Article

2007-04-27 Home Front: WoT

Howard: US Congress vote on Iraq aids Al-Qaeda

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Dave D. 2007-04-27 06:02|| || Front Page|| [1 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 My take FWIIW, is Afghanistan is lost. Nato and the Euros don't have the stomach for it and its not strategic for the USA. Maybe India will come in and fill the gap.

Iraq is already won, it just remains to be seen which of the ethnic groups comes out dominant where and what (quasi-federal) accomodation results.

Iraq aint Vietnam. But I secretly pray Iran and Syria think it is.

Posted by phil_b 2007-04-27 06:49|| 2007-04-27 06:49|| Front Page Top

#2 "Iraq is already won, it just remains to be seen which of the ethnic groups comes out dominant where and what (quasi-federal) accomodation results."

I'm sorry, but I just can't make sense of that statement. What do you mean, "already won"?

I can certainly understand that we can win-- and even win without a great deal of difficulty-- provided only that we don't give up the fight as our Democrats seem hell-bent on doing.

But "already won"? 'Fraid not.

Posted by Dave D.">Dave D. 2007-04-27 08:30|| 2007-04-27 08:30|| Front Page Top

#3 yeah, uh-huh...just waiting for the Dread Summer Offensive, Phil? Jeesh

Posted by Frank G">Frank G 2007-04-27 08:32|| 2007-04-27 08:32|| Front Page Top

#4 "...how much [damage] has already been caused by four solid years of the Democrats' anti-war yammering and the MSM's nonstop gloom-and-doom...:

Immeasurable, irreversible damage.

Posted by Jules 2007-04-27 09:19|| 2007-04-27 09:19|| Front Page Top

#5 Just about everyone understands donks complicity with AQ. Donks deny complicity. Ho hum. What's new?

Posted by JohnQC 2007-04-27 12:13|| 2007-04-27 12:13|| Front Page Top

#6 Dave D., it's not just Dem yammering and media distortion the last 4 years - it's been the administration's body English and tone, at least from early 2005. As I've whined/ranted before, we adopted a "can't wait to get outta here" posture starting at least by March of that year (to the gasps and shaking heads of yours truly and many others, in and out of uniform, in the palace).

Casey's and Khalilzad's doomed rapid handover/99% political solution, combined with the clear signals that we were racing to disengage, probably as much or more damage. Not worth trying to measure it - clearly the behavior of most Dems and most media has been contemptible, or worse, for the most part.

With all due respect, on balance it's quite disastrous to chant the incantation about there being "no military solutions" in Iraq, as Petraeus does, as Casey and Chiarelli and even the MEF commander did. The reality is that any solution/success WILL be based primarily and unavoidably on MILITARY results (i.e., security, detained/killed enemy, control) as a prerequisite.

The deck of the USS Missouri in Tokyo Bay in September 1945 was a political solution, a diplomatic resolution, based entirely on military outcomes. In Iraq, as has been shown repeatedly for several years now, and in accord with common sense and the place's history, things will be typical, but even more so: the conflict will end when there are winners and losers, and esp. when the losers accept their defeat and calculate the costs of spoiling the new order to outweigh the potential benefits of doing so. Oh - and when many, many of the losers are DEAD.

No amount of grad school theory or political finesse or deal-making will go anywhere without the predicates for such deals, which are mostly security OUTCOMES on the ground.

These outcomes are available given the commitment and the realization that they are what matters. The former seems to have always been lacking, the latter has been either dimly perceived or the lack of resources has compelled the military and administration implementers into attempting to achieve the impossible with inadequate means and fancy footwork.

Just my two dinars.

Posted by Verlaine 2007-04-27 12:51|| 2007-04-27 12:51|| Front Page Top

#7 Iraq is won and we just don't know it yet. Everything is moving in the right direction. Sunni's are taking on Al Queda now and Sadr has been marginalized. As more provinces quiet down and are turned over the US can act as firemen to put down threats rather than police men patroling the streets. Then we'll become border guards. Hopefully it'll happen by the next election, or at least be visible enough that things are going well by then.

Afghanistan is won. I'm not sure where phil_b negativity came from.

Iran is the problem.

Posted by rjschwarz 2007-04-27 13:49|| 2007-04-27 13:49|| Front Page Top

#8 There are really TWO problems.

Number 1: BIG NO. 1 are the traitors in the US congress.

Number 2: Iran, and as a footnote, Syria.

I consider the Dems to be just as much an enemy to the WoT as Iran and Al Q, because they are enablers.

We can deal with Iran. They need some tipping in critical nodes. That is doable. We have the people and the minds to do that.

The toughest nut to crack are the Dems in Congress. That is the most pressing problem that we have. So, how will the dems be dealt with so they feel the heat and get the f*ck out of the way? The Bush Administration absolutely SUCKS on this area. For people that are supposedly highly educated, they cannot write and communicate with beans. What the hell is wrong with them?????

Posted by Alaska Paul">Alaska Paul 2007-04-27 15:35|| 2007-04-27 15:35|| Front Page Top

#9 Worth beans, not with beans. Ima too pi$$ed off to even preview right.

Posted by Alaska Paul">Alaska Paul 2007-04-27 15:36|| 2007-04-27 15:36|| Front Page Top

#10 "Dave D., it's not just Dem yammering and media distortion the last 4 years - it's been the administration's body English and tone, at least from early 2005. As I've whined/ranted before, we adopted a "can't wait to get outta here" posture starting at least by March of that year (to the gasps and shaking heads of yours truly and many others, in and out of uniform, in the palace)."

Good point. I'd forgotten until you brought it up, but I do remember wincing the first time I heard Bush say we're going to bring the troops home "as soon as possible", or words to that effect. I don't know whether he actually meant it then-- that is, that one of our objectives was to leave-- but he's since acquiesced to the Democrats' view of bringing the troops home as somehow being "A Good Thing".

We've still got troops stationed in Japan and Germany 60+ years after WWII ended, and in Korea more than 50 years after the Armistice-- and those places don't even have any oil to secure. One of the objectives I'd always assumed we were working toward, right from the start of OIF, was to get troops over there and keep them there-- not only for their proximity to the Middle East's oil, but for easy access, should it be needed, to the three prime sources of Islamic trouble: Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia.

So hearing that the Bush administration wanted to bring them home, was a disappointment.

This gets added to my "Bush's Blunders" list. It's getting pretty long...

Posted by Dave D.">Dave D. 2007-04-27 17:29|| 2007-04-27 17:29|| Front Page Top

23:56 Zenster
23:54 Zenster
23:49 Frank G
23:45 FOTSGreg
23:45 Frank G
23:44 JosephMendiola
23:42 Zenster
23:36 Unomomble Guelph4369
23:35 Frank G
23:33 Glert de Medici4406
23:33 Uninens Big Foot5550
23:18 3dc
23:04 Frank G
23:04 Pappy
23:01 JosephMendiola
22:58 Frank G
22:55 3dc
22:54 Zenster
22:51 3dc
22:51 Frank G
22:46 Pappy
22:44 Zenster
22:43 Anonymoose
22:43 Pappy