Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
REVIEW & OUTLOOK
The Iraq Panic
Zarqawi's bombs hit their target in Washington.
Monday, June 27, 2005 12:01 a.m. EDT
"It's like they're just making it up as they go along. The reality is that we're losing in Iraq."--Senator Chuck Hagel (R., Neb.), June 27, 2005, U.S. News & World Report.
"And we are now in a seemingly intractable quagmire. Our troops are dying and there really is no end in sight."--Senator Ted Kennedy (D., Mass.), June 23, 2005, Armed Services Committee hearing.
The polls show the American people are growing pessimistic about Iraq, and no wonder. They are being rallied against the cause by such statesmen as the two above. Six months after they repudiated the insurgency in a historic election, free Iraqis are continuing to make slow but steady political and military gains. Where the terrorists are gaining ground is in Washington, D.C.
This is despite tangible, albeit underreported, progress in Iraq. In the political arena, an Iraqi transition government has formed that includes representatives from all ethnic and religious groups. Leading Sunnis who boycotted January's election are now participating both in the parliament and in drafting a new constitution. The Shiite uprising of a year ago has been defeated. The government now has three deadlines to meet: drafting a constitution by August, a referendum on that constitution in October and elections for a permanent government in December.
This political momentum vindicates the decision to hold the January election, despite warnings that it was "going to be ugly" (in Joe Biden's phrase). Some of those who predicted the worst because the Sunnis refused to participate--Mr. Biden, the Hoover Institution's Larry Diamond--are the same people who now say again that disaster looms. Clearly the smart strategy was to move ahead with the vote and show the Sunnis they had to participate if they wanted a role in building the new Iraq. So why should we believe these pessimists now?
As for security, the daily violence is terrible and dispiriting, but it is not a sign of an expanding insurgency. As U.S. and Iraqi military targets have hardened their defenses, the terrorists have turned to larger bombs delivered by suicidal jihadists aimed at softer targets. This drives up the casualty figures, especially against Iraqi civilians, but it does not win more political converts.
Insurgencies that have prevailed in history--Algeria, China, Cuba--have all had a large base of popular support. That more of the bombers seem to be coming from outside Iraq is cause for worry, since it means there will be a continuing supply of suicide bombers. But it also means that the insurgency is becoming an invasion force against Iraq itself, which means it lacks the native roots to sustain it.
The trend is in fact toward more civilian cooperation with Iraqi and U.S. security forces. Calls to the military hotline have climbed to 1,700 from 50 in January, according to U.S. commanders, and better intelligence has led to the recent capture of key insurgent leaders, including a top deputy to Musab al-Zarqawi. An Iraqi TV show profiling captured jihadists--"Terrorism in the Hands of Justice"--is a popular hit.
Everyone wishes that Iraqi security forces could be trained faster to replace U.S. troops, and to secure areas from which terrorists have been ousted. But here, too, there has been progress. About 100 Iraqi units are now able to conduct special operations on their own. General George Casey, the Iraq theater commander, says there has not been a single failure of an Iraqi military unit since the election. And new recruits continue to volunteer, even though this makes them terrorist targets.
Regarding Mr. Kennedy's "quagmire" claim, General Casey had this response: "I thought I was fairly clear in what I laid out in my testimony about what's going on in Iraq, that you have an insurgency with no vision, no base, limited popular support, an elected government, committed Iraqis to the democratic process, and you have Iraqi security forces that are fighting and dying for their country every day. Senator, that is not a quagmire."
So why the Washington panic? A large part of it is political. As Democrats see support for the war falling in the polls, the most cynical smell an opening for election gains in 2006. The Republican Hagels, who voted for the war only reluctantly, see another opening to assail the "neo-cons" and get Donald Rumsfeld fired. Still others are merely looking for political cover. Rather than fret (for the TV cameras) about "the "public going south" on the war, South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham could do more for the cause by trying to educate Americans and rally their support.
It isn't as if the critics are offering any better strategy for victory. At last week's Senate hearing, Carl Levin's (D., Mich.) brainstorm was that the U.S. set a withdrawal schedule if Iraqis miss their deadline in writing a constitution. But U.S. officials have all stressed to Iraqis how important that deadline is. Mr. Biden delivered a lecture last week that boiled down to letting France train 1,500 Iraqi "gendarmes" and pressing for 5,000 NATO troops to patrol the Syrian border. Both are fine with us, assuming Mr. Biden gets to negotiate with the French, but neither is going to turn the tide of war.
The proposal to fix a date certain for U.S. withdrawal is especially destructive, inviting the terrorists to wait us out and Iraqi ethnic groups to start arming themselves. The only important idea we've heard from Congress is John McCain's suggestion that if Damascus keeps abetting the insurgency, the U.S. is under no obligation to honor Syria's territorial integrity when pursuing terrorists seeking sanctuary in that country.
President Bush plans to speak about Iraq tomorrow, and we hope he points out that this Beltway panic is hurting the war effort. General John Abizaid of the U.S. Central Command stressed this point last week. Troop morale, he said, has never been better. But "when I look back here at what I see is happening in Washington, within the Beltway, I've never seen the lack of confidence greater."
He added that, "When my soldiers say to me and ask me the question whether or not they've got support from the American people or not, that worries me. And they're starting to do that." Mr. Bush will no doubt remind Americans of the stakes in Iraq, but he also needs to point out that defeatism can be a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Gabriella84 said:Yep, that was certainly our message on the streets of New York City last September. We were trying to stop the war, so no one else would die.
Unfortunately, we failed to meet our objective. The battle is not over yet. Not by a long shot. We will be back in 2006.
God Bless America -- the America that doesn't kill people indiscriminately. :usa:
Gabriella84 said:I don't need to see the video. I watched it happen live. I was a high school senior. A very pissed off one, at that. I was a pissed off MSgt of Marines. My retirement got put on hold for a while following that. Guess where my unit went. I printed business cards with individual victims names on them. Handed em out to my Marines. Told em, that on the day their resolve wavered, look at the name on the card. That was who they were there for. A little dramatic, but it worked. We have something in common. We are pissed off.
Then I read more about it. I found out that Iraq did not attack the U.S., but was somehow implicated in it anyways. I read that we bungled the attack on Afghanistan, lost all clue of where bin Laden was, and decided to attack Iraq to make everyone forget we had no clue where bin Laden was. With respect. Most of the above is inflated and slightly disingenuous. Fact is that Saddam sponsored terrorism in the form of payments to terrorist families. Fact is that while OBL "escaped", there is a very good possibility that he is in fact dead.
I read the official FAA timeline for the morning of Sept. 11, complete with dialogue between the towers and the plane pilots (which is now, mysteriously, "classified," althought it was not classified on Sept. 12 and 13.)
I didn't have time to read those. We were in the predeployment workup. I will take your word for it.
I found out that, while our nation was under attack, the President of the United States sat in an elementary school classroom for 30 minutes, listening to kids read. Then, as the nation wondered wtf was going on and who was in charge, the President of the United States rode around in an airplane for close to 12 hours. I like this one. On the surface you are positively convincing that he screwed up. What was he supposed to do. This is the real world, he cannot "spring into action" ala Captain America. I figure that during those thirty minutes about 1500 agencies were getting their act together for a presidential briefing and planning session that ran into overtime. How do you hold a secure briefing when you believe another attack could be imminent? Airforce One for twelve hours.
General Wesley Clark detailed a phone call he got on Sept. 11, from a member of the White House staff, stating "You got to say this is connected. This is state-sponsored terrorism. This has to be connected to Saddam Hussein."
(Wesley Clark, interviewed by Tim Russert on Meet The Press, June 15, 2003)Did the Good General name his source? If not, then I must humbly refuse to discuss it on the grounds that it is great fodder for soap operas, comic books, and conspiracy theories. But in the real world, it is unsubstantiated hearsay.
On Sept. 15, Dick Cheney scribbled on a notepad that he took to a meeting: "Go massive. Sweep it all up. Things related and not."
At the same meeting, deputy defense secretary Paul Wolfowitz made an argument for an immediate attack on Iraq. Instead of Afghanistan, where bin Laden and al Qaeda were known to be hiding out. As justification, Wolfowitz stated "Attacking Afghanistan would be uncertain... Iraq is a brittle oppressive regime that might break easily. It is doable."
(Paul Krugman, "Pattern of Corruption" The New York Times, July 15, 2003)
I tried to look up your article and couldn't find it. LINK? It sounds bad, but I wonder at the context.
Care to take a stab at it?The all wise and knowing PEGWINN said:Gabby. If you really believe that the war is wrong..... tell me how you would fight it. Simple rules. You must take the fight to them and end terrorism. Kids in San Diego Schoolyards are depending on you.
Gabby. If you really believe that the war is wrong..... tell me how you would fight it. Simple rules. You must take the fight to them and end terrorism.
Gabriella84 said:Yep, that was certainly our message on the streets of New York City last September. We were trying to stop the war, so no one else would die.
Unfortunately, we failed to meet our objective. The battle is not over yet. Not by a long shot. We will be back in 2006.
God Bless America -- the America that doesn't kill people indiscriminately. :usa:
Gabriella84 said:Sorry, but a real DECISIVE leader would not have sat in a classroom for 30 minutes. He would have immediately summoned his advisers and devised a response. The problem, Bush was caught totally unprepared. He had no plan for responding to terrorism on U.S. soil. That is why the Bush administration so desperately needed a link to Iraq. Because they had spent a LOT of time planning how to deal with that problem.
Sure, I can end global terrorism. I can also cure cancer and AIDS, end world hunger, fix Global Warming and give everyone in the U.S. a job.
I look at the alleged "War on Terror" as a massive field of several hundred hornets nests. With the invasion of Iraq, Bush has gone out in the field with bullhorns and sticks. Everytime you destroy 10 nests, another 20 form. How long do you continue attempting to destroy nests?
The way to deal with the problem is to make sure it does not take over your country. You are NEVER going to end terrorism. You need to avoid further conflicts. Even the terrorists have intentions, which they have clearly stated: Get out of our face. Quit trying to control our countries.
The U.S. needs to back off its role as The World's Bully. We can force every country to exist the way we do. Of course, the reasons we do it now is simple: because we can. We have a large, well-equipped and well-trained military. If there were not wars to fight and battles to wage, we would have to find a lot of people peacetime jobs. We would have to stop spending billions of dollars on weapons. We might even have to start getting along with other nations.
There will always be people who enjoy war more than peace. Because, after all, life would be pretty boring if we couldn't kill people.
Gabriella84 said:Sorry, but a real DECISIVE leader would not have sat in a classroom for 30 minutes. He would have immediately summoned his advisers and devised a response. The problem, Bush was caught totally unprepared. He had no plan for responding to terrorism on U.S. soil. That is why the Bush administration so desperately needed a link to Iraq. Because they had spent a LOT of time planning how to deal with that problem.
Gabby, you are not even in the ballpark. I realize you are at that stage of life where you belive with passion. But you need to take a reasoned look at this. His cabinet doesn't travel with him. EVen if you are correct, thirty minutes is still moving quickly. Also, the Secret Service wanted to move him then and there. BY staying still, he demonstrated a form of courage in itself. I know you don't believe me now. Trust me, as you get older, I will get smarter.
Sure, I can end global terrorism. I can also cure cancer and AIDS, end world hunger, fix Global Warming and give everyone in the U.S. a job.
I look at the alleged "War on Terror" as a massive field of several hundred hornets nests. With the invasion of Iraq, Bush has gone out in the field with bullhorns and sticks. Everytime you destroy 10 nests, another 20 form. How long do you continue attempting to destroy nests?
The way to deal with the problem is to make sure it does not take over your country. You are NEVER going to end terrorism. You need to avoid further conflicts. Even the terrorists have intentions, which they have clearly stated: Get out of our face. Quit trying to control our countries.
The U.S. needs to back off its role as The World's Bully. We can force every country to exist the way we do. Of course, the reasons we do it now is simple: because we can. We have a large, well-equipped and well-trained military. If there were not wars to fight and battles to wage, we would have to find a lot of people peacetime jobs. We would have to stop spending billions of dollars on weapons. We might even have to start getting along with other nations.
There will always be people who enjoy war more than peace. Because, after all, life would be pretty boring if we couldn't kill people.
I asked you a serious question designed to promote a give and take discussion. Instead you belittled the question and got quasi sarcastic. I understand why others are tempted to ban you. I will try once more to discuss things with you. I don't mind if you disagree, so long as you do it well. If you get stupid, it'll get ugly.
