Sunday, May 20, 2007   RETURN TO TOP

(EMPHASIS ADDED BY A NEWT ONE)
From The Weekly Standard
Don't Abandon the Iraqis
The high stakes of the war.
by Frederick W. Kagan

From time to time, nations face fundamental tests of character. Forced to choose between painful but wise options, and irresponsible ones that offer only temporary relief from pain, a people must decide what price they are willing to pay to safeguard themselves and their children and to do the right thing. America has faced such tests before. Guided by Abraham Lincoln, we met our greatest challenge during the Civil War and overcame it, despite agonizing doubts about the possibility of success even into 1864. The Greatest Generation recovered from the shock of Pearl Harbor and refused to stop fighting until both Germany and Japan had surrendered unconditionally. A similar moment is upon us in Iraq. What will we do?

America has vital national interests in Iraq. The global al Qaeda movement has decided to defeat us there--not merely to establish a base from which to pursue further tyranny and terror, but also to erect a triumphant monument on the ruins of American power. Al Qaeda claims to have defeated the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, and its recruiting rests in part on that boast. If America flees the field of battle against this foe in Iraq, al Qaeda will have gained an even more powerful recruiting slogan. That is why al Qaeda fighters from across the Muslim world are streaming into Iraq and fighting desperately to retain and expand their positions there. Al Qaeda does not think Iraq is a distraction from their war against us. Al Qaeda believes Iraq is the central
front--and it is.


To imagine that America can lose in Iraq but prevail in the war against jihadism is almost like imagining that we could have yielded Europe to the Nazis but won World War II.



Al Qaeda is not our only enemy in Iraq, however. Iran has chosen to fight a proxy war against us there, determined to work our defeat for its own purposes. Iranian weapons and even advisers flow into Iraq and assist our enemies, both Sunni and Shia, to kill our soldiers and attempt to establish control over Iraq itself. This Iranian support is not the result of a misunderstanding that could be worked out if only we would talk to the mullahs. It is the continuation of nearly three decades of cold war between Iran and the United States that began in 1979 with an Iranian attack on the sovereign American soil of the U.S. embassy in Tehran. The states of the Arabian Gulf are watching closely to see who will win. If Iran succeeds in driving America from Iraq, Iranian hegemony in the region is likely. If that success is combined with the development of an Iranian nuclear weapon, then Iranian hegemony is even more likely. Dominance of the Middle East by this Iranian regime would be very bad for America. And a nuclear arms race in which Arab states tried to balance against Iranian power would also be very bad for America.

These are the obvious American stakes in the fight in Iraq, and they are high enough to justify every possible effort to succeed there. But there are reasons to keep fighting even beyond these geopolitical considerations. On a recent trip to Iraq, I saw the human stakes in this struggle. I spoke with the commander of the 8th Iraqi Army Division in Diwaniyah, Major General Othman. He is a Shia, commanding a heavily Shia unit in an entirely Shia area. I asked him what was the most serious challenge he faced. He answered at once: Shia militias. General Othman stands strongly for an Iraq ruled by law, in which the government holds a monopoly on the use of force, and in which Sunni and Shia are treated equally. He has put his beliefs to the test of battle. When he saw that members of Moktada al-Sadr's Shia militia, the Mahdi Army, had taken control of the city of Diwaniyah, he conducted a large-scale clearing operation with the help of American forces and drove them out. General Othman now holds Diwaniyah, where the people can breathe free again, subject neither to that militia nor to any other. There is no turning back for General Othman. The Mahdi Army is determined to kill him and his family, and they will do so if we do not continue to support him. The life of this decent man is in our hands.

In Iskandariyah, I met Major General Qais, the commander of the Babil Province police forces. I asked him the same question, What is your greatest challenge. Without hesitation, he, too, said: Shia militias. The Iraqi police are known to be infiltrated by Shia militia fighters, but General Qais has molded a force that he uses against those very militias on a daily basis. He has survived attempts on his life, and he and his family are under constant threat. They, too, rely on America to help them fight the agents of Iran who seek to defeat us. Across Iraq today, decent people are standing up and identifying themselves. They are reaching out to us, working with us, and fighting alongside us against our enemies, even against the powerful Shia militias. If we abandon them now, they will be tortured and killed, along with their families, by the militias. We will have exposed every decent person in the country to destruction.

For the fact is that the democratic government of Iraq is an ally--and a strong ally--against al Qaeda. Against al Qaeda, Iraqi leaders from government, civil society, the military, and the police are implacable. Even the Sunni Arabs, who once provided al Qaeda safe haven and support, have turned against the terrorists. Thousands of Sunni Arabs in Anbar, Salahaddin, Diyala, Babil, and even Baghdad have reached out to the Coalition and the Iraqi government, offering to fight the takfiris, as they call al Qaeda. Anbar Province, whose Marine intelligence officers had virtually given
it up only last year, is now lost to al Qaeda. Thousands of Iraqis have died fighting al Qaeda. When al Qaeda attacks recruiting centers, health clinics, government buildings, and military and police outposts, the Iraqis do not run home. They run back into the battle, to fight harder. But they continue to need our help. If we abandon them, al Qaeda terrorists will barbarically punish those who have opposed them. They may even so terrorize the people that they are able to establish a home in part of Iraq. That is certainly their aim. We cannot allow them to succeed.

But the stakes are even higher than these. I had the chance to walk through the market near Haifa Street the other day. Only in January, the streets of this mixed Sunni-Shia neighborhood featured day-long gun fights between al Qaeda terrorists and U.S. and Iraqi soldiers. American forces have not yet finished clearing the neighborhood. Nevertheless, I walked through the market with Lieutenant General Ray Odierno, commander of Multi-National Corps-Iraq, retired General Jack Keane, Colonel Bryan Roberts, the local brigade commander, my wife, Kimberly Kagan, Colonel H.R. McMaster, and several other American soldiers and civilians. With a handful of armed soldiers as escort, and attack helicopters circling overhead to guard against snipers known to be in the area, we walked through the meandering market. The American brigade commander was well known to the locals, who greeted us all, "Salaam aleikum, wa aleikum es-salaam." Smiling children darted through our group, surrounding us, begging for candy, for my wife's sunglasses, for one of General Odierno's stars ("Just one, please--you have three"). We walked through a crowded pool hall and past tables of men playing dominoes. Pool players patiently tried to make their shots despite our interruption; old men slammed dominoes on the table triumphantly and tried to get us to play with them.

But the most moving scenes were in some of the worst neighborhoods of the city. Our uparmored Humvees rolled through Ghazaliyah and Dora, two Sunni neighborhoods heavily infiltrated with al Qaeda and under pressure from Shia militias. There are few services in these neighborhoods, and IED attacks and killings had been regular features until very recently. We walked through raw sewage in the streets and saw bullet and bomb holes in the buildings. But to my amazement, we also saw children in those streets who did not glare or run or stand dourly as the occupiers passed. Instead they smiled and waved, asking for candy or just saying hello. Even in the worst places in Iraq, we have not lost the children. They still look to us with hope. They still expect us to deliver them from death and violence. They still believe that we will honor our commitments to their parents.

What will happen if we abandon these children? Death will stalk them and their families. Al Qaeda will attempt to subjugate them. Shia militias will drive them from their homes or kill them. And they and their neighbors, and everyone in the Middle East, will know we left them to their fate. Everyone will know, "Never trust the Americans." Everyone will warn their children, "The Americans will only betray you." We will cement our reputation as untrustworthy. We will lose this generation not only in Iraq, but throughout the Middle East. And we will have lost more than our reputation and our ability to protect our interests. We will have lost part of our soul.

--Frederick W. Kagan, for the Editors

Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

|

  RETURN TO TOP

Recently, I was visiting a rather obscure and unpopular blog, run by a particularly insane and rabid member of the coalition of the unhinged. After observing this cyber weasel scampering about, for some time now, the true depth of his depravity and hypocrisy struck me.

Embracing all of the standard fare that his party bosses require of him, he is 100% pro-abortion, completly gay and an unabashed supporter of homosexual marriage. Oh, he hates Bush, as every card carrying leftwinger must, but he takes it much, much further (as if to win some kind of moonbat merit badge). He hates anyone who doesnt hate Bush. In fact, he hates anyone who has had even casual contact with anyone who doesnt hate Bush.

In his bizarre world of psychotic hate, the biggest threat we face today are evangelical christian preachers who read and believe substantial portions of the Bible. Palestinians who blow up their own toddlers, and rabid Jihadists blowing up trains, planes, buses and skyscapers are sinners of a much more venial degree in his warped view.

While most of us enjoy a country ride, a walk in the park or some other type of leisure, his favorite hobbies (by his own account) are cyberstalking people he doesnt have the courage to face, and masturebating to pornography.

Now, I wouldnt mention all this except that I am struck by the humor. This same vacuous waste of skin is always railing about the Immoral Iraq War and even claims the late John Paul II as an ally on this issue.

John Paul II was a devout man of God. The same God that this creep describes thusly;
arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.


John Paul's views were directed by conscience and not by party. The same John Paul II who had misgivings about ALL wars, was steadfast in his defense of all human life, rather than picking and choosing which innocents deserve to die, like our cretin friend.

The point being that the person who could hurl that vomit at the religion that is founded on the precept of Love thy neighbor as thyself, whilst defending rabid gays, infanticidal abortionists, and child killing Palestinians, whilst whittling away his leisure time smacking the baloney pony to "Debbie does Dallas" rather than improving mankind....

might, shall we say, be lacking in the level of credibility required to asses the Iraq war (or anything else, for that matter) as immoral.

Enter Jimmy Carter. The only President in American history to never use the might of the US Armed forces. The man responsible for gas lines. The man who actually was able to pull of the elusive triple double- double digit inflation, double digit unemployment, double digit interest rates. The man who responded to an attack on a U.S. Embassy and an ally govt. (both acts of war) with nay but unfettered cowardice. The man who created the so-called Reagan democrat.
A president so universally reviled that his Republican succesor would win over 1,000 electoral votes in his two elections.

That man......

had this to say about President Bush-
"I think as far as the adverse impact on the nation around the world, this administration has been the worst in history,"
Does this guy have any shame?
Well, if by adverse affect on the world, you mean that we are reviled by Globe attacking Jihadists, I'd say you have it just about right.
Otherwise, you had best shut up.... lest we again peer at YOUR miserable record.

Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

|

  RETURN TO TOP


How is it that A President that has brought our country back from trauma and recession to engineer the greatest economy in American history, is willing to jeopardize that economy by opening up the floodgates to illegal immigration?

How can a President that has been so relentless in waging a war against our enemies over there, be so lax in shutting the back door here?

God knows we love ya George but, for the life of me, I can't figure out where your head is on this issue. The Democratic Congress just cranked out a 700+ bill designed to overhaul our immigration system and you are ready to sign this mess? That Ted "the swimmer" Kennedy and Diane Frankenfeinstein support it should be your first clue.

I can summarize the immigration plan we need in 4 short sentence.
  • Finish the Fence and seal off the Tunnels. Arm the fence with guards.
  • No Amnesty. You are hear illegally, you get deported. The End.
  • Levee huge fines on companies that cannot document the citizenship of every worker they have. Even Contract workers.
  • Anyone who cannot prove citizenship when trying to vote, get a driver's license or check into a hospital gets arrested.
There. That is your immigration bill.

Mr. President, I am just going to be straight with you. America is fed up with illegal immigrants. You say you don't want Amnesty or Animosity, but I have news for you. What you are offering is amnesty and what it is generating is animosity.

We do not consider illegal aliens to be our friends. They are criminals, breaking our laws. Laws that we obey. Laws that we would be punished for breaking. We are fed up with illegals driving our wages down and our cost of living up.

We have no stomach for amnesty. none. If you insist on trying to cram this horrible bill down our throats, expect a fight.

Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

|

  RETURN TO TOP


From Boston.com (emphasis added by A Newt One).
One party's fringe is the other's mainstream

By Jeff Jacoby, Globe Columnist

IF NOTHING else, Texas Congressman Ron Paul's presidential candidacy makes it clear that the Republican Party is not a monolith. It has its ideological outliers, and they march to the beat of a very different drummer than George Bush and most GOP candidates do.

With his isolationist opposition to the war in Iraq , Paul is the odd man out in his party. To Republican ears, his claim during last week's South Carolina debate that the United States was attacked on Sept. 11 "because . . . we've been bombing Iraq for 10 years" and that Americans ought to "listen to the people who attacked us" was blasphemous. If Rudy Giuliani hadn't pounced on it, one of the other candidates would have.

Most Republicans regard Paul's idea of America's proper role in the world -- stay at home, avoid alliances, and expend no energy making the world safer or protecting human rights -- as eccentric. Invoking Osama bin Laden as the legitimate voice of the Muslim Middle East is the hallmark of a crank, not a conservative. No wonder Giuliani's smackdown was applauded so forcefully.

There was a time, 60 or 70 years ago, when isolationism was respectable in GOP circles. Paul insists that "the party has lost its way" since then and pines for the leadership of Senator Robert A. Taft, who "didn't even want to be in NATO."

But Taft didn't parrot the propaganda of America's enemies. He didn't advise Americans to "listen to the people who attacked us" and do as they demanded. He didn't accuse the United States of provoking Pearl Harbor, or chide President Truman for lacking the "courage" to withdraw US troops in the middle of the Korean War. Ron Paul may fancy himself a latter-day Taft Republican, but by today's standards his foreign-policy views place him among the Dennis Kucinich-Cindy Sheehan Democrats.

Paul helps illustrate what may be the most significant difference between the two major parties today: Republicans who don't take the threat of radical Islam seriously are marginalized. Democrats who don't do so constitute their party's mainstream.

At the Democratic debate on April 26, moderator Brian Williams asked the eight candidates: "Show-of-hands question: Do you believe there is such a thing as a global war on terror?" Only four -- Hillary Clinton, Bill Richardson, Christopher Dodd, and a noticeably hesitant Barack Obama -- raised their hands. Kucinich, John Edwards, Joe Biden, and Mike Gravel did not. Unlike Ron Paul, who holds no important position in the GOP, Biden is chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Edwards was his party's vice presidential nominee in 2004. The man who headed the ticket that year, Senator John Kerry, insisted that Islamist terror is merely "a nuisance" that "we're never going to end," like gambling and prostitution.

What explains the Democrats' unwillingness to acknowledge the gravity of the global jihad? In part, it may stem from the sense that Islamists and the left share common foes. George Galloway, the radical antiwar British parliamentarian, declared in 2005 that "the progressive movement around the world and the Muslims have the same enemies. . . the Muslims and the progressives are on the same side."

But to a large extent, the Democrats' lack of seriousness about the war we are in can only be explained by Bush Derangement Syndrome. The term was coined by commentator Charles Krauthammer, a former psychiatrist, who defines it as "the acute onset of paranoia in otherwise normal people in reaction to the policies, the presidency -- nay, the very existence of George W. Bush."

What if not derangement can explain such fever-swamp nuttiness as the findings of a new Rasmussen poll, which asked whether Bush knew about the 9/11 attacks in advance? Among Democrats, 35 percent believe he did know and another 26 percent weren't sure. Only 39 percent said he didn't. In other words, nearly two out of three Democrats are unwilling to say that Bush wasn't tipped off to 9/11 in advance.

In another poll recently, respondents were asked whether they personally wanted Bush's new security strategy in Iraq to succeed -- not whether they expected it to, but whether they wanted it to. Among Democrats, a stunning 49 percent either hoped that the US plan would fail or couldn't make up their minds.

As long as the 43d president remains in office, a significant number of Americans will be so consumed with Bush-hatred that they will be unable to acknowledge -- let alone defeat -- the real evil that confronts us all. Will they come to their senses after Jan. 20, 2009? And even if they do, will it be too late?


EDITOR'S NOTES: The most damning part of this article is that half of today's Democratic party cannot even bring themselves to hope that the troop surge works! that is just plain evil. Let's break it down further. One in two Democrats are, at best, neutral, in a war between the United States, and an enemy that has killed almost 6,500 Americans since September of 2001.

So, half of one of our major parties, are traitors.

Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

|




RECENT COMMENTS

RETURN TO TOP

Archives