| Submit your comments on this article |
| Iraq |
| Sobering Thoughts on Afghanistan/Iraq |
| 2006-11-08 |
| Oak Leaf at Polipundit with thoughts on what should follow this election: I am writing this on Monday evening at 1700 GMT for publication long after the polls have closed on Tuesday but with the results probably still unknown. I wanted to write this while my thoughts were still fresh and prior to the election itself. Many know that I am a reservist and recently went on a short tour in SW Asia. My duties have been varied largely along the lines of “special projects.” Currently I have been assisting in a Civil Affairs Function in Afghanistan because of a prior tour in that capacity. This morning, I met with community leaders in a typical Afghanistan village. After our business was conducted, I was surprised by their interest in our election. While their knowledge of the mechanics of our election was on par with Americans understanding elections in Canada, they were keenly interested. The first point that they made was this election was “between President Bush’s party and those that want to abandon Iraq.” That caught me off guard and I had to verify with my translator that “abandon” was the correct translation. They next expressed that the Taliban would be emboldened by an Iraq pullout and that co-operation between the Afghani People and American/NATO forces would come to a halt. You have to realize that the Afghani People have little choice here. The moment they sense the mere possibility/suggestion of American Forces leaving, they will realign themselves with the Taliban. Further, the Taliban will effectively exploit American “redeployment from” Iraq. I left that exchange shaken, something that I have never felt before. So where does all this leave America, our friends in SW Asia, my friends in Afghanistan, my uniformed comrades and myself? Lets assume that as this blog is published, Democrats have gained control of the House. They have already stated their “position” on Iraq. The best case is that they will force our hand ans simply push a complete withdrawal from Iraq. The worse case is that they will slowly force our hand to withdrawal by cutting funding piece by piece. What is my position at that point? If Democrats have gained control of the House, I will do everything in my soul so that we simply and immediately withdrawal completely from Iraq and not redeploy to Okinawa, but to redeploy to the United States since it will make no difference if we have troops in Okinawa or the United States. The “Okinawa Plan” is old timer thinking by Murtha and alike. Also, at that point the withdrawal needs to be complete and prompt as American Forces will be constantly targeted once the Democrats have played their hand. Further, because every action we take in Iraq has consequences in Afghanistan, a prompt redeployment from that area will also need to take place. Our only tool in that region is the trust of the Afghan People and that trust will falter due to the fear of the Taliban. If the Democrats are in power and want a “pullout” fine, lets do it and do it right and that is a complete withdrawal from SW Asia. My friends, there is no other choice, a deal can not be made where we do anything part way. It is all or nothing and that is the sad reality. The “final failure” of Vietnam was the “long withdrawal” after Congress became intent on the idea of pulling out. That mistake must not be made again. I ask my fellow conservatives to help make sure the troops are brought home and they are brought home now. He may be right. Maybe GWB should call the Democrats on their bluff. Withdraw immediately and wait to see what happens next. Maybe this will help improve relations with America's "allies". Maybe terrorists will stop attacking us on our own soil. There's only one way to find out if the Democratic prescription works. And that's to try it out. |
| Posted by:Zhang Fei |
| #29 The Democrats will not support the crushing of Iran. Or of Syria. Or of North Korea. We've lost the best opportunities for such actions and will come to pay a heavy price for this. |
| Posted by: Kalle (kafir forever) 2006-11-08 22:17 |
| #28 I have always had one feeling about our engagement in Iraq; In for a penny, in for a pound. Period, no options. We owe squat to the Iraqi people. They have been the most thankless bunch of bastards since the Afghanis (boy, that was fast). We are doing this for our own sake and must approach it on that level. I see Bush as having two or three options: 1.) Go Medieval: Declare it a Clear and Present Danger and drop the hammer on Iran. Maybe crush Syria too. Or, perhaps, a dallience in North Korea. Tidy up all of these loose ends before exiting office in 2009. Ignore any hoots or squawking from the Congress or Senate, knowing that these rogue nations were America's dire enemies and they dearly needed an asskicking for it. 2.) Full Cynical Mode: Perform a nearly complete withdrawal on democrat demand (per Zhang Fei). Let the American public and world in general see just how fast things spiral out of control. Make it crystal clear that a huge price tag awaits in the form of sectarian strife and unrestrained terrorist activity as a result of cut and run. Leave a skeleton crew behind just so we can jumpstart the Iraqi (or Iranian) campaign again, but make no bones about having the Iraqis shoulder the entire burden for a change. 3.) The Death of a Thousand Retreats: Endure a slow but inexorable withdrawal from Iraq that is a total no-win for anyone and forever ruins our global prestige per Oldspook. Barring a steady-as-she-goes course in Iraq, only options 1 & 2 make any sense. Option 3 is not an option, it is national suicide. As Oldspook has been hollering from the treetops; Bush had damn well better ramp up a significant publicity campaign to counter the democratic majority's constant drip torture of cut and run. The American public must be educated about the threat of Islam. Waiting three years to finally utter "Islamofascism" was about two and a half years too long to wait. Start quoting these jihadist imams in White House press conferences. Give significant air time to the constant stream of threats and sabre rattling coming out of the MME (Muslim Middle East). Cast a glaring spotlight on the implications of a nuclear armed Iran. If only to erode public support for any cut and run democratic maneuvers. The GOP is at a crossroads. Their complacency and business-as-usual good-old-boy political machine just ate them alive, and deservingly so. If they cannot return to true conservative values, they can forget about 2008. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2006-11-08 18:37 |
| #27 On the other side of things, its difficult to get folks to defend themselves and risk their lives when they know Uncle Sam will do everything for them. A little fear that they've got to step up now could be a good thing. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2006-11-08 17:21 |
| #26 Hope that you are right, Steve. However, this crew has shown its arrogance over and over. They believe that they are right. Time will tell. |
| Posted by: SR-71 2006-11-08 16:06 |
| #25 Re the Blue Dogs: one thing politicans in general don't like is being used, or being taken for granted. They tend to have rather large egos that need constant stroking. If Pelosi doesn't have time for them I'm sure Karl will. I'm not saying that the BD's will have a full place at the table, but the Dhimmis don't have a large enough majority to ignore them. |
| Posted by: Steve White 2006-11-08 15:53 |
| #24 I do not believe that the Blue Dog Dems will affect the Dhimmiecrat agenda at all. They were fielded simply to win the election and will be kicked to the curb by Pelosi and the moonbats. If we retreat from Iraq and Afghanistan as I expect, would I ever support another foreign war? Would anyone rely on us for their defense? Japan and Taiwan will seek their seek their own nuclear deterrents. Europe is lost. Hyper-proliferation is beginning in the ME. Israel? We had better look to our own defense. Re-institute the draft and start the build-up because the wider war is coming. |
| Posted by: SR-71 2006-11-08 15:03 |
| #23 I hear what OS and Oak Leaf are saying. I'm not as pessimistic. Reasons: 1) GWB won't cut and run. I really don't see it. We were planning to draw down some in 2007 as the Iraqis stood up, and I see no reason why that changes right away. Now if the Iraqis, because of our election, decide not to stand up and defend their country, that's different, but in that case we'll draw the appropriate conclusion -- that the Arabs really AREN'T ready for democracy and civilization, and that the next thing we're attacked we go full throat after the attackers. Ditto with Afghanistan -- if the people there decide to flip we may back off but we won't abandon Karzai, the Tajiks, Uzbeks, etc, all in the north. THEY are not likely to flip, if only because they don't like taking orders from crazed Pashtuns. 2. Most Americans, while unhappy with Iraq (a fair bit because they're not getting all the story, and that because GWB hasn't been effective in telling them) understand that withdraw is a disaster. And that in turn restrains the Dhimmidonks. Pelosi would like to be speaker for more than 2 years. She has the nutroots on her left (well, she's on the left too), and the Blue Dogs in sufficient number to restrain her. And she has Hiliary playing her games. Cut and run is a prescription for a Dhimmi defeat to McCain in 2008. She's not that dumb. 3. Assume for a moment that the Taliban can indeed stage a resurgence and take control of southeast Afghanistan. What then? They can't get to Kabul (we've pulled back but we've equipped the Afghan Army, and Karzai is a decent warlord), they can't retake the country. They can destabilize Pak-land and that's a worry, but Afghanistan will likely survive. So the real issue in any such scenario is whether you can ensure that 1) Pak nukes remain under lock and key and 2) Pak-land doesn't become a sponsor for international terrorism. |
| Posted by: Steve White 2006-11-08 14:46 |
| #22 Old Spook speaks for me on this. He is 100 percent correct. TW, please don't refer to the Cold War as WW3. That is a leftist attempt to equate World Wars with lack of shooting, and establish our victory in the Cold War as a victory without violence. i.e. we won WW3 without all this bombing, but with negotiation....why not use negotiations to win WW4 ? Like I said, leftist attempt, let's avoid that mistake. |
| Posted by: wxjames 2006-11-08 14:07 |
| #21 Rumsfeld's resignation plays right to what the article was talking about. The man who was the architect of the liberation of Afghanistan is gone...in disgrace. This will not be lost on the Afghans. |
| Posted by: Rex Mundi 2006-11-08 13:33 |
| #20 Shit. |
| Posted by: Dave D. 2006-11-08 13:27 |
| #19 Rumsfeld resigns, Robert Gates, former head of the CIA, to replace him. Via Drudge. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2006-11-08 13:19 |
| #18 Isolating ourselves hasn't been possible since the 1930s. A lot of the problems we are havin gnow is because while we were fighting the Cold War (aka WWIII) with troops over there, the other side was fighting by seducing academics, journalists and the well-meaning ignoramuses over here. Now there are tens of millions of illegal non-citizens resident here, with no stake in, or surplus energy to fight for, our civilization. And we have possibly several hundred thousand active or passive enemy agents already living here, working toward establishing dhimmitude and then the Caliphate. Walking away is surrendering without saying the words. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2006-11-08 13:16 |
| #17 Rummy Resigns! So it begins...the long slide. The Rumsfeld model has been flushed. Most likely find a fall guy to oversee our withdrawal. God help us! |
| Posted by: Rex Mundi 2006-11-08 13:14 |
| #16 My prayer is that the Blue Dog type dems that are strong on defense and are from Red States will force the plan and force the Victory option, not the retreat one. Agree to a timetable, fine thats inevitable. But make it sufficiently long and leave sufficent ofrces that that no matter how BAD the Iraqi police are, their Army is fully stood up and ready to crack head. Even a coup if neccesary, along the lines of Thailand. Either that or we better start partitioning Iraq now and prepping our permanent bases in Kurdistan. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2006-11-08 13:10 |
| #15 Zhang thats the problem for me - I do care about them even if they dont care about (or even hate) me. Its all my country. Isolating ourselves is not possible anymore. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2006-11-08 13:07 |
| #14 Will have to watch how this all swings. Silver lining is that that many of the Dems voted in are conservative - heck at least as much if not more so than some of those sorry repubs. However, the moonbats hold the power positions for Dhimmicrats. Will they hold their fire until '08? I doubt it but they may find themselves frustrated when the new class of Dem starts to buck the party line. I hope they do...but if they don't, I'm crapping you negative when I say I have a 3 year plan that sees me relocating to more "defensible ground" ; ]. |
| Posted by: Rex Mundi 2006-11-08 13:06 |
| #13 You missed the point. Running in Iraq flips the tribes in Afghanistan and elsewhere. The Stan goes over to the Taliban. And that in itself causes ripple all over SW Asia and the middle east. Pakistan, with its nukes, becomes hella unstable because the tribes there see the US bineg chased out by a few military casualties and gutless politicians elected by people who believe the one-sided stories the US Press feeds them. There's your formula for defeating the US. Terror, press manipulation, and appeal to the anti-military liberals about how things will be just fine if the US will just pack up and go home and let the Islamists rule. Lather rinse repeat in Iraq, Afghanistan, Jordan, Pakistan, and eventually Turkey, Saudi Arabia and North Africa. Iran and Syria will be bankrolling it with absolutely NO FEAR of a US military response because we have proven there are enough cowards in our political population that we will not stand and fight. Where do you draw the line? And how do you get ANY credibility after turning tail and running from Iraq with its historically very low casualty rate? READ THE ARTICLE ABOVE. Once its gone, its GONE. There is no gradual erosion anymore - its snaps like a tree branch. Wake the f**k up. Use your brain. I know these tribes. Ive seen them. I know the ones in Iraq. And the outcome he describes above is dead on. Its the old proclivity to fall in line with the "strong horse". Your tacit assumptions that they will react like we do are DEAD wrong. You and those who think like you are culturally ignorant. That's what the article above was trying to dispel - to educate you on the consequences of backing off even on bit in Iraq. These folks don't have generations of individualism and rights behind them - they only know to obey means you get to live, and you go where the tribe goes. And whichever side is winning is the one they run to. So WAK UP and realize that there is NO way other than victory or defeat. And defeat means a generation of losses until we send a lot more of our sons and daughters to die at a far higher rate because we didn't finish the job this time. Think it through - actions have consequences, not everyone is western; stupidity and ignorance have a price. When you deal in ignornace with Islamic fundamentalists, that price will be paid in blood. WAKE UP! |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2006-11-08 13:05 |
| #12 This signals the end of the era of (somewhat) stability we had. The Pull out and leaving the world high and dry is coming. You think France is bad now? Wait until they truly need us and we aren't there. Bosnia X100. The middle east will erupt in violence and gas prices will soar. Taxes will rise and special government I'm battening down the hatches for the next two years, maybe more if the dems win the white house too. |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2006-11-08 12:58 |
| #11 OS: Think we are safe after we bail and leave Iraq and Afghnistan to the Islamists? Depends on what you mean by "we". Red staters are probably fine - after all, the densely populated cities aren't in the red states. Blue staters may have to watch their step. Of course, we may be overstating the capabilities of these Islamic holy warriors. Maybe 9/11 was just a fluke - a one-off they can't repeat no matter how hard they try. It should give red staters some comfort to know that if these attempts are made they will be in densely populated areas - in other words, areas where GOP voters don't generally live. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2006-11-08 12:54 |
| #10 It don't really matter to me, baby, Everybody's had to fight to be free... -- Tom Petty, "Refugee" |
| Posted by: mojo 2006-11-08 12:42 |
| #9 As reassurance, the US military has been killing itself for just an eventuality as this: they want to guarantee by ten times or even one hundred times that Iraq cannot become another Vietnam, no matter what the democrats do. That means, that the *worst* that could happen if the US pulls out soon is the sectarian problems that may be inevitable anyway. The outcome of which is that the Sunnis lose. The only other possibility is that Iran invades Iraq. And we have done our damndest to insure that if Iran tries it, the Iraqi military is good enough to at least stop them, if not defeat them, with no US support at all. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2006-11-08 12:31 |
| #8 Just to let you know, from a perspective on the "special" side of things, the guys are talking that we have been betrayed and that those who are trusting us to help them mold their nations are getting "b*ttf**ked" by the Dems. The bloodbath will be immediate for anyone that doesn't change side. And it will be Fort Apache until we turn and run. Furthermore, this will preclude us from EVER acting again as liberators. Nobody will ever trust us, because we will be seen as hard warriors who will never stand by and fight if you can manage to manipualte the US press. And doding that is pitifully easy. Terrorist have been dpedning on Psyops via the western press since the first hijackings bakc in the 1970's by Al Fatah. Either we get a commitment to stay, or we screw the future of America in the world - wiht the concommitent lack of trust that will come from anyone allied to us. Think any rebels in Venezuela or Cuba will trust us after such stupid cowardly tail-turning? Think any country woudl respect our diplomacy without the big stick behind it? Think trade will continue when we have shown we can and will be bullied? Think we are safe after we bail and leave Iraq and Afghnistan to the Islamists? WAKE THE F*CK UP AMERICA! YOU ARE DESTROYING YOUR FUTURE! God DAMN you who are allowing this shit to happen. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2006-11-08 12:25 |
| #7 The world may have to get bit*h-slapped to wake up to the dangers of radical islam. |
| Posted by: JohnQC 2006-11-08 11:56 |
| #6 I believe that if the US goes so far as to withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan it will be the start of a new era of isolationism. I think the bulk of the world is sadly mistaken if they think this would be a good thing. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2006-11-08 11:49 |
| #5 I think that, for several months now, we have already been seeing this realignment of potential allies among the Muslims of SW Asia. The Afghan Taliban are resurgent, hell, they even get paid better than the Afghan national forces. While evading one assassination attempt after another, Musharraf of Pakistan signs a peace treaty with the terrorist supporters of his frontier provinces. Saudi Arabia and several other Muslim countries are now moving toward obtaining their own nuclear capabilities, I believe, because they sense that the US will not defend them against the likes of Iran. Our lot of our Muslim allies and would-have-been supporters will go over to the other side. The first place to withdraw from would be South Korea, our troops serve no purpose there, that country is more than capable of defending itself on the ground, and their population doesn't want us there anyway. Okinawa doesn't want us there either, but I suspect the Japanese as a nation do. |
| Posted by: Anguper Hupomosing9418 2006-11-08 11:14 |
| #4 The only withdrawal should be as a prelude to cluster bombing. |
| Posted by: bigjim-ky 2006-11-08 11:08 |
| #3 When I was in Iraq during the '04 Presidential election, Iraqis talked about the US election more than most Marines. The Iraqis would sum it up by saying, "Bush GOOD, Kerry NO GOOD!" I think this election will be played in the arab world as a win for them. The best was on the way to work this morning, I hear on NPR "after the results of the election were in, it was clear that there wasn't as much election fraud as thought..." Had the Republicans won, I'm sure it would be a different story this morning...just wait though, in one of these close Senate races, if the Dems lose, they will fall back on the ol' election tampering theme. |
| Posted by: 0369_Grunt 2006-11-08 10:29 |
| #2 I think we will see signs of this re-alignment of allegiance in Afghanistan even before the Dems do anything. The mere fact of their election win will cause major loss of confidence in both A. and Iraq. |
| Posted by: fmr mil contractor 2006-11-08 10:06 |
| #1 I have to agree. This is a battle of minds and wills. Be seen to falter and you lose. I supported the Iraq war, not because I thought it would succeed, but because I thought we needed to see if it could succeed. Maybe now is the time to step back and see what happens without US support. Remember, the barbarians go after the weakest first. Perhaps without Belgium, France, Sweden, Thailand, ?? the equation might be simpler. |
| Posted by: phil_b 2006-11-08 09:40 |