to strike in the region for a potential invasion of Iran. If I were in charge of that, I would adopt Sherman's methods, destroy what infrastructure I could, kill every mullah, and crush any resistance with brutal efficiency. Some would say that the president has no chance of ever doing something like this, and in a sense this is true; Bush isn't a passionate, articulate man. But Xenophon had it right (read The Persian Expedition), you don't whine and moan, you don't feel sorry for yourself, and you don't quit. You stick to an agenda, you go back on offense, and you win, whatever it takes.

No Answers

Sowell finally asks the most important question and not one valid answer arises from those calling for withdrawal. No surprise as I have been asking that very question here on TH for over a year. By the way, he is not asking what will happen, he is asking what we do next. It is a given that it will be very bad for everyone, but what is our strategy to defeat radical islam moving forward? Dems loved to harp about no plan going into Iraq. They have no plan coming out!!!

dogjudge

What does it matter what the Iraqi Parliament does? If they decide to vacate their elected responsibilities, does that mean we commensurately vacate our interests? It is our interest to see the Middle East with a viable alternative other than strapping a bomb to one's body and blowing up other people. If the Iraqi Parliament hasn't found an Ahmed Karzai or a Helmut Kohl or a Lech Walesa yet, someone with the passion, vision and committment to lead Iraq into something other than Islamofascism, does that mean we give up? It may not be our nation over there, but that doesn't mean we don't have a viable national interest to see Iraq succeed in the world post-Saddam Hussein.

I have my problems with the President (mainly over Amnesty for Illegal Aliens and his domestic spending policies), but there's nothing that he has said or done that has convinced me that what we are attempting in Iraq is a noble effort worthy of the blood and sweat of our men and women in uniform or of our own personal commitment. Incognito whines about Bush "lying" about progress made in Iraq, and believes that is but another reason to quit. Let's say he is lying about the progress, and we know it, is that a reason we should see Iraq dissolve into outright carnage?

The President's approval numbers are, what, in the upper 20s, and he isn't backing down. What does that tell you? Maybe he's stubborn. Maybe he doesn't read polls. Maybe he's looking to get his cronies who contributed to his campaign more oil money. Maybe he's a monster who likes war. Or, maybe, juuuust maybe, he knows more about the situation on the ground better than Time, Newsweek, the NYT, or anyone else in America other than the Pentagon. And maybe, juuuust maybe, he realizes that we have one of two alternatives. Either we control or influence what happens in the Middle East to OUR benefit, or the Islamofascists control the Middle East to OUR detriment. Which will it be?

On Target as Usual

Great column with a good question which has really not been addressed. Most honest people should be willing to admit they DO NOT HAVE AN ANSWER! WE do however; need to put some things into perspective. Why do we and the rest of the western world insist in keeping Iraq as ONE Country? Their isn't any common aspect of the waring faction other than the Muslim Religion, separate Iraq into the various religious sects present there & protect and assist them in becoming self sufficient Nations. Not a perfect answer but one which deserves some consideration.
Relative to how many soldiers have been killed in Iraq War, approaching 4000 in over 4 YEARS, approximately 3300 people are killed each MONTHS in auto accidents here at home. Just some things to think about!!

After Iraq

It is quite apparent that the US is not going to solve the problem of Iraq on our own. We don't have the troops available to go in and WIN this conflict.

At the same time, this President is unwilling to hold the feet of the Iraqis to the fire, so to speak. Rather than use the benchmarks as a negotiative tool to push the Iraqi government further along, he is willing to make excuses to cover their inadequacies.

PRIME EXAMPLE - Iraqi parliament vacation during the month of August. What an insult to all Americans!

Most importantly, this President was not able to build a true consensus before he went to war in Iraq. What makes anyone think that he can build a consensus now? Ignoring the Iraq disaster, this President has demonstrated his inability to act in the area of foreign affairs. "It's my way or the highway" isn't really effective when other countries can simply walk away from the table.

True progress isn't going to happen until Bush is out of office. The Republicans get to deal with this albatross though '08. Good luck.