This Is What We Want
Posted June 3rd, 2008 by Da King
There's not much coming from the media about the war these days, is there ? How very curious. The reason is, the war is being won. I guess that's not news.
“Back from the front, Gen. David Petraeus called on Congress Thursday to begin considering a drawdown of U.S. troops after five years of war. Violence in Iraq has plunged to its lowest levels since 2004, and al-Qaida is a tattered shadow of its former self—key leaders dead, successors weak and recruiting down. ’My sense’ Petraeus said, ‘is I will be able to make a recommendation (in the autumn) for further reductions.’ This is no Saigon-style exit, but a coming victorious end of a long conflict. U.S. forces have pounded al-Qaida into irrelevance. Using highly disciplined Special Forces strikes, advanced intelligence and communications, and local allies in the right places, 155,000 U.S. troops have been crushing a vicious enemy motivated by no rational forces in a war with no precedent. They are winning against all odds, overcoming not just terrorists, but other obstacles such as a lumbering Pentagon bureaucracy and weak-kneed Western intelligentsia whose media toadies trump every military error and harp on every isolated bad deed. Now proven wrong, these same critics retaliate by ignoring what is a very big story. Worldwide terror attacks have fallen off 40% since 2001, according to a study by Canada’s Human Security Report Project, and support for al-Qaida in the Arab world has collapsed. The study found terror attacks had been over-counted because Iraq War atrocities distorted the figures. Security gains elsewhere included even sub-Saharan Africa, where the improvement was called ‘extraordinary.’ Just as the conflict in Iraq is coming to a close, two related terror wars—in Spain and Colombia—are also seeing signs of victory… From the deserts of Iraq to the villages of Spain to the jungles of Colombia, these victories against terrorist groups are all linked. They are the result of using proven tactics, holding together resolutely, cooperating with other nations to share and deliver intelligence, and forming united fronts. When this happens, terrorists cannot flourish. Recent successes show that these wars are winnable.” —Investor’s Business Daily
This is not the Iraq war of 2006, the one that was spinning out of control, the one that prompted Harry Reid and Barack Obama to declare the war lost. We are winning this war, which liberal Democrats said could not be done. They said there was no military solution, but people like General Petraeus proposed a military solution known as the Surge (with John McCain's backing, speaking of judgement), and it has worked. Liberals like Barack Obama said it couldn't ever work (speaking of judgement). The Iraqi military is taking the lead in many areas now, and Iraqis are turning against the extremists.
Now I propose that liberals get up to speed, because the dynamic under which they are operating is obsolete. Liberals have tried to end the war all along, but what does it say about them if they try to end it when the Iraqi government is close to standing on their own, when Al Qaeda is all but eliminated, and when political reconciliation is moving forward ? Yet still, every day on the stump, Obama tells his supporters he'll end the war, and they applaud. I propose that Obama do something new, something patriotic, and tell his supporters the truth, and that as president he will help to WIN THE WAR, a war that is already being won. As Scott McClellan said in his book, it was Bush's goal to remake the Middle East. I always thought that was Bush's goal as well. It was one heck of an ambitious goal, and I didn't think it could be done, which is why I didn't think the Iraq war was a very hot idea. I still think that goal is quite an overreach, but I would never, ever abandon the Iraqis after the fact, after Saddam was gone and the gap hadn't been filled. After the Iraq invasion, it was simply unthinkable and immoral to abandon that country to the extremists. I can think of nothing more irresponsible than that, yet that was the liberal policy all along. It's time for that policy to shift from one of defeat to one of success. If Obama does become president, by the time he's sworn into office, it may be that the only thing he has to do regarding Iraq is to not screw it up, to not reverse all the progress that has been made, to not pull the rug out, to not make the price we paid in blood worth nothing. That is the least we should expect from any American president.
June 3rd, 2008 at 11:37 am
[quote The King] Liberals have tried to end the war all along, but what does it say about them if they try to end it when the Iraqi government is close to standing on their own, when Al Qaeda is all but eliminated, and when political reconciliation is moving forward ? [/quote]
yeah, the US is fighting Al Qaeda in Iraq (a group who did not exist before Bush created them). But even if we extirpated them from Iraq, we would still be refereeing a civil war.
The only good thing about this war is that it made Americans realize that the Republicans were liars who politicize *everything* and use war as a means to enrich their cronies.
"The war in Iraq will be the biggest Al Qaida recruiting drive, ever" –Congressman Sherrod Brown at one of the antiwar rallies, 2002
June 3rd, 2008 at 12:54 pm
What Tom says.
And…with this post King, you are continuing to keep the waters muddied.
We're not in Iraq to fight al-Qaeda. al-Qaeda wasn't there before we attacked. It was regime change and WMD, right?
Saddam is long gone…..no WMD…..and now we're policing a civil war that is none of our business.
So what I'm saying is that we're not in a war in Iraq. We're involved in a military OCCUPATION of another country. And when one country militarily occupies another country, the citizens of the occupied country resort to violence to get the occupiers out. I don't blame them.
Your link makes all of this sound like we went to Iraq to fight al-Qaeda….just part and parcel of the, also mythical, "war on terror". Sure, neo-cons still want the 28 percent dead-enders to keep believing in this combobulated and phony view…..but that doesn't make it any less phony.
June 3rd, 2008 at 2:12 pm
Worldwide terror down 40 percent. That's pretty good.
June 3rd, 2008 at 2:39 pm
Since Petraeus and the top commanders in Iraq are doing so, we have to think of this not as a war but as an insurgency. You can download the US Army/MC Counterinsurgency Field Manual online or buy the book. It's an interesting read, especially if you want to understand where the military is going (and by contrast, what mistakes we made in the run up and in the initial occupation)
I wouldn't say we're "winning" counterinsurgency, but I neither is the insurgency. That being said, the new doctrine has led to undeniable gains there - Iraq would be insanely violent if not for the progress in the last several months. That article clip is an extremely rosy view though.
There are some major issues still:
- in order to delegitimize Al Qaeda the US has propped up Sunni tribes and sheikhs, essentially back them up with force and money. Some tribes are getting rich and some aren't, which means a.) Sunni sheiks could get too powerful and/or b.) the alienation of some tribes could lead to more violence down the road.
- Sunni retribalization and growth could lead to seriously violence down the road with the Shia.
- Al Sadr is still very capable of destabilizing the country. Much of the lull in violence is due to his ceasefire with Maliki. If that ends, things could go bad quickly.
- Maliki - many Shias don't side with his government. And worse, the Sunni tribes we are now propping up find him completely illegitimate. The whole purpose of the counterinsurgency (according to Petraeus) is to get the population to buy into the national government. This is the major problem.
- Too little troops: ideally, counterinsurgency would call for something like 400,000 troops for long term success. We won't have anywhere close to that, and the surge is very temporary fix in that department. This is probably Rumsfeld's biggest mistake….ever.
So the U.S. has made great progress, but they have a LONG way to go, and things are getting complicated in a very different way.
And real quickly, the US Army brass wants to bring many of the troops home, so lets not say its just "liberals". Also, I had to laugh when I read that all Obama has to do is "not screw up." C'mon KIng.
June 3rd, 2008 at 7:53 pm
Tom,
Al Qaeda is just one measure of the success in Iraq. Successes are happening on most of the contentious fronts now.
Rev,
Ddon't put words in my mouth. I didn't say we went to Iraq to fight Al Qaeda. And as for refereeing the civil war in Iraq (which is lessening), that's part of the responsiblity the U.S. took on when we overthrew Iraq's existing government. Or did you think we should have taken down Saddam and then just bugged out, leaving anarchy in his place ? Yeah, that would have been just freaking brilliant. Do you think about what you say before you say it ? It seems not.
June 3rd, 2008 at 8:02 pm
David,
War, insurgency. I don't care what we call it. The label doesn't change the mission. I would say we're winning, or more correctly, the Iraqi government is winning, backed by the US.
I don't deny there are still issues, but things have been trending in the right direction for quite a while now (ergo, we're "winning").
And while you're laughing, note that I said it "may" be that all Obama has to do is not screw up by the time he arrives in the White House, which is still 7 months away. If the progress continues for that time period, Obama won't be tasked with "redirecting the mission" as Obama says he'll do (which would be screwing up if the mission is succeeding), he would only be tasked with continuing the success path.
I'm wondering fellows, why do you all insist on denigrating the progress in Iraq ? Could there be some reason ? Hmmm, whatever could it be ?
June 3rd, 2008 at 8:15 pm
No one's denigrating the progress, but to say the U.S. is winning is simply not accurate. There's a major difference between war and counterinsurgency. It means you have to sooth over centuries old ethnic differences, legitimize a corrupt and largely ethnically-biased government, and create a working economy in a very short time span. But in reality, the surge was put in place not to defeat the counterinsurgency, just create an opportunity for withdrawal, which it is starting to do.
And that time span is because of the military strain more than anything. Petraeus knows it, JCS knows, and most officers know it. They literally don't have years to rebuild the nation.
Obama or McCain's biggest problem is going to be how do you withdrawal, not when.
June 4th, 2008 at 9:14 am
The only way out of the current mess is to reject the PREMISE spouted by the international war criminal twins, Bush/Cheney. The PREMISE of pre-emptive war.
Any talk of "winning" anything is totally meaningless without a rejection of the radical, extreme and unAmerican PREMISE that the U.S. has every right to invade, and/or, occupy other countries as we see fit…..without provocation, without threat.
Talk of "winning" is as out of place as a SWAT team arbitrarily killing an entire neighborhood of males and boasting later that they had "won" the war on crime in that neighborhood.
It's not the tactics or the strategy…..it's the POLICY.
June 4th, 2008 at 10:51 am
Rev,
You're still talking about why we shouldn't have gone into Iraq. It's too late for that. What we are talking about is how we get out, which must be with an Iraqi government that can stand on it's own.
June 4th, 2008 at 10:53 am
David,
I guess it depends how you define winning. As I just told the Rev, winning is us leaving Iraq with a stable Iraqi government in place. That's what we must accomplish. The rest will be up to them. We both agree the goal is for the U.S. to leave Iraq, but when we leave is important for that reason.
June 4th, 2008 at 11:55 am
And a 40 percent reduction in global terrorism sounds good, too.
June 4th, 2008 at 12:27 pm
And I predict it's only a matter of (brief) time before some Dem-lib proclaims the timing of these announcements to be strictly political…mark my words.
"A taxpayer voting for Obama is like a chicken voting for Col. Sanders!"
June 4th, 2008 at 12:43 pm
Mack needs to take time to sharpen his Knife.
Obama has stated for the record that only those making over a quarter million per year will have their taxes increased. A very miniscule group in comparison with, you know, tens of millions of regular working folks.
In addition, he is offering a one thousand dollar tax credit for lower pay scale workers.
Furthermore, he has offered seniors their first fifty thousand income tax free. A great idea.
So unless Mack is talking about the handful of fattest, pampered elitist chickens…..his Knife cut funny is a bit dull.
June 5th, 2008 at 12:23 pm
Well golly, Red I failed to see Mack say anything other than a taxpayer. He didn't say rich taxpayer or poor taxpayer, just taxpayer. I think that you are running out of things to hold out as the things Obama doesn't stand for.
June 5th, 2008 at 3:15 pm
Hey larry: On the 40 percent thing.
"In December 2007, new data released by NCTC revealed that the combined fatalities from Islamist and non-Islamist violence in Iraq had sharply declined by 55 percent. This decrease lowered the global fatality toll by 40 percent."
Now look at what we have. We go to Iraq, stir up a bunch of new terrorism, drive the new terrorism numbers up, then take a few years to get the new terrorist problem under control, somewhat. Then we count all of this as a decrease in global terrorism.
It's kind of bogus, the numbers thing….but I'm glad the numbers are down.
June 5th, 2008 at 3:20 pm
roy: Mack's comparison should have then been, "A taxpayer making over 1/4 million"….but it wasn't.
Come on roy, you can tell me…..this Barack Obama guy is something, isn't he? Should make all of us proud to be Americans. I know you'll disagree with some of his ecomonic policy decisions….but I know you can see the uniqueness of this young guy. He'll be good for the country.
June 5th, 2008 at 5:07 pm
The report I looked at didn't count Iraq fatalities over the period in question, because those were deemed part of a civil war.
It did say like global terrorism is down 40 percent. That's pretty good.
June 5th, 2008 at 8:13 pm
Mack says ""A taxpayer voting for Obama is like a chicken voting for Col. Sanders!"
Standing ovation for Mack ! Outstanding.
June 5th, 2008 at 8:17 pm
larry,
No attacks on the homeland either.
June 5th, 2008 at 8:26 pm
Rev says,
"Obama has stated for the record that only those making over a quarter million per year will have their taxes increased".
Thanks for pointing out Obama's lie, Rev.
Obama wants to eliminate the Social Security cap, which is a massive tax increase on anyone making 97K and above, and he also wants to double the capital gains tax, which is another massive tax increase on the non-rich which will affect probably 100 million of us at one time or another.
Not to mention the fallacy in Obama's thinking that he can soak the rich and not have it filter down to the little guy. Happens every time, like clockwork. Higher prices, reduced wages, lost jobs, higher rents, etc. You name it. It's a fools paradise.
June 8th, 2008 at 3:36 pm
Wrong and wrong…again.
You mean the 6 percent that make over 100K?
Returning the capital gains rate back to where it was only affects the richest. Mutual funds don't enter into this. And your, "probably will affect 100 million", has no substantiation, that's why you said probably.
June 8th, 2008 at 6:22 pm
Of course the capital gains tax will affect everyone, Reverend. Rentals will increase for a lot of lower income people, for just one example.
June 9th, 2008 at 10:27 am
"Returning the capital gains rate back to where it was only affects the richest"
Rev, can't you at least make some kind of effort to be informed ? You do everybody a disservice by making this stuff up out of thin air like you do.
The capital gains tax rate affects EVERYBODY, because it affects economic growth, investment, and thus wages. This is clearly illustrated by the fact that capital gains revenue went UP after the rates were slashed. The rate also affects stockholders, which are nearly 50% of the adult population. Here, read the following link to get a vague idea of the subject. You're education is no charge. I like to help the disadvantaged.
http://www.house.gov/jec/fiscal/tx-grwth/capgain/capgain.htm