Monday, July 30, 2007
"A War We Might Just Win?"
Tigerhawk posted earlier today on the notable subject of two Brookings Institution critics of the Bush Administrations's "handling" of the Iraq War coming around to the view captured in the title above (I added the question mark). The opinion is of course notable because Brookings is probably among the most credible of the Democratic Party thinktanks -- they are traditionally locked into the Democratic Party policymaking apparatus. This might suggest that the "cut and run" meme of Democratic Party candidates may be muted if a candidate becomes a potentate (or something like that).
Let me suggest something else. It has begun to dawn on even lefties with a couple of brain cells to rub together that we ain't fighting Iraq here. That war is over. We won. Saddam ain't the winner if we leave. He and the Baathists are dead. We are allied with "Iraq" in a fight against Salafist Al Qaeda. We had to figure out how to create our ally -- literally recreate Iraq -- and General Petraeus seems to have figured out how to do that. And furthermore, that ally has in turn figured out that in Petraeus and his strategy, Iraq has a capable friend in the US.
The corollary is that if we leave, Al Qaeda wins. Not Iraq. Not Saddam. Al Qaeda. Got it? And Brookings has figured that out. No kidding. And so have Hillary, Fred, Rudy or Mitt. It is in our country's interest to be there for as long as required -- just like South Korea, Germany or Japan. Nobody wants to be responsible for an Al Qaeda victory. Nobody. Not even Obama and Edwards.
Any war we choose to fight, and demonstrate the political will to see to its conclusion, we will win. Nobody should be surprised by this. We may not get every answer right - let's remember that General Pershing showed up in wool for the summer of 1917, we went to North Africa and Italy before Normandy, and Lincoln went through a bunch of losers before he found Grant -- but we get the big ones right.
Separately, it should not be lost on anybody that with Musharraf getting a bit more aggressive in Waziristan and Petraeus banging AQ pretty hard in Baghdad, we have an unusually good offensive going right now. Too bad it doesn't seem to get reported that way. And the only answer the enemy has is kidnapping people and carbombs. Just keep squeezing please. Harder.
7 Comments:
By 
, at
Mon Jul 30, 05:12:00 PM:
Obama might allow AQ to win. He could easily be the next Jimmy Carter. As far as MSM reporting facts? They won't, but my wife for whatever reason will watch Brian Williams and lately his speech doesn't have as much pep. As close as a liberal comes to owning up to Bush [lied] was right. And remains right.
Their next step will be to claim their militarily superior cut and run philosophy somehow won the war. It seems that our population remains at 50% moonbat regardless of the issue.
But I agree with you. Booming economy, hope for a free and stable Middle East, the likely result being less terror and a prosperous Middle East. But no credit to BusHitler and likely Obama as the next VP of the USA!
SEW
By 
Dawnfire82, at
Mon Jul 30, 05:55:00 PM:
I think that, in the end, history will be as kind to old W as it is to Harry Truman, who was also seen in his day as a simple redneck with no business running a country.
By Philippe Duhart, at
Mon Jul 30, 06:31:00 PM:
Shia vs. Sunni violence remains the single greatest impediment to any stability in Iraq. Rooting out AQI may prove easier than clamping down sectarian violence. The Iraqi army and police forces remain dominated by Shia. Arming Sunnis may prove useful in the short term, allowing for some sort of declaration that the fight against AQI has been successful.
However, this strategy may (and I must emphasize, MAY) lead to further sectarian violence. The Shia in power have expressed their opposition to arming Sunnis. Indeed, judging by what the various Shia factions have been saying, they view the various nationalist and indigenous Sunni insurgent organizations as the primary threat to stability in Iraq.
Bolstering armed Sunni organizations without any real hope of these factions being incorporated institutionally (so long as militia-backed parties oppose this) and being incorporated into the Iraqi concept of "nationhood" (as most claims made by the various insurgent leadership express an unequivocal view of the current state's illegitimacy) does not suggest any true "victory" if victory is defined as internal stability and integrity.
It seems that much of the al Qaeda talk of late obfuscates the reality of sectarian violence. Furthermore, given the countless claims of success made throughout the course of this war, one should be cautious of short term developments. Stability will likely be a long time in coming, as the military itself claims.
Finally, if we are to be honest, we must admit that the insurgency has become very sophisticated both tactically and strategically. We should not think of them as irrational villains, but rather as rational actors. It is entirely possible that many non-AQI insurgents have been lying low and adjusting their operations. Organizations are primarily concerned with their own survival, after all. We have seen the various factions of the Mahdi Army maintaining a low profile. Why should we expect the Sunnis to not exhibit similar restraint in the face of the surge, knowing full and well that the current troop level cannot be maintained indefinitely.
By Purple Avenger, at
Mon Jul 30, 08:05:00 PM:
It seems that much of the al Qaeda talk of late obfuscates the reality of sectarian violence.
Really? I get the sense that a lot of the "sectarian violence" is a result of AQ false flag operations intended to provoke retaliations.
By Harrison, at
Tue Jul 31, 12:46:00 AM:
I have to agree with purple avenger on this point: the "sectarian violence" has been somewhat part of the narrative that Zarqawi had managed to fashion then, but aQ talk of late in no way obfuscates this reality, since the reality of the predicament has been irreversibly altered to that of indiscriminate reprisal and carnage, regardless of sect, tribe or political affiliation.
We should not think of them as irrational villains, but rather as rational actors.
Then it seems that rationality was thrown out of the window, rather voluntarily so.
Attacks on soldiers and uniformed military personnel possess an element of legitimacy, and that is exactly how Iraqis and those who believed and continue to believe that this is an "occupation" manage to sleep at night while justifying these horrific suicide bombings and murders of MNF-I troops. That aspect thereby provided aQ with ideological reinforcement, according it an aura of credence and emboldening it to further continue such attacks. However, through the polarising effects of the drawn-out insurgency that aQ manifested and manipulated on their own accord, the dichotomy between hard target and soft target could only become clearer and sharper. Discouraged by the progress in Iraq, aQ perceived that a change in strategy was in order, switching from hard targets to soft targets in a vain attempt to further intimidate and shock the populace into cooperating with them.
The fundamental problem with that is that attacks on civilians constitute zero legitimacy - in fact, it costs the insurgents the only currency that is sustaining the ideological superstructure of aQ.
By , at
Tue Jul 31, 09:02:00 AM:
Foreign and left leaning allies who validate the decision to be in, and stay in, the war on Terror bode poorly for the radical anti-war types in American Politics.
I see Britain's recent showing as good for Hillary and the GOP as well. Bad for clowns like Edwards and Obama.
By , at
Tue Jul 31, 09:53:00 AM:
Cardinal,
Don't you know that a war is never won until the NYT proclaims it?
Anyone else proclaims a war "won", and they're just blind to the reality for which the NYT is the sole arbiter.
