Wednesday, September 12, 2007

It has been six years since the 9/11 massacre, and America's awakening to the war that has been waged against us for decades. Since then, we have struck back and have engaged the enemy on several fronts in an attempt to rid this planet of their hate-filled doctrine, in what many (including myself) consider to be world war III. Here is my assessment:

First, while we remember those who died, Osama Bin Laden issues another video. This one is dedicated to the last will & testament of one of the highjackers responsible for the mass murder on that day. He may as well have urinated on the graves of those killed. The fact that this sub-human piece of s#$% is still alive is a testament to some of our shortcomings in the fight, but like I've said he is hardly the war on terror. The fight will go on with or without him. We may kill him tomorrow, and will still have lots of work to do, so I don't want to focus too much on one man. There is a special place in hell for him, and I for one will rejoice the day satan jams a pitch-fork in his hind quarters. He will get his, one way or another. But our response to this video says much about the state of the war. Moveon dot org recently called General Petraeus a traitor, but they mentioned nothing about Bin Laden's video, or its carefully timed release. I wonder who this organization is more upset with?

And speaking of the lunatic Left, these people - led by the Moveon crowd - have slandered a highly decorated military officer, and did so with absolutely no proof supporting their character assasination. It was disgusting behavior, but not nearly as disgusting as the Party's reaction. Not one Democrat candidate or party leader has condemned Moveon and the radical Left for their behavior towards Petraeus. NOT ONE! Could that be because Moveon represents a large chunk of the Dem voting base? Could that be because these leaders don't want to anger the radicals for that very reason? Knowing the right thing to do but failing to do that right thing out of fear of bad consequences is called cowardice. I think that's a fitting description here. These people want us to trust them in our fight against Islamofascism, yet they don't have the guts to stand up to their party's own radical nuts. Not even the folks on this very site who tend to lean Left have condemned Moveon's actions. How pathetic.

Despite the lack of fortitude from one of the two major parties, we have made progress in this fight. Yes, some mistakes were made, never has there been a mistake-free military campaign. But it appears as though we are on the right track, and Iraq is the front-line. Don't anyone out there kid themselves. Iraq is THE forefront in the war on terror. There isn't a single Islamic jihadist who would disagree with that. I think it even surpasses Israel in importance to them.

In Iraq, we are fighting a guerrila war. To win a guerrila war, you have to turn the people against the guerrilas. You do that by giving the people a reason to hate them. You give the people freedom...life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Give them security, and soon they see the guerrilas as a threat to that security. And you don't try to do this one nation at a time, you do it one segment of that nation at a time. Ask any military strategist how to win against a guerrila enemy, and they will tell you the same thing. THAT's what we are currently doing in Iraq. The people of Bagdad have been given freedom, and now they are being given security. Next, they will reject the guerrilas that threaten what they've been given. That will slowly spread to the rest of the country until the guerrilas have nowhere to go. Iraq becomes free and secure. Its neighbors soon follow, and then an entire region has rejected the fascists. That's how you defeat the doctrine of hate.

We are engaged against an ideology that teaches totalitarianism, and history has taught us that humans will reject totalitarianism if given the chance. But the people must be given the alternative. Give them that alternative, and those that threaten it will soon be defeated. We're on the right path in Iraq. It starts with Bagdad, and Petraeus seems to be succeeding, although many are calling him a traitor for it.

Can we win this war? Of course we can. But the question is, can we win when so many in this country are actively working against our troops and our efforts on the ground? I don't know. This seems to be unprecedented. I do know that success in Iraq is critical. It is the Gettysburg of our fight.

The Left must have a US defeat in Iraq. Anything else would be a political disaster for them. And if we are defeated in Iraq, then achieving success in the global war on terror will be impossible. We will be unable to rid this planet of the radicals who only wish to convert or kill. Iraq is key in this fight, without victory there, we cannot win elsewhere.

Remember that at the polls each November.

4 comments:

The Loop Garoo Kid said...

Dr.

Let me begin by stating that although I did not read the ad in the NYT, I denounce it.

Now let us move on, as it were.

I believe that your analysis is flawed for a number of reasons, chief among which is a failure to distingush the divers issues confronting us and the Iraqis.

Intially, there is AQM. Remember that AQM is actually responsible for a relatively small percentage of violence in Iraq and also remember that the cooperation of Sunni tribal cooperation in ousting AQM in al Anbar province began 6 months b/f the surge.

I agree that Iraq is now a forefront in the war on terror, something it never was before we invaded. I won't argue that Saddam Hussein did not commit acts of terrorism against Iraqis, but his abilities and activities were severely limited after GW I. There reason why Kurdistan is miles ahead of the rest of Iraq is that it has been semi autonomous since we imposed the no fly zone.

To the extent Iraqis are currently victims of other Iraqis--the majority of the violence in Iraq is of that type--that issue will only abate when Iraqis can provide for their own security and when they decide to stop killing one another. To that end, the surge is only a stp gap at best. As you have read, we cannot maintain the surge indefinitely.

Recent reports that I have heard or read suggest the Iraqi army is 12-18 months away from being able to secure Iraq's borders and that the Iraqi national police force is so infiltrated w/ militia, it should be disbanded and rebuilt from the ground up.

In the meanwhile, the central government has failed to meet any benchmarks, chief among which was the passage of legislation governing the sharing of income from oil production. No legislation, no foreign investment.

In meanwhile, the reconstrcution of Iraq's infrastructure does not appear to making much progress. I am sure you agree it is difficult to maintain a functioning and thriving metropolis like Baghdad when the electricity functions intermittently, for perhaps 4 hours a day.

Do you recall when Halliburton pulled out of Iraq? It did so b/c no matter how much money the copmpany stood to make, security was either too expensive or impossible to provide.

Can we win the war? If you mean the military war, of that I have no doubt. But it is important to ask the question: "why are we in Iraq?" The answer to that question then identifies the end to which we can work.

The main issue is that security in Iraq--which will only be accomplished by political reconciliation--is either unattainable or is a process that will take years, if not decades.

Failure in Iraq is not an option, but I cannot agree that "we invaded Iraq b/c it was the forefront in the war on terror." That it may be now, is an unintended consequence of our foreign policy.

Again and again I read your opinion that "the Left must have a US defeat in Iraq."

I do not know about the Left. What I do know is that this administration's invasion of Iraq has become such a foreign policy disaster that I find it likely the the GOP will lose the presidency in 2008 and the Democrats will make gains in both houses of Congress.

I agree w/ your sentiments about Osama bin Laden. I agree that we cannot allow Iraq to become another Afghanistan.

When I reflect on the post 9/11 world, I continually ask myself how the invasion of Iraq when we invaded it was a blow to global terrorism? As I remarked to reb, the only positive that may have come from it was that it may have convinced Muammar Qaddafi to abandon his nuclear ambitions.

In the meanwhile, the removal of Saddam Hussein, as heinous as he was, has empowered and emboldened Iran, which was and remains a much greeater threat to our and regional security.

The position that we invaded Iraq as a blow against global terrorism is simply not credible. Every time you or Mr. Bush attempts that argument, I simply think, "How stupid does he think I am?"

Regards.

SNAKE HUNTERS said...

John,

It's is frustrating and probably useless to argue endlessly with LGK. Long ago, he established an
AntiBush/Cheney posture. Smoothly,
he attacks the logic of the military position in Iraq, without a second thought.

He often quotes the N.Y. Times, which is a known Left Of Center Publication.

Curiously, he didn't see it(!) on the 10th, but the entire country did see it on Monday, and on Tv, a dozen times.

But this back & forth is not just about Left & Right, is it? It is about what is Right and what is Wrong, with our Disunity, and when there is Greivous and Dopey Wrong, like that displayed by ugly, UnAmerican MoveOnDotOrg, our Democratic Nominees are noticably embarrassed by their "Daddy Bigbucks" Grossly Evil & Treacherous Attack on a Fine Man & Four Star General, that has shown by example, a lifetime of fidelity and loyal dedication to military service...A man accused of General Betrayal of his Country by a mysterious billionaire King-maker! Is it a wonder that LGK says,
"Now, let's move on, as it were"?

We all took note that NONE of the Democratic nominees had the courage to come to the defense of our Field Commander. In fact, Front-runner Clinton mumbled a nearly incoherent garbling of loop-di-loop gibberish and half-baked
"shoo-fly pie and apple-pan doudie! Decipher this one:

"Willing Suspension Of Belief!"

What's that? Come on Hillary, you are a smooth character when you really want to be blunt. Just Say It. LIAR! Now wasn't that easy?

"Willing Suspension of Belief!

In a hawg's eye! Where the devil did you find that one? Did Slick Willie teach you that?

Can you define what "IS" is? That's not Yankee talk, lady. You sound just like a Dodger! A dodger & a weaver. Bet I know why, too.

George Soros is listening, don't you think? Now, don't you dare get him riled, cuz he and his army of blogger-buggers will come down on you "lak a frog on a junie-bug, girl!" Move-On, Code Pink & that Obama dude, and Edwards, Kucinich, a whole bunch of those rascals would
love to take your spot! You better
not defend that ol' General, yew jest better Toe-The-Line! Hear me, Girl?

Ain't politikin the cat's red drawers?

www.lazyonebenn.blogspot.com

John Washburn said...

Reb, I caught that one too

"Willing suspension of belief"

It actually made me laugh out loud when I heard Hillary say it. She called the commanding general in Iraq a liar, on record, and in a way in which the average American probably wouldn't recognize for the assault that it was. You're a military man, so you know just how serious it is to assault the integrity of an officer, yet these Congressmen (among them is Ted Kennedy of all people) and the Moveon nuts are doing it without any ill repurcussions. Can you imagine? Ted Kennedy and Hillary Clinton questionning the integrity of a highly decorated US General? Go figure. Petraeus is a better man than I, because I'd be damned if I let people like that question my character.

I think we've crossed into an alternate reality. This country is slowly becoming unrecognizable to me. George Patton is rolling over in his grave as we speak.

SNAKE HUNTERS said...

John,

I once was in the military, but that was in the past, over sixty years past that time.

But it boils me when guys like Harry Reid pretend to be War-Gurus!

Yeee Gads! What has happened to us?