When Losing, Call a 'Cease-Fire'

Discussion in 'Middle East - General' started by Annie, May 28, 2004.

  1. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    Excellent article about overall state of things. I was so po'd about the axis of weasels this week in the Security Council, not that I think they will achieve anything substantive:

    http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/21743.htm

    RUNNING OUT THE CLOCK

    By RALPH PETERS

    May 28, 2004 -- IT'S easy to tell when terrorists and thugs are near defeat: They ask for a cease-fire.
    It's just as simple to tell when the diplomats have overruled our military: We agree to the proposed cease-fire.

    And stop short of victory again.

    Despite President Bush's assurances at the U.S. Army War College on Monday night, we still don't have a detailed plan to get us past the June 30 transfer of power. But if we don't have a strategy, our enemies — in Iraq, the greater Middle East and Europe — certainly do.

    From Muqtada al-Sadr to Jacques Chirac, they hope to run out the clock before we can win.

    Sadr's insurrection turned disastrous for him. His shabby legions are broken or dead, his influence has fallen from minor to trivial status, and he could hear a slamming cell door in his future (maybe those photos from Abu Ghraib had an upside, after all). So, emulating the terrorists in Fallujah, he struck a deal to save himself from our troops.

    So much for our refusal to negotiate with terrorists. Our diplomats and bureaucrats are tumbling over each other to cut deals with those who kill our soldiers, slaughter civilians and hope to derail the future of Iraq. Congratulations, guys.



    Meanwhile, the pathological America-haters of Old Europe have returned to their pre-war efforts to frustrate our hopes by turning Iraq back over to bully-boys willing to cut deals with French and German companies — and who'll drop any investigations into the oil-for-food scandal even quicker than we appear ready to do.

    Of course, China wants us to fail. No-brainer there. And Russia wants a sympathetic — authoritarian — government in Baghdad. But what about our French and German "friends," before whom Bush is on his knees begging for Security Council votes?

    The Germans are madly anti-American, but far too cowardly to oppose the United States on their own. The core of the problem is France. French hatred of America is equally pathological, but it's also coldly calculated for maximum damage.

    Paris wants to dictate the terms of any new United Nations resolution regarding Iraq. It's willing to wreck the hopes of 26 million people to spite Washington and make a couple of euros. The French want to design the world, but they can't even build an airport terminal — indeed, the recent collapse of that brand-new, $90 million passenger terminal at Charles de Gaulle airport is a perfect metaphor for French policy. They've wrecked everything they've touched.

    Now they know exactly what to do in Iraq: Establish a firm deadline for the withdrawal of Coalition troops.

    What would such a deadline achieve? It would guarantee the terrorists and Baathist assassins that they only have to hang on, that the Americans and British will be gone and la belle France will ensure that those uppity Kurds and any Arabs foolish enough to believe in democracy and human rights will be served up on a platter to the Middle East's latest consortium of murderers.

    The strategy of the terrorists in Fallujah, of Sadr's ragtag murderers and of our French "allies" is exactly the same: Limit the number of quarters in the game, then call as many time-outs as necessary to let Team Terror recover whenever the Coalition offense threatens to score.

    The administration's response? A ref from the United Nations. Guess who's going to get called "out of bounds"?

    What happened to the decisive George W. Bush? The man who deposed a gruesome dictator? Who promised freedom to the Iraqi people? Where's the president who had the courage to stand up to the bloodsoaked continent that gave us Auschwitz, Treblinka and that triumph of civilization, Vichy France? Where's the Bush who believed in taking the War on Terror to our deadly enemies?

    Our president doesn't resemble Bill Clinton, who surrendered before he fought. Nor does he resemble LBJ, befuddled by his neo-cons (sorry, I meant "whiz kids"). Above all, Bush resembles Woodrow Wilson, who rescued civilization from German barbarism, then found himself outmaneuvered by the Euro-gang at Versailles.

    Will Bush surrender to Europe, as his plenipotentiaries surrendered to the Baathists in Fallujah and now deny our Army its hard-earned victory against Sadr? Don't the lost lives of our soldiers mean anything to him? Will we surrender all we've gained for a passing nod of support from the United Nations, an organization as vicious as it is corrupt and inept? (Thank God it is inept, or the viciousness would be far more worrisome.)

    Do we hand over the Kurds to the pan-Arabists? Do we let yesterday's strongmen, from Mubarak to the Saudis, decide the future of Iraq? After all our promises?

    Has our president's courage failed because he faces an electoral contest against a spineless man who believes in nothing? It's painful enough to despair for Iraq. One begins to despair for America.

    In Robert Bolt's magnificent (if historically inaccurate) play, "A Man For All Seasons," Thomas More confronts a bureaucrat who betrayed him in return for a provincial stewardship. More says, "Why, Richard, it profits a man nothing to give his soul for the whole world . . . But for Wales!"

    Is Bush willing to betray the future of Iraq, the War on Terror, America's security, and the sacrifice of our soldiers' lives to win in November?

    By assigning greater importance to an election than to the war, Bush is apt to lose both. The winners will be the terrorists and the forces of repression.

    Even the French will lose, although they're too blind to see it. The terrorists are coming for them, too, and can't be bought off. God's murderers won't even allow them a new Vichy regime.

    Our war in Iraq is winnable, and the peace in Iraq is winnable. But you can't win any game if you fold at half-time.

    Ralph Peters is the author of "Beyond Baghdad: Postmodern War and Peace."
     
  2. Zhukov
    Offline

    Zhukov VIP Member

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2003
    Messages:
    3,492
    Thanks Received:
    301
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Everywhere, simultaneously.
    Ratings:
    +301
    This article makes many good points, but...

    Perhaps the question the President is asking himself is: What will become of the War on Terror if I fail to win in November?


    Everyone has difficult choices in their life, so of us more than others. Some, much more.
     
  3. Crazy88
    Online

    Crazy88 Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    Sadr
    Chirac
    Annan
    3 of the 5 UN permanent members
    Spain
    Iran
    Syria
    North Korea
    Arafat....

    As far as not eliciting the slighest bit of trust, the list goes on.

    While I don't necessarily seek to draw a comparison in any other way between these two men, Bush and OBL, they HAVE both kept their words.

    One keeps a keen and determined resolve to destroy political Islamicism. The other, to destroy the west.

    The rest are just bit players.
     
  4. scubamike
    Online

    scubamike Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    How about the American hatred of France? Hang on, I didn't see Republican/Democrat cellars full of French wine being smashed. Seems hatred of the French is something intended only for the consumers of "Freedom Fries".

    Odd name that. Freedom fries. It appears to equate France with Freedom.
    I guess America is envious afterall.

    Don't get me wrong, I hate the French too. But then NZ is the country that contributed the highest percentage of its young men to die for French freedom and then got an act of state sponsored terrorism carried out against it by the French Gov't. So I feel we are a little more justified.
     
  5. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    by NZ

    Actually there was quite a lot of wine spilled. The Fries thing was a joke. They were fries and remain fries. Seldomed called French.

    BTW, you weren't quoting me, but something I quoted.
     

Share This Page