Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Thursday, May 15, 2008
Victor Davis Hanson :: Townhall.com Columnist
The War Over the War
by Victor Davis Hanson
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Was the Copenhagen Global Warming Summit Walk-Out a Win for the U.S.?


The war in Iraq is in its sixth year -- and we, the public, are in our sixth year of reading warring accounts about it.

The most recent is Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez’s “Wiser in Battle: A Soldier’s Story.” Sanchez, a senior ground commander in Iraq from June 2003 to June 2004, faults L. Paul Bremmer, the top civilian in Iraq from mid-2003-4, and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld for the errors and mishaps of the occupation.

The new Sanchez book follows Douglas Feith’s new book “War and Decision.” The former undersecretary of defense, who oversaw many of the original plans for the postwar reconstruction of Iraq, makes the case that the State Department and Bremmer thwarted Defense Department efforts to hasten Iraqi autonomy and form a new Iraqi army.

But Bremer himself, in “My Year in Iraq,” complained about a lack of support from both military and civilian officials like Sanchez and Feith.

And don’t forget “At the Center of the Storm” by former CIA Director George Tenet or “American Soldier” by Tommy Franks, the commander who oversaw the 2003 invasion. Both offered their own versions of where others went wrong.

Memoirs by those involved in some way in the Iraq war (or the broader war on terror) have grown into an entire industry. Former counter-terrorism director Richard Clark’s “Against All Enemies,” former CIA analyst Michael Scheuer’s “Imperial Hubris” and former Ambassador Joe Wilson’s “The Politics of Truth” all tell stories of how someone else did them in.

What are we to make of all these contradictory accounts?

First, they come in cycles and follow the pulse of the war. In 2003-4, most of our information came from administration and Pentagon press conferences. The brilliant three-week overthrow of Saddam and the relative quiet for a few months afterward resulted in favorable public opinion and few questions about the conduct of the war or the official version of it. But once arsenals of weapons of mass destruction did not show up and an insurgency broke out, published tales of American incompetence proliferated.

Now, as the violence has decreased and former officials are writing their own responses, a new defense of the war is being made. Feith’s “War and Decision” will no doubt be followed by accounts from Rumsfeld, the president himself and perhaps other principals like Paul Wolfowitz and Vice President Dick Cheney. These men will give yet another account of what happened -- and spawn yet another counter-reaction.

Second, there is a lot of money to be made in writing first-hand accounts about the war - the more sensational, accusatory and quicker the story gets out, the better. (A few, like Feith, have magnanimously contributed their earnings to charity.)

Third, there is a “not me” theme in many of the tell-alls. Officials who used to praise each other in televised press conferences and assure Americans that things were going well apparently now turn out to have not liked each other.

Sanchez argues that he was not to blame for Abu Ghraib, but rather Pentagon higher-ups. George Tenet swears that he was not the only one who fouled up the prewar intelligence. Tommy Franks concentrates on his successful war, not someone else’s plagued occupation -- since he retired right after the three-week victory. Richard Clark argues he couldn’t stop 9/11 because of others’ mistakes. Likewise Michael Scheuer’s special group failed in its mission to catch bin Laden due to the blunders of rival agencies.

Is any of this finger-pointing new? Hardly.

The battle of Shiloh (April 1862) was re-fought for nearly a half-century, and we still don’t know whether Grant was drinking before the battle, or why Gen. Lew Wallace took the wrong road and came late to the battle with reinforcements. You can read various versions of who was to blame in the memoirs of Gens. Grant, Sherman and Wallace.

After World War II, British Field Marshall Bernard Montgomery and American Gens. Dwight D Eisenhower, Omar Bradley and George Patton (posthumously) all bickered in print over the strategy after D-Day, the disastrous Arnhem campaign and the complete surprise at the Battle of the Bulge -- issues still not resolved over 60 years later.

Was Vietnam a necessary war, always a hopeless fiasco or a squandered victory? You can read all those versions and more in the books of Sec. Henry Kissinger, Sec. Robert McNamara, Lt. (now Sen.) Jim Webb and Gen. William Westmoreland.

The only difference with the Iraq war is that in the modern age of instantaneous global communications, those involved right in the middle of it, at least on the American side, scramble to get their “true” story out first -- and get even -- well before the war is won or lost. In such an ongoing conflict, these memoirs are often out-of-date even before they hit the bookstores.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Victor Davis Hanson is a classicist and historian at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, and a recipient of the 2007 National Humanities Medal.

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

Invasion and Occupation
Uncle Sam has always done invasions rather well, then stumbled and fell when it came to the subsequent occupation.

A few voices called for establishing a federal system of government in Iraq, they were drowned out by opportunists eager to make a show of one kind or the other. General Petraeus has cobbled together a de facto federal system that seems to be saving the day. Again par for the course. Somebody usually does come along in the nick of time.

Anybody for "drunks, little children and the USA"?

Almost an argument for...
... choosing to remain ignorant.
I did some history once and came away from the experience convinced that no amount of knowledge about an event is ever definitive. Some scrap of evidence might turn up centuries later that could change the whole picture. As a result, I never listen to anyone who claims they have the truth.
These book-length accounts have to be considered journalism, not history. And in the meantime, like every other population that lived through difficult times, we have to go with our gut.

Very Well...
Only those who opposed the war from the start -- like Ron Paul -- were on the right side of history. The flaw, the mistake was deciding to invade and occupy Iraq. All other "errors" flow from this one.

It seems this lesson has still not yet been learned.


Red Tooth--a couple questions for you
Your position is rather absolutist, so I'd like to know what you think about:

1. The Gulf War Part B disarmed two countries of their WMD programs--Iraq and Libya. How is that an "error" in your analysis?

2. The fact that the Islamic fanatics have been at war with everyone else for 1376 years, and have never offered, negotiated, or independently created PERMANENT PEACE with EQUALITY and TOLERANCE. Are you familiar with Koran, Sura 8, verses 38-39 and Sura 9, verse 29?

3. There is a narrow window that will allow us to prevent the IslamoNazis from acquiring a-bombs, and that window is closing rapidly. Given the IslamoNazi penchant for "plausible deniability" via terrorist proxies, how do you propose to keep a-bombs from "leaking" out into the wild, to be used by terrorists against the "infidels"? And what do you think we should do after the fact? Hope is not a strategy, and neither is fantasy.

I'm curious to know what your plan is. Retreat to Fortress America, like Ron Paul wants? How does that square with military strategy that indicates there is no perfect defense?

Hanson
If MOVE-ON had written an insulting article like this about Petraeus, the Republicans, rightfully so, would have gone bonkers. General Sanchez is accused of making stuff up about the war for money, lots of money.

Honor Them

I implore everyone to put your ego and pride aside in November and vote to support the troops. Forget the political labels for just a second and focus on the issues facing America. What’s the most important topic? For me there’s no question, it's Iraq.

Every citizen owes our fallen youth their support. How are you honoring that sacrifice?

Honestly ask yourself, is the sum of my differences with Sen. McCain and the Republican Party more important than losing the war? Rationalize all you like, but a no-vote or write-in is equal to a pledge for the candidate who has already declared his defeatist intentions in Iraq.

Perhaps my years of service has biased me. But so help me God, I cannot look another serviceman or woman in face unless I give them the best shot at winning.

Personally speaking, to knowingly help seat a defeatist in the White House, directly or otherwise, is to dishonor my own kind...dead and alive.

Maybe Franks saw handwriting on the wall
Is VDH suggesting our civil war, WW2, Vietnam war, and Iraq war all were equally valid undertakings?

No rationale person would so argue.

I don't think VDH was doing that here.

I think he is simply saying that those involved in those undertakings all had their "versions".

In retrospect, perhaps Tommy Franks was not "Rummy's dummy" afterall, given he had since enough to retire soon after the invasion.

But the neocons are still out there, spraying perfume on the pig.

Not one mention of Bush?
The fact is, George W Bush was in charge. If things go wrong, it's his fault. If things were going wrong early on, he should've recognized it and made adjustments accordingly. It was more important for Bush to get in his two hour bike ride every day, than it was for him to spend time making sure this misadventure turned out well.

And let's not forget that Bush was told that there were no ties between Iraq and al Queda. He was also told that the talk about reconstituting the nuclear program was way overblown.

If you have to lie to people in order to get them to support a war, maybe that should be a clue that it's not a good idea in the first place.

The war is a failure because George Bush is a rotten leader. Simple as that.

Phylo out.

Mr.Hanson
I was not around for the "Civil War".But, I am beginning to feel, that this fall election cycle,will give me a hint of that "CW" feeling.The fact, that a war is one of the focal points, in a political "CW",is just too good to be true.No North and South this time.But,it will be "Change" and "No Change".Nature has already decided the "Winner",for it CHANGES constantly.Man can have, no better TEACHER,than nature....

Boutte
Please stop with the "I'm a constitutional conservative" b.s.

All you are attempting is to wrap your extreme anti-Jew bigotry in some kind of patriotic flag.

You give true conservatism a bad name.

Shoulders
The entire blunder falls square on the shoulders of the Commander and Chief! I know this is not a popular stance on the War in Iraq, but the buck stops at the top! GWB is the man who ultimately has the final say....so he better have done his homework or be ready to take the consequences when something goes array!Thats what it is to be a leader! I think for the most part GWB has accepted the responsibility. Although I dont agree with his decisions, I respect his leadership of standing by his them!

History Buff
AQ and nuclear bombs wold certainly be a bad thing, but do you think Iraq will pass out nuclear bombs to people like AQ? That is a little far fetched isn't it? Why aren't they passing out biological warfare materials?

The truth eventually comes out...
Unfortunately the republican attack machine and the cult of Bush run by the right wing nuts and the neo Con artists have pulled the wool over the American public's eyes for many years.

Is it really a revelation that the president, vice president and secretary of defense that said they were listening to their commnders, and giving them everything they needed to win the war were in fact lying all the time? When Shinseki told congress that well over the number of troops Rumsfeld was planning to devote to the task were necessary to stabilize Iraq he was vilified and crucified. The generals told Rumsfeld he was crazy to let Bremmer disband the Iraqi army and send thousands of armed, trained soldiers full of new found hate for their "liberators" poverty stricken into the welcoming arms of the insurgents. They begged Rumsfeld and Bush not to do it, but this administration turned a deaf ear. The list goes on and on.

But this is not new news. Just read "Fiasco" which was published years ago and read the whole story in he interviews and emails of the military officers and generals themselves.

Stupid, lying, un-American conservatives. You deserve to lose the presidency and huge majorities of both houses of Congress to Obama, Pelosi and Reid.

Primus54
Columns like this ALWAYS bring out The BDS Loons and America Haters.

Georgetwin
Yeah, it sure does.

And "slacker" has posted pretty much the same drivel on Coulter's thread as he wrote in his Reply #15.

The trolls are out in force today.

I Vote Win

The anti-win, Bush demonizing rhetoric only serves to make my previous point (#8). Never has the choice been so clear.

Success...or failure.

Boutte ... An Anti-Semite ... Who Knew ?
Boutte ... Dude ... Have you EVER posted ANYTHING that didn't drip with the loathing of all things Jewish? Can't you drop the whole Gestapo act for even a day?

And please, for the love of God, will you stop trying to equate "conservativism" with "anti-semitism"? Here's a clue hate-monger: a lot of us conservatives find your particular brand of hate mongering and bigotry offensive and pathetic.

Such Empty Responses
SO slackers posts soem unpleasant truths, truths pretty much recognized by the vast majority of the American people. The responses to him fail to address any single poinys he makes, but they do manage to cover the typical right wign talking points.

And you guys wonder why your political future seems so dim?

Primus54

As ugly as the name-calling and hateful bashing is, it continues to reinforce my commitment to our troops and everyone supporting a winning effort...as well as to our culture war at home.

My guess is that they’re young well-meaning Americans. To quote Winston Churchill, “If you're not a liberal at twenty you have no heart, if you're not a conservative at forty you have no brain”.

Florida's 9:34 post
Agree that the blunder on Iraq does fall squarely on the shoulders of G.W. Bush.

Disagree with Florida's assessment Bush has accepted such responsibility.

If Bush had his way, there would be even more "Iraqs".

He has learned nothing.

Boutte: Iraq War completely legal
You cannot claim to be both a "constitutionally minded conservative" and that the Iraq war was an "illegal invasion."

The Iraq war was authorized by Pub. L. 107-243, passed by bipartisan supermajorities in both the House (68%) and the Senate (77%) and signed into law by Pres. Bush. This establishes the legality of the Iraq war under the US Constitution, beyond any possible doubt.

Pub. L. 107-243 explicitly authorized the use of force at the President's discretion:

Sec. 3(a): "Authorization.--The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq."

Sec. 3(c)(1): "Specific statutory authorization.--Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution."

Internationalists might argue that some "international law" or treaty obligation might trump a statute duly enacted pursuant to the US Constitution. With respect to "international law," no "constitutionally minded conservative" could countenance such an abrogation of US sovereignty. With respect to a treaty obligation, there is no question under our law that a later-enacted statute supersedes any treaty obligation.

By the way, the supermajorities weren't necessary. Had the Iraq War resolution passed by one vote in the House, and had the VP been required to break a tie in the Senate, Pub. L. 107-243 would nevertheless have become the supreme law of the land, subject only to the Constitution itself.

On Boutte
Boutte makes alot of valid points.

I respect Boutte for not swilling on the p.c. slop that has so eviscerated intellectual inquiry, even, and especially, when such inquiry leads into uncomfortable areas.

I have no idea is he is an anti-semite, but I do know that criticism of Israel is not anti-semitic, and I would hope more conservatives would be offended at the notion of American foreign policy being at the service of what benefits Israel.

Israel has the same right to exist as any nation. And I find much that is admirable on Israel.

But American foreign policy must not be such a lapdog in furtherance of Israeli interests that it alienates most of the world in the process...adversely affecting our own interests.

Phylo
Pres. Bush did recognize that things were going wrong and made adjustments. Rumsfeld resigned and Petraus was put in command to implement the extraordinaly successful surge strategy.

You can argue that Pres. Bush didn't change commanders and strategies quickly enough. There's much to this position, though you should also keep in mind that such a change is a major policy issue, and should always be made cautiously.

GG-AZ
No one is arguing the legal shenanigans offered by the administration to provide a pretext for the invasion.

Bravo.

It "convinced" a spineless congress.

The argument is one of judgment.

As the American people, in their wisdom, have so concluded in their collective judgment that the war was a mistake...by a 2:1 ratio.

Even as they rightfully think it was a mistake, they also think it would be a worse mistake to irresponsibly withdraw(as some Democrats advocate).

But let's be clear.

They hold Bush responsible for deciding on the invasion in the first place.

The fact Congress acquiesced in this insanity does not get Bush off the hook.

It is his Baby.

jerabaub
If the Dems hadn't stabbed our troops in the back, there would be far less need of more "Iraqs." Showing resolve and strength keeps rogue states in line. Showing weakness and division emboldens them. I don't know why this is so hard for people to understand.

Pres. Bush, and the rest of us, have learned a great deal from Iraq. You miss the lesson, which is how to succeed, exemplified by the surge strategy.

The Flaw Was in The Execution
Most people do not know or were aware that in Sep 2001, General Franks CIC CENTCOM briefed Sec Rumsfeld that an invasion of Afghanistan couldn't even be considered before July 2002. Franks cited the time needed to build up supplies, combat units, and make up an invasion plan. Bush was furious and told Franks and Rumsfeld that July 2002 was unacceptable. Rumsfeld then went over Franks head, and through General Myers contacted the CIC Spec Ops Command General Daily. Daily said he already had assets in that area and his men already had an oplan that used both spec ops and indigenous forces. Within 4 weeks they deployed thier men, and within 10 weeks the Taliban and Al Qaida fell. It was only when General Franks insisted that he take part that things in Afghanistan began to fall apart (ie Tora Bora campagin).

For Iraq, Rumsfeld went with Franks. Bush concurred. The entire insurgency template used in Afghanistan was scrapped in favor of a 1991 style large scale invasion. Interesting that Franks retired just weeks after Baghdad fell. The entire invasion was FUBAR.

There were plenty of indigenous Iraqis who would have assisted Spec Ops in the overthrow of Saddam. We had the skill and the personnel to conduct an extensive low intensity insurgency without the creating the chaos and bloodshed that was the hallmark of the post-invasion years. Of course, those in the Pentagon, White House, and State and CIA dug thier heels in.Bush, being Bush hadn't the fortitude like he showed in Sep 2001 to knock heads together in order to get results. Bush wasn't incorrect in toppeling Saddam. His mistake was listening to his "experts".

GG-AZ
Crock o'horse puckey. Democrats did not stab anyone in the back. Get this straight. No one buys the standard "Democrats are eeeeevil rant anymore.

Just as a piece of info you missed out on, nothing was "learned" in Iraq. The military already had a counter-insurgency strategy in place. It was written by....Dave Petraeus. What happened was that they ignored Petraeus for a good two years! The lesson had been learned years ago. Bush simply ignored the lesson.

history buff
To answer your questions: Iraq did not have a wmd program to dismantle. If we ever succeed in Iraq and get a stable country there they will be in just as good a position to start a WMD program as they were before. So the best that can be said about Iraq is that we possibly set back a WMD program as long as we have soldiers dying in the region. Given the weakness of Iraq that seems a poor trade.

Libya had been trying to work out a deal of disarmament for international recognition since the late Clinton days. Of course Bush was not inclined to work out a deal with terrorists before the Iraq invasion. After it he took the deal because he needed a show win. That does not mean it was a bad deal, just that we did not need the Iraq war to pull it off.

I am not sure of why you think the Koran stuff is relevant. Why given what you cite are you not infuriated that we invaded a secular muslim country and put the more religious groups in power? There are actually many religious muslim states that have not attacked us because it is in their interest to do so, so I am not sure what to make of your comment, but it is particularly silly in the context of defending the invasion of Iraq.

The same is true of your comment which makes most sense in the context of Iran getting the bomb. Invading Iraq has greatly limited the pressure we can exert on Iran, while increasing their incentive to develop while we are bogged down. If the goal is preventing a nuclear Iran, then we should start disentangling ourselves from Iraq as soon as possible.

Jack
Yes, the Democrats did stab our troops in the back. For example, Kerry called it "the wrong war, in the wrong place at the wrong time," and insulted our allies as a "coalition of the bribed, the coerced, the bought and extorted."

And obviously Pres. Bush learned the lesson about the counterinsurgency strategy, as he put Petraeus in charge.

You guys are a hoot.
Either Bush was stabbed in the back by those evil Democrats, or he listened to his "experts".

Either way, Bush gets off the hook.

He gets a pass on Iraq.

You guys are amazing.

Nowhere is any hint that Bush might be the least bit culpable.

If only we had permitted Bush to be Bush!

Like his first selection..his gut instinct..in a once in-a-generation golden opportunity to alter the U.S. Supreme Court was to nominate...Harriet Miers?

Or his gut instinct in assessing Putin's Christian soul by peering deeply into his eyes?(Don't get me wrong..we should be working with Putin in our mutual battle against Islamism, not sanctimoniously lecturing him on democracy like Bush and Condi Rice do).

Or Bush's gut instinct to characterize Americans who opposed the GOP Senate's Amnesty proposal as "bigots"?

Or Bush's advocacy for creation of an Islamic state(Kosovo)in the heart of central Europe...apparently thinking what Europe needs is more, not less, Islamic influence?

Is that the real Bush?

Look, the problem on Iraq was the astounding ignorance displayed by the administration on what would result once Saddam was removed.

Peter Galbraith, former ambassador to Croatia, observed that Bush, in response to discussions before the invasion among his advisors regarding Islamic sects(specifically Shia and Sunni), remarked: "Wait a minute, I thought Iraqis were Muslim".

It just does not get any better than that(or any worse!!)

Your denial is breathtaking in scope.


Let's face it...
If President Bush had decided not to go into Iraq, Democrats would be raking him over the coals for that, too. They would be lambasting him for leaving such an "evil tyrant" in power who "obviously" possessed weapons of mass destruction.

In short, these criticisms of the President amount to little more than second-guessing and political one-upmanship.

Ken/GG
nyone in teh back. Regardless, Kerry's criticism had virtually no impact on anyting that has happened in Iraq. Your complaint about democrats seems more like an effort to avoid assigning the responsibility for this debacle where it belongs, on Bush.

Bush didn't need to learn anything from Petraeus strategy on the ground. All he had to do was read the Army manual on the topic of counbterinsurgency.

And I, for one, would not have complained about Bush not invading Iraq. I never supported the idea. I do agree however that many Democrats would have. That said, had Bush not invaded Iraq, most TH'ers would be supporting him and calling Democrats vicious warmongers.

INTHENOW
"..I implore everyone to put your ego and pride aside in November and vote to support the troops...."

If you support the troops you must not vote Republican waging war and not caring for or equiping the troops is dispicable

"...Every citizen owes our fallen youth their support. How are you honoring that sacrifice?
Honestly ask yourself, ....equal to a pledge for the candidate who has already declared his defeatist intentions in Iraq."

You dishonor our dead and wounded by demanding yet more blood. What you miss completely is why they fight. You want to honor their sacrifices? They way to do that is to do what is best for the country - that is all any soldier wants. Never think for a second more soldier's blood honors a troop never

INTHEKNOW/KEN
To quote Winston Churchill, “If you're not a liberal at twenty you have no heart, if you're not a conservative at forty you have no brain”.
................................................

Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhh how true!!! It's a shame that we don't have more leaders of that caliber in these trying days.
................................................
In short, these criticisms of the President amount to little more than second-guessing and political one-upmanship.

To borrow a phrase from poor ol jerbaub......You guys(libs) are hoot!!! Sadd butt true.

From moi, another Kenn


pb
You are wise to hold off on judgement. I agree.

I haven't read any of these books, but I will never believe there were no WMD's. I think they existed, and were moved while the USA stood around for a year seeking international approval. We may yet live to see the proof of this.

I also don't believe there was ever an "insurgency". It has been Iran all along. As if they were going to stand by and let their worst enemy (USA) come in and take over their next door neighbor. That would be like the U.S. standing idle while Bin Laden invaded Canada. There may have been a few Sadam loyalists who were willing to fight us, but by and large it has been Iran. Iran is at war with the U.S. and has been for over 30 years. When are we going to nuke em? Actually, we did things backwards. We should have gone after Iran first.

M Sederoff
This is perfect example of why the American people are abandoning Republicans on this issue.

You write: "I haven't read any of these books, but I will never believe there were no WMD's."

SO you admit you haven't analyzed any of the information, but you are still going to hold to a belief that has virtually no evidence to back it up.

Typical conservative.


Lon
",,Libya had been trying to work out a deal of disarmament for international recognition since the late Clinton days. Of course Bush was not inclined to work out a deal with terrorists before the Iraq invasion. After it he took the deal because he needed a show win. That does not mean it was a bad deal, just that we did not need the Iraq war to pull it off."

Great point and besides the effort with Libya was led by Great Britain

"....The same is true of your comment which makes most sense in the context of Iran getting the bomb. Invading Iraq has greatly limited the pressure we can exert on Iran, while increasing their incentive to develop while we are bogged down. If the goal is preventing a nuclear Iran, then we should start disentangling ourselves from Iraq as soon as possible. "

Again so right. Now we have a weakened military and few effective allies

M Sederoff
"..I haven't read any of these books, but I will never believe there were no WMD's. I think they existed, and were moved while the USA stood around for a year seeking international approval. We may yet live to see the proof of this."

Based on what emotion? You only go on "feelings"? good grief

"I also don't believe there was ever an "insurgency". It has been Iran all along."

Based upon what yet more emotion and worse wishful thinking....

" ....We should have gone after Iran first."

LMAO no we should have gone after Osama first

Jack
"That said, had Bush not invaded Iraq, most TH'ers would be supporting him and calling Democrats vicious warmongers."

Are you kidding? In the last thirty-plus years, the only time I've seen Democrats become "vicious warmongers" was when they wanted to divert public attention from Bill Clinton's scandals.

sure they support the troops
http://www.citizensforethics.org

Ken

The rhetoric only serves to make the author’s point...a war over a war. It’s not about what Pres. Bush did or didn’t do. The issue facing us now isn’t about the past; although many will keep returning there for political reasons.

Mistakes are made in all military operations or campaigns. You can learn and press on, or you can use them for political fodder and throw a wrench in the effort.

It all starts from a single mindset. Do you want to succeed in Iraq? It is from this point that all arguments and POVs progress.

No one (especially on these boards) is qualified to assess our chances in Iraq better than the professionals east of the pond. Any assertions otherwise are folly.

So it boils down to that single starting point previously mentioned.

Ken
"...Are you kidding? In the last thirty-plus years, the only time I've seen Democrats become "vicious warmongers" was when they wanted to divert public attention from Bill Clinton's scandals"'s "

Are you not the one who always says that the D leadership and rank and file voted for Bush's Iraq War. Are you trying to have it both ways or did you just forget LOL

Jack........you should know
This is perfect example of why the American people are abandoning Republicans on this issue.
................................................

Now could it be the same MSM, drive by media that gets the credit for this? It's the same press that Shilliary is now complaining about. What would expect when John Doe sits there in the AM sipping coffee & fed all the bad BS reading the lib pappers & watching ABC or CNN news.?!?!?

Ken
I agree, though not in teh way you may thingk, and I disagree.

I disagree with the excuse people are making for Bush: "Mistakes are made in all wars." First off, the biggest mistake was invading in the first place. Secondly, sometimes mistakes are so gross so numerous that they become incompetence. That's the case here.

But I am one person willing to answer teh question you pose in an honest way. I do NOT want the US to win in Iraq. If Bush and his minions, folks such as yourself included, would be willing to admit what an error the invasion has been from start to finish, I might change my mind.

Until then, however, the only way for American to learn the lesson of Iraq is to lose. If we win, we will be emboldened to make another grotesque blunder of the same sort. WE need to learn the lesson: if we can win (whatever that means) and learn it, fine. But thus far, it appears to me that winning will only lead to more of the same. Better we shoudl lose this than repeat the effort.


Hal
"Are you not the one who always says that the D leadership and rank and file voted for Bush's Iraq War."

I never have said that, but that is a good point. Hillary and other Democrats only turned against the war when it became unpopular. Thanks for pointing out that Democrats only care about their own popularity (yes, there are a few exceptions - such as Joe Lieberman - but the exceptions only prove the rule).

By the way, aren't YOU the one who said Teddy Roosevelt protested American involvement in World War I?

Jack
"I do NOT want the US to win in Iraq."

At least you're man enough to admit it. That's more than I can say for most liberals.

Jack

Our enemies await your assistance Jack. My Arabic is a little rusty, but perhaps I can help you find some terrorist sponsored websites that you can donate to. Or maybe you can just make your way east, personally join the jihadist fight and plant a few IEDs yourself.

Thanks for illustrating my point.

Ken
Hal’s a regular troll seeking attention and trying to get a rise out of anyone who’ll listen. Please don’t feed him.

Jack, I fail to see
your logic "I do NOT want the US to win in Iraq"! Do you, or can you comprhend the consequences of that happening??? Just for SPITEs sake?!?!?! The repercussions would be enormous, not only for Iraq, but for the entier region.....G-d only knows what would happen. We as a country should at least try to be united during "war", even though you may disagree. For the sake of uor brave men & women.

Geminiguy
"...Now could it be the same MSM, drive by media that gets the credit for this? It's the same press that Shilliary is now complaining about. What would expect when John Doe sits there in the AM sipping coffee & fed all the bad BS reading the lib pappers & watching ABC or CNN news.?!?!?"

LMAO you folks crack me up LOL. Always blame someone or something else and never adjust or learn. Media does not win or lose wars even though you frightened folks keep claiming that they do...

Ken
Please listen to INTHENOW. It is so much more convenient to just comment when and where I chose. Thanks

And ref Teddy no I am not LOL

INTHENOW
"Hal’s a regular troll seeking attention and trying to get a rise out of anyone who’ll listen. Please don’t feed him."

Thanks for your concern, but I'm quite familiar with Hal. I've found that if I give him enough rope, he eventually hangs himself.

Hal
"And ref Teddy no I am not LOL"

You're a liar.

Geminiguy
"I do NOT want the US to win in Iraq"! Do you, or can you comprhend the consequences of that happening??? Just for SPITEs sake?!?!?! The repercussions would be enormous, not only for Iraq,...".

Your point is well taken but perhaps Jack meant that we are only now fighting for which bad ending we desire or is acceptable. The fact that our military might has been tied up in Iraq for all these years; religious sects now control all congress in what was a secular country or maybe that Iran is already recognised by the Iraqi government as an ally are clear indications that the US government failed to achieve its goals in Iraq? I am not certain I agree with that line of logic but I hear it more and more often

Ken
"You're a liar. "

LOL that little one would be you. I asked the question is all

Hal
"I asked the question is all"

No, you SAID Teddy Roosevelt protested American involvement in World War I. When people called your bluff, you changed it and said he actually protested the Punitive Expedition against Pancho Villa. You cited an article from the NY Times as "proof."

The problem was, the article you cited was dated 1914, and the Punitive Expedition didn't begin until 1916.

Ken
No matter how many times you say it doesn't make it true LOL. I see you went to the Rush school of creative truth LOL

Open your pod bay doors Hal
Sheesh.......even Hillary has complained about the bias in the MSM. Of course I and a lot more people that are smarter than I and that are in the know say the same thing. What else is the average Mr & Mrs Jones think after listening or reading the garbage that is doled out. Are you so naive as to think the MSM want the US to lose to spite there favorite kick ball, Bush!?!? Most people HATE politics aand especially wars. SO when they hear only the bits & pieces of the "bad" things going on ther. Why wasn't there so much "bad stuff" reported when the "surge" was starting to show POSITVE things? My G-d, you would have thought there nothing at all going on there. I've spoken with many returnees(my new word)that have said how well it was & that what we here in the States was hearing was mostly BS! SO yes, I can back the argument that the MSM is biased, doenst want us(Bush) to win & that only the bad crap will be reported. BTY, Hilliary even thinks the media is biased.

Ken
"No, you SAID Teddy Roosevelt protested American involvement in World War I. When people called your bluff, you changed it and said he actually protested the Punitive Expedition against Pancho Villa. You cited an article from the NY Times as "proof."

I said Lincoln and Roosevelt actively protested with troops in the field and I didn't know which ones and asked for help. LOL I should have known better LMAO

Hal
"I said Lincoln and Roosevelt actively protested with troops in the field and I didn't know which ones and asked for help."

No, you didn't. You said Lincoln protested the Black Hawk War (you were wrong about that, too), and that Roosevelt protested American involvement in World War I. You changed it after several of us called your bluff.

In your case, "LMAO" evidently stands for "Lying My A** Off."

Geminiguy
"...Sheesh.......even Hillary has complained about the bias in the MSM. Of course I and a lot more people that are smarter than I and that are in the know say the same thing."

Look it is clear now that the Pentagon controlled much of what you call the MSM. Bias is one thing but an active program is a joke. The media serves as a convenient scapegoat for poor performance plain and simple

" What else is the average Mr & Mrs Jones think after listening or reading the garbage that is doled out."

Do not underestimate the Joneses they are far smarter than most people think. That is why democracies and republics work so well

"Are you so naive as to think the MSM want the US to lose to spite there favorite kick ball, Bush!?!?"

Very few want the US to lose but Bush incompetence has certainly earned him the kick ball position.

" Most people HATE politics aand especially wars. SO when they hear only the bits & pieces of the "bad" things going on ther. Why wasn't there so much "bad stuff" reported when the "surge" was starting to show POSITVE things? "

There is a rule in the media "good news doesn't sell or said another way: if it bleeds it leads. You wouldn't buy a good news newspaper.

"My G-d, you would have thought there nothing at all going on there. I've spoken with many returnees(my new word)that have said how well it was & that what we here in the States was hearing was mostly BS!"

That depends upon where they were and also does nothing to answer why we are there and what we hope to accomplish there and how much should we spend

" SO yes, I can back the argument that the MSM is biased, doenst want us(Bush) to win & that only the bad crap will be reported. BTY, Hilliary even thinks the media is biased. "

Read all above.

Ken
YAWN....

Hey Hal
This is off-topic, but I can't seem to catch up with you.

Question:

How's that "full-blown recession by July" you predicted working out for you?

Hal
"YAWN...."

Getting tired already? You're getting weak in your old age (not that you were ever that strong to begin with).

Primus54
Do you remember Hal saying that Abraham Lincoln protested the Black Hawk War, and that Teddy Roosevelt protested World War I? He's denying that he ever said it.

HalD frm Pa
I could go on & on ad nauseum, butt I gotta close office. This issue is near & dear to me & I take it personally/seriously, however my time in here is not always what I would like it to be. Till next time.

The reason for all the conflicting
...statements on how the mess in Iraq got to where it was when Bush was handed his hat in the 06 election...is that Bush was fundamentally incompetent...and had incompetents.

It is that simple.

The only reason we changed course in 06 was two fold...First the American public demanded it in the 06 election and second there were abuot 8 flag officers ready to resign and go on MTP.

Robert

On HRC's case I think that is accurate

Ken
Location: VA



I never have said that, but that is a good point. Hillary and other Democrats only turned against the war when it became unpopular....

but there were a few Dems who voted against the war ...and of course Al Gore made his speech in SFO which more or less nailed it.

People like you called him unpatriotic.

Robert

McCain's speech was excellent.
to bad Bush stepped all over it with his really dumb statement about Iran and Hitler.

Seesh

Robert

Ken
Wish I could back you up on this one - but I really have no memory on that.

But Hal does have a penchant for stating things as "facts", then expects the posters to back-check them.

Hey Robert
Where did all your posts go (again)?

Still claiming you'll "still be here" two months from now?


(Predicted answer: crickets chirping...)

Or simply know them
Primus54 ...

an informed mind, someone who is really looking into the energy situation knows that refining capability isnt the problem. The research isnt all that hard to do...but you have to turn off Rush and do it.

Then you find things like the Garyville LA Marathon plant that doubled in size from 1992-96 and now is doubling again.

You learn that they dont build "new refineries" because the pipelines are already going to the old ones...Same reason that they rebuild power plants.

But no Folks like Rush babble on "No new refineries" and folks on the far right (and left if it is Moore) buy it.

Robert

Primus...I will be here
two months from now and a year from now...sorry.

BrianR claims he made a phone call...watch him not mention that any more!

LOL

Robert

Robert
Care to make a large wager on that?

Or does getting banned 7 times in two days not register in your brain?

Force Light
We're there - and we owe them at least stability. Which, three years after we invaded, we began to try to provide with the "surge". Which, by the way, was less a decision of genius than one of necessity. After all, in war, you can add, subtract or stay the same - but those are the only options. Staying the same had led to over 4 million Iraqi's leaving the country or their neighborhoods to seek a safe haven. Subtraction and withdrawal would have led to more chaos. The option was to add - which many had been saying for 3 years - as each of you might recall. I'm not particularly interested in the "what happended" anymore. After all, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to recognize that we got the invasion right, and the next three years wrong.

Now, having got those three years wrong, we don't have a two or three year war, but a seven or eight or ten year war - because that's about how long it takes to make right what you get wrong in war. Security was everything - as we proved in Germany, Korea and Japan - but not in Iraq. Maybe the next time we'll drop the force light nonsense and put the priority where it belongs - on the forces - not on some unrealistically naive view of war. History revisits - but someone - or a lot of people in this administration - glossed over that history. And, it led to tragedy for the Iraqi's, and eventually, for our forces as well. Force light - absolute nonsense.

Cont'd
And have no illusions about this democracy nonsense. Granted, they elect their leaders. But those leaders were selected by the Clerics and the tribal heads, - or are clerics. They support Hamas and Hezbollah, who are dedicated to the destruction of Israel. Perhaps some genius can tell be how we can pretend that this serves the Israeli's - who, presumably, are our first allies in the region. And, the Koran is the basis of civil law. And that means that women, christians, jews and the like are second class citizens - although in the context of Iraq - it generally means you've already been driven out of the country - or mudered - or beaten - by the militia's, which is why the 1.5 million member Christain community is down to 500,000 and declining. So much for tolerance, freedom, and the American way. What kind of kool-aid do these "democracy" worshipers drink, anyway. They tell us this will be the shining light in the desert - but that light has been an ominous yellow for a very long time now. At some point, Americans will learn that Iraq is first and foremost an Islamic - Shia country. It is not Western. It does not support Western Ideas - but Islamic ideas - and they are not compatible. They will use us until they have that stability. They will be a part of OPEC, a part of Islam, opposed to Israel, and supporters of Hamas, Hezbollah, Syria and yes, agruments aside - Iran. The middle east is not Japan, or Germany, or Korea. It is theocratic - and they never were. It has a rogue philosophy - whereas they did not. But that's ok, give it five or ten years. Then, that Koolaid will have that bitter taste which we will all have to taste.

Bye, Coward (aka, Robert)

Guess that would be a "no" on the wager, eh?

What a noodge...

TH Writer Put Iraq War in Perspective
Town Hall columnist and National Review Editor Rich Lowry put U.S. involvement in the Iraq War in perspective last October when he wrote:

"The U.S. government has never brought to bear its resources in a truly national effort to win (the Iraq War)."

"THE U.S. GOVERNMENT HAS NEVER BROUGHT TO BEAR ITS RESOURCES IN A TRULY NATIONAL EFFORT TO WIN THE IRAQ WAR."

Considering the Iraq War is a war which Pres. Bush for the past five and a half years has repeatedly said was so important to our national security and survival, Lowry's assessment is tantamount to an allegation of treason.





What history will say
... is that George W. Bush succeeded in getting transnational guerrillas to fight for territory -- and succeeded thus in putting them in a position to suffer tactical and operational defeats.

None of the rest of it will matter.

History Buff..
"1. The Gulf War Part B disarmed two countries of their WMD programs--Iraq and Libya. How is that an "error" in your analysis?"

Iraq's WMD had already been disarmed since 1995. Libya has been making overtures to the international community since the early 1990s, so it's fallacious to suggest the latest war in Iraq has rid the world of any WMD. It hasn't.

"The fact that the Islamic fanatics have been at war with everyone else for 1376 years, and have never offered, negotiated, or independently created PERMANENT PEACE with EQUALITY and TOLERANCE. Are you familiar with Koran, Sura 8, verses 38-39 and Sura 9, verse 29?"

Islam as a global power ended definitively after WWI with the collapse of the Ottoman Empire and even before then they were known as the "sick man of Europe." It's quite a leap to try and draw conclusions between a verse in the Koran and a justification for the war in Iraq. Besides if Islam is so bad, then why did the CIA finance Wahabism, the radical brand promoted by Saudi Arabia, to fight the Soviet Union? Did the Islamic threat not exist in the 1980s?

"3. There is a narrow window that will allow us to prevent the IslamoNazis from acquiring a-bombs, and that window is closing rapidly. "

Islamo-Nazis is just a made up term with no meaning. The most radical elements in Islam are the Saudi Wahabis, those who George Bush invites to his ranch in Texas. There is no war against Islam. Islam, like terrorism and WMD, is just an excuse this Administration uses to wage war to implement a foreign policy of global hegemony.

Bush warns of Iraq disaster
Does anyone trust Bush on Iraq?

Politico-President Bush in a Tuesday interview expressed in unusually frank terms his disappointment over flawed pre-war intelligence and acknowledged his fears about leaving an unfinished war to a Democratic successor.

In an Oval Office interview with Politico and Yahoo News — Bush’s first for an online audience — the president said his doomsday scenario for a premature withdrawal “of course is that extremists throughout the Middle East would be emboldened, which would eventually lead to another attack on the United States.”

WATCH VIDEO

http://controlcongress.com/uncategorized/bush-warns-of-iraq -disaster

jerabaub
You wrote: "No one is arguing the legal shenanigans offered by the administration to provide a pretext for the invasion."

Actually, that's exactly what Boutte was arguing. He claimed that the war was illegal. That is false.

And your use of the word "shenanigans" is ridiculous. I referenced the passage of a law duly passed by both houses of Congress and signed by the President. Aside from the Constitution itself, that is the supreme law of the land, enacted under the best system of representative democracy devised by man. It is not a "shenanigan."

jerabaub
Please read more carefully. I never said that Pres. Bush should be "off the hook." The war wasn't managed well for a couple of years. I've never studied a significant war without its share of fiascos and mistakes.

Phylo said that the President "should've recognized it [problems in Iraq] and made adjustments accordingly." That's a foolish statement, because he did recognize the problems and did make adjustments, which are now working.

As to the President's delay in changing commanders, I said that "[t]here's much to this position" that "Pres. Bush didn't change commanders and strategies quickly enough." But there's a strong aspect of Monday-morning quarterbacking to this.

Red Tooth
You wrote: "Besides if Islam is so bad, then why did the CIA finance Wahabism, the radical brand promoted by Saudi Arabia, to fight the Soviet Union? Did the Islamic threat not exist in the 1980s?"

This argument, and this type of argument, are nonsense. Surely you understand this.

In the 1980s, the greatest threat was the Soviet Evil Empire. So sure, we made alliances of convenience with some dubious characters, including the mujahadeen in Afghanistan. I've never heard of the CIA financing Wahabism, but even assuming it's true, it's just another example of such an alliance of convenience.

Sort of the way that we made common cause with the Soviets against the Nazis, when Hitler was the most imminent threat.

I'd love it if all of our allies were Jeffersonian democracies, but we have to deal with the real world. Sometimes you have to focus on a greater danger, and tolerate or even support a lesser danger in the interim.

Red Tooth
I don't know if they're the worst threat, but I agree with you that the Saudi Wahabis are a huge problem. You do understand the geopolitics at issue, don't you?

The Saudis have the largest oil reserves on the planet, and have effective monopoly power over the price of oil. They are nominal allies, though ideological enemies. You criticize Pres. Bush for engaging them diplomatically (inviting them "to his ranch").

We have to deal with them.

What exactly do you propose? What is the President supposed to do? Launch a war of conquest against Saudi Arabia?

I'm almost inclined to say "bring it on" -- and none of this "nation-building" nonsense. Just drive them out, take the oil, and be done with it. Problem solved.

Do you like this idea? If not, do you have anything constructive to suggest? Or are you just sniping at our President?

Also, "Islamo-Nazis" (or "Islamofascist") isn't a term without meaning. It refers to the radical Muslims who, as far as I can tell, actually take seriously the Koran's teachings about conquering the world, converting everybody by the sword, imposing Sharia law, and beheading the infidels who don't submit.

Perhaps just calling it "Islam" would be better, but some claim that there are "moderate" Muslims who somehow interpret the Koran differently. So we need a term that allows us to distinguish between these "good" Muslims, if they exist, and the Jihadists.

The War Over The War
I remember a line from a TV show back in the 80s that went something like this in regards to government actions: "...they cover up but they never 'fess up". No matter whose version we read about who did what before and during this conflict it is clear to me that "we the people" were sold a bill of goods to invade Iraq. The only honorable thing to do now is clean up the mess we made.

nmi
"The U.S. government has never brought to bear its resources in a truly national effort to win (the Iraq War)."

"THE U.S. GOVERNMENT HAS NEVER BROUGHT TO BEAR ITS RESOURCES IN A TRULY NATIONAL EFFORT TO WIN THE IRAQ WAR."

You are so correct! The Bush Regime wanted a cheap war to claim glory they never expected to have to pay for it. A classic conservative mistake: believe your own propaganda

"Considering the Iraq War is a war which Pres. Bush for the past five and a half years has repeatedly said was so important to our national security and survival, Lowry's assessment is tantamount to an allegation of treason."

Very true but will not carry the day. What I think will carry the day is the crimes against humanity charge. Even after they destroy everything they can, the mere fact that the US admitted that over 30 (THIRTY) people died undergoing enhanced interrogation along with the fact that Bush admits approving the torturing (waterboarding for you apoligists)of at least three people almost guarantees him a place in the dock at the Hague.

Is it just me
Or has anyone else noticed that Robert "They know who I am and they leave me alone" keeps changing his location so the mods will have a hard time, at least he thinks they will, deleting his posts and banning him yet again?

One would think he'd get the hint that he's not welcome here anymore, but when you're as arrogant as Robert, you THINK you're invincible.

He'll soon find out the hard way that he's not.

Status in Iraq
Read Michael Yon. His dispatches give us information we find nowhere else. I'm reading his book "Moment of Truth in Iraq" published in April for the second time now. Find it, read it, and buy a copy for the local library. I will.
JHS Washington State

Negotiate with terrorist?
The only thing a terrorist will accept is surrender! You think we could have negotiated with hitler? You are dreaming. Look, speaking as a soldier I can tell you exactly how to get the troops home sooner..support the USA. Everytime someone says we are losing the war or we should not be there the enemy hears that and is emboldened and then they fight harder battles and more American Soldiers get killed and here at home more people get upset and are ready to throw up their hands in surrender. Its an endless cycle and that is what has made this war last longer. Learn to unite and stand behind the USA and you will see the difference in the battlefield and then soldiers will come home sooner. We are there now and need to stay and get the job done. Period.

Let's listen to the weapons inspectors!
They know what happened:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9lWNEctvLs

The War

Our troops led one of the most successful wars ever fought when we invaded Iraq over 5 years ago. They liberated that country and toppled its government within a little over a month.

With that said, its not our fault the Iraqi's can't unify their country and certainly not our troops fault! For all you posters who think this is the job of our troops go get a clue! Our troops are the best.

With the divisions of people within Iraq(Sunnis,Kurds,Shiites)they needed a big a$$ like Saddam in power to keep their country in check. He was able to run that country better then the current Iraqi government has been able to do. To bad it was through fear.

Its time to start thinking about spliting Iraq up.


Our Posture
We live in a deluded society. Our leaders constantly strum the refrain, "Diversity and Dissent are healthy". I have never subscribed to either of those as given facts. Keith Olbermann after his tirade on TV would be shot, if I were King. Sedition is not healthy. The drumbeat of slavery would be stilled, if I were King. Diversity must include assimilation and acceptance not self flagellation about past wrongs or the constant scraping of scabs off sores long ago buried with the participants of the historical tragedy of slavery. No, D&D are destructive when they are allowed to be exploited for injurious purposes.

Primus54
"Wish I could back you up on this one - but I really have no memory on that."

I know several other TH posters were there when Hal made those statements about Roosevelt and Lincoln, but I couldn't remember if you were one of them or not. Thanks, anyway!

GG-AZ
"This argument, and this type of argument, are nonsense. Surely you understand this."

It's not nonsense once you understood the reality: terrorism isn't a threat; it's America's number one business. Our foreign policy pretends that terrorism is a threat so that we can wage aggressive wars and gain access to oil rich regions of the Middle East. Iraq wasn't a threat; it was an easy target.

The CIA didn't severe its connection with the "Arab Afghans" after Russians withdrew from Afghanistan, but instead we continued to internationalize Wahabism by sending fighters to Kosovo and Chechnya. The United States has done more to spread "radical Islam," that any other western democracy.

"What exactly do you propose? What is the President supposed to do? Launch a war of conquest against Saudi Arabia?"

No. It's very simple really. Withdraw our troops out of Iraq. I don't regard Saudi Arabia as an enemy.

"Do you like this idea? If not, do you have anything constructive to suggest? Or are you just sniping at our President?"

We invent phantom monsters to maintain an empire of bases. We should forgot this nonsense about Islamo-fascism and just call our troops home, where they belong. We can put them to work guarding the border.




GG-AZ
"Also, "Islamo-Nazis" (or "Islamofascist") isn't a term without meaning. It refers to the radical Muslims who, as far as I can tell, actually take seriously the Koran's teachings about conquering the world, converting everybody by the sword, imposing Sharia law, and beheading the infidels who don't submit."

Perhaps there are Muslims who believe this, but there is no structural organization behind the term Islamo-fascism. When someone spoke of Communism in the 1950s it wasn't a free floating abstraction but referred to something real: the Soviet Union, which controlled half of Europe, had an army, air force, and navy, hundreds of nuclear weapons, client states all over the globe and almost hegemonic influence in one hemisphere. What's the equivalent structure in radical Islam? The Mahdi Army? The Qods Force? Al-Qaeda? There may be "radical Muslims," but there is no actual organization of radical Islam -- hence it really isn't a threat.

Even in states where Muslims are the majority they don't automatically codify the Sharia; Turkey doesn't; Indonesia doesn't; Jordan doesn't; Iraq didn't; Syria doesn't etc.

Before the United States financed the "Arab Afghans" (Mujahideen), Afghanistan's Muslim population consisted of Sufi nationals and there was no effort to impose strict Wahabism.

The purpose of the War on Terror isn't to wage war against terror, but to use terror as an excuse to wage war.

How many enemy shills are here?
Reading these posts is upsetting. I can only conclude that some of these posters are enemy shills assigned to influence the public debate on the war. The enemy knows they can only win by utilizing the sympathetic media to persuade the American public to their point of view.

Perhaps ignoring the more outrageous postings is the way to treat them.

Regarding "Shills"
Hi Steve,


I agree that there are a lot of posters who have nothing better to do than hurl insults at other posters without ever actually discussing the merits of the article. This applies regardless of political views; I'm sure you know who they are.

I have a healthy distrust of government regardless of party affiliation. I believe both major parties are only out to acquire and maintain power at any cost. With that in mind I manage to listen to all of the following at least once during the week:

NPR
Neal Boortz
Limbaugh
Ed Schultz
Hannity
Randi Rhodes
Mark Levin
Michael Savage
Alan Colmes

It helps for me to get as many different views as possible, trying to filter out "garbage". I have no problem reading other poster's logical arguments. It is when the inane insults start flying that any semblance of dialogue gets thrown out and a verbal "food fight" ensues. I'll post as long as I think I have something worthwhile to contribute and it hasn't been posted before. Take care and have a wonderful evening.

Tired of the Bickering
Just give me the step by step facts...I don't want anyones opinion on the war I just want facts. William Bennett did a great job in his history book "America: The Last Best Hope". Excellent book!!!!Forget opinions, just give us the facts please!!!

Tired of bickering
Sorry, my above comment/subject line was in regards to the article "War over the War"...thank-you!
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.