Even the Washington Post was forced to publish optimistic news from Iraq with this great article on Iraq glowing from the front page of today’s edition. The part that reads “there is widespread that AQI has suffered major blows” is most heartening. Liberal amazement is almost palpable. After all Dingy Harry declared defeat long ago. While liberals are stammering disbelief that the application of disproportionate force was followed by battlefield success, seven or eight thousand years of history have produced the aphorism “God is on the side of the big battalions” for a reason.
It will be interesting to see how the Democrat ‘s turn major blows against AQI into disaster but they will. Remember, in Democrat world, reality and context, and worst of all optimism on anything, are merely inconvenient impediments to defeatism and partisan gain.
For example, the NY Times neglected to mention that federal tax receipts reached a new record high during the last fiscal year, that would be the same fiscal year that the deficit dropped 34.2% and came in around half the amount the very same newspaper projected, on the day it labeled the historically proven and abundantly replicated positive affect of rate reduction on tax collection a myth. If the NY Times can ignore something as objective as tax receipts and tax rates they certainly cannot be expected to concede success in a subjective endeavor like guerilla war.
Today, we focus on battlefield success because battlefield success is a necessary precondition to political success (e.g. one side giving up). Congrats and thanks to the armed forces, including their Commander in Chief, for delivering this success.
It will be interesting to see how the Democrat ‘s turn major blows against AQI into disaster but they will. Remember, in Democrat world, reality and context, and worst of all optimism on anything, are merely inconvenient impediments to defeatism and partisan gain.
For example, the NY Times neglected to mention that federal tax receipts reached a new record high during the last fiscal year, that would be the same fiscal year that the deficit dropped 34.2% and came in around half the amount the very same newspaper projected, on the day it labeled the historically proven and abundantly replicated positive affect of rate reduction on tax collection a myth. If the NY Times can ignore something as objective as tax receipts and tax rates they certainly cannot be expected to concede success in a subjective endeavor like guerilla war.
Today, we focus on battlefield success because battlefield success is a necessary precondition to political success (e.g. one side giving up). Congrats and thanks to the armed forces, including their Commander in Chief, for delivering this success.
11 comments:
"Congrats and thanks to the armed forces, including their Commander in Chief, for delivering this success."
To be fair and balanced, are you going to give W credit for all the damage this misguided adventure has created? The damage our grandchildren will surely continue to pay for. It's clear our wannabe history professor Sporer cannot see the forest for the trees. Must be too intrigued by the individual battles and all the excitement that goes with it to see the big picture. Or maybe just too keen on pure partisan gain. As I've stated many times on this blog, even if we were to achieve "victory" in Iraq by Sporer's own standards, it will never be enough to undo the long-lasting damage this debacle has caused. Not even close. Simple cost-benefit analysis, my friend.
rf
Sporer always has lots of historical examples that seem pretty spot on.
What are some of your examples of long lasting damage?
If you feel Sporer's historical analogies are spot on, you must be confusing "historian" with "partisan."
If you really have to ask for examples of the long lasting damage, you must live in the W bubble or view the world through a strictly partisan, pre-screened prism. - But since you asked, shall we start with the extremely effective Al Qaeda recruitment W did for bin Laden. The creation of several rabidly anti-American generations all over the world, and especially in the Muslim world. (A suicide bomber in NYC in 2050 will likely be screaming W's name.) Depleting our political, economic and military resources. And for what? What exactly has been the benefit to the WOT from the Iraq War? Are we done with WOT after we achieve Sporer's "victory" in Iraq? I don't think so. And please don't give me the "just one battle" bs. If we are this drained after one battle, how could we ever win the war?
Come on Ted - how about going over and giving us a "man on the street" report from Iraq? I'm sure we could put together a collection to pay for a plane ticket (you'd have to pony up for your own body armor and dozen bodyguards to keep you breathing though).
No need for body armor or guards, Ted. Just take Mark Klein with you. Any insurgent sees him coming, and feels the effervescence of his power, they'll run away screaming (if they know what's good for them). If they are foolish enough to stick around, his bat shit crazy all volunteer army will either talk, or bore, them to death. If ever there was a weapon of bullshit, Mark Klein has it.
rf, please allow me to respond on your line by line:
you say "But since you asked, shall we start with the extremely effective Al Qaeda recruitment W did for bin Laden. The creation of several rabidly anti-American generations all over the world, and especially in the Muslim world. (A suicide bomber in NYC in 2050 will likely be screaming W's name.)"
What provided their justifications prior to Ws becoming President? Why did the Iranian mullahs seize our embassy back before there was even a Vice President Bush?
All of the anti American and anti Western attacks from 71-2001 can’t be blamed on W.
So your option is don’t fight back and maybe they’ll stop hitting me. History proves the folly of such a course. The hateful aggressors cannot be appeased, they HATE us and didn’t need any new reasons. Mostly because of Israel but more as a simple extension of their history.
Our lunatic enemy frequently talks about the Crusades. Our history teaches the Crusades ended in the early 13th Century. A large segment of Islamic thought and culture believe in the role of military expansion of Islam-read their websites.
You need to read some history of the Madhi wars in Eqypt and Sudan at the end of the 19th Century.
You say,
“Depleting our political, economic and military resources. And for what? What exactly has been the benefit to the WOT from the Iraq War?”
I say,
This is why we have resources in the first place. Or, as WLS Churchill said “Armies must fight if wars are to be won:” Axiomatic my friend. In spite of the recession Clinton left, the corporate scandals from the 90s that W prosecuted, 9.11 and the two big hurricanes, if we maintain present tax and expenditure rates we will have a balanced budget in 2011. How much did WW2 cost?
The benefits are numerous. Large military base in the heart of enemy country. Why do you think we have all of those bases in Germany, Japan and Korea? Do we think the Germans, Japanese and South Koreans pose a security risk to the US? No, they are handy locations from which to assume a forward military posture in the heart of a hostile region of the world-consistently following about two hundred years of American military posture.
Political benefits have also been huge. Most Western democracies are now lead by poltical parties that are far more aggressive in the WoT than were their predecessors. The dividing issue in almost every election was Iraq and the desire for closer ties with the US in the WoT. Ask the lefties that lost in major NATO allies Canada, France and Germany. Those are real results not public opinion polls.
In the Islamic world it allowed us to defang Mr. Libya without having to fire another shot. We have forged far stronger ties with Jordan, Egypt, Qtar, Pakistan, and India.
How much did the Japs have to hate Uncle Sam to find Kamikaze pilots???? Of course you make the enemy hate you more when you fight back. Hell, if they’d blow up planes (like the 70s and 80s) before we started actually fighting back I’d imagine we’d piss off a few more.
We actually need to step it up, and kill so many more of those recruits that they give up. That is what we stand to gain -- we show the Islamofacsists that we can enter the heart of their country and create an ally. Again, very much like modern American strategic principle as applied in Germany and Japan, Korea etc….
We also gain an ally that once stabilized might help us accelerate the production of OPEC oil.
We also removed a tremendous source of financial, strategic and diplomatic assistance to several major terror groups like Hamas, Hezbollah, etc… As an opponent of the war don’t you feel some burden to explain what the Al Qaeda leadership that was in Iraq before the war (like Zarqawi for example) were up to before the US invasion. Harboring terrorists is an act of war against the US is it not? Isn’t shooting at American planes an act of war against he US? Isn’t the keeping of American hostages (like the pilot from the first Gulf War) an act of war against the US?
Oh, and last but not least, we showed some other enemies like the madmen in Iran that we will enforce UN resolutions even if the UN is to weak to do so itself?
There are a few of the obvious benefits.
You say,
“Are we done with WOT after we achieve Sporer's "victory" in Iraq? I don't think so. And please don't give me the "just one battle" bs. If we are this drained after one battle, how could we ever win the war?”
I say,
No, were we done with WW2 when we liberated Italy and recaptured the Philippines? No, but we were a hell of a lot closer than when we began. So it is in Iraq.
Drained, we spend 3 or 4 percent of GDP on the military. We haven’t even begun to fight. I also assume from this angle of criticique that you opposed the radical force reductions that the Clinton Administration accomplished in the 90s? I guess history didn’t end after all, huh?
I’ll bet 100,000 GI Joes on Iran’s doorstep makes them a hell of a lot more cooperative than they would otherwise be. Makes it a lot easier to get ‘em if they don’t behave better.
Wow - Uncle Teddy. That was way better stuff than what you had to talk about on Channel 5 (ABC) tonight.
I think rf is checkmated.
War Sporer!
Sporer sure has his delusional neocon/partisan talking points down. And I will even stray from the typical lib/D talking points on a couple of issues. First of all, I don't deny some of the positive aspects of the war, say developments in Libya. Seldom is even a disastrous decision without some positives. Second, the "you break it, you own it" principle does apply here. Thus, I'm not sure the best thing we can do is just cut funding and get the hell out. We need to do it responsibly, trying to minimize the damage. But of course we must realize we only have bad options at this point of time. And, whatever political progress may ever happen in Iraq is likely to happen because of the threat of us leaving. Related to this, when you make a decision to go to war, there must be some follow-through. You cannot just launch it and then say, "never mind." But again, you also need to be able acknowledge when you have completely screwed up.
Unfortunately I don't have the time to go through Sporer's fantasies line by line, but a couple of quick points. Perhaps most importantly, it is completely pointless to compare WOT and Islamic terrorists to Japan, Germany or any other nation state threat we have ever faced. Fighting a diffuse terrorist group spread across the globe is completely different from fighting Hitler's armies. Because of this completely different enemy we face, fighting them through conventional methods like the Iraq War is hopeless. To catch all the terrorists, how many countries will we need to attack? Where shall we go next? UK, Germany, Spain, Sweden, Indonesia, Pakistan, Iran, Syria, Saudia Arabia? True, we need to go after the real bad guys with fervor and precision. But don't use a nuke to catch a fly.
And what happened to winning the hearts and minds of people? It has always been and always will be our best weapon. Unfortunately W & co. have set us back decades on that most crucial front. Who would have thought on 9/12/01 that the world would see us as torturers only a few years later?
Re: anti-Americanism. True, it's been there for a long time. Often most obvious in European elites. The masses all over the world, in Europe and even in many Muslim countries, have always loved the U.S. But not any more, thanks to W & co. To not to acknowledge that fact and its dangerous implications is complete lunacy.
WAR Mark Klein 2008!
QWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACK!!!!!!!!!
Post a Comment