Archive for the ‘Iraq’ Category
by Thomas E. Brewton
With mounting stridency, news media demand to know why President Bush fails to bow to public opinion expressed in the recent Congressional elections and pull our troops out of Iraq.
The underlying assumption is that public opinion, expressed in elections or opinion polls, in all cases represents truth and wisdom. As I wrote in The Limitations of Public Opinion, such is seldom the case when complex policy matters are the subject of those opinions.
The stock market, for example, gives us a daily, broad spectrum opinion poll reflecting the outlook for business. Obviously, however, very few people have the knowledge and resources to become rich and to keep their wealth over time simply through knowing what composite market opinion is at any given time.
By Thomas E. Brewton
It is said that diplomats must be prepared to negotiate with the Devil, which raises the question whether anything can be gained by negotiating with pure evil. Is it realism to assume that the Devil can be made less than evil?
Release of the Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group report puts the doctrine of foreign policy realism in the middle of the table. One implication of that doctrine is that values should play no role in foreign policy; only material national interests deserve consideration.
Yet liberal Republicans and liberal Democrats have been touting the forthcoming report (predictably leaked and already widely discussed by the New York Times) as a counter to the administration's policy.
How does diplomatic realism square with the endless barrages of criticism from liberals that the Bush doctrine of preemptive action has squandered the United States's moral capital with the rest of the world?
How does diplomatic realism square with liberals attacking all forms of clandestine surveillance of enemy activity? with demands that terrorists be treated like prisoners of war under the Geneva convention?
Senators Kerry, Kennedy, Levin, and Dodd apparently regard "sensitivity" and popularity as values that trump other national interests, ergo the UN and not US military action: ingratiation, not defense. Where does the expected diplomatic realism of the Baker- Hamilton Iraq Study Group report fit into that picture? Are "sensitivity" and popularity moral values?
by Jeff Lukens
Elections have consequences. And for our recent election, the consequences have been a major setback in the war on terror and a greater threat to terrorist attack at home. This is so because a public with an attention deficit disorder has elected a liberal congress that wants pull the plug on Iraq at the first face-saving chance they get.
Many people draw comparisons between the war in Iraq and the war in Vietnam. Since the election I've had the nagging feeling we are in about the 1973 phase of the Vietnam War. That year the power shift in Washington away from a conservative president toward a liberal congress doomed the war effort and in effect condemned millions of our Vietnamese allies to death and reeducation camps. A similar scenario may now be unfolding regarding Iraq.
The effort to preserve our interests in the region just got a lot more difficult as antiwar Democrats take over Congress backed by a sympathetic press. Together they have convinced the public that Iraq is a costly misstep, and Republicans have failed to convince them otherwise.
Much of President Bush's strategy has been based on Natan Sharansky's book, The Case for Democracy. In it, Sharansky stresses that freedom abroad and security at home are linked, and that there can be no peace without democracy. His book has become the basis of the post-9/11 strategic thinking.
by Jim Kouri, CPP
One of the obvious shortcomings of the blue-ribbon panel, Iraq Study Group, is the reliance on politicians and the absence of military command officers who've actually led troops on the fields of combat in Iraq and Afghanistan.
In reaction to this politically-motivated study group, General Peter Pace, USMC, the Chairmain of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, assembled his own panel of commanding officers from all branches of the US Armed Forces. The goal is to not only to achieve victory in Iraq, but to define the elusive term "winning."
The team involved in this military review panel includes Col. H. R. McMaster, an Army officer whose 2005 operation in Tal Afar has been cited as a textbook case in how to wage counterinsurgency in Iraq, as well as Col. Peter Mansoor, commander of the United States Army and Marine Corps Counterinsurgency Center at Fort Leavenworth, Kan., who commanded an Army brigade that fought the Mahdi Army militia in 2004 at Karbala.
Also on the panel is Col. Thomas Greenwood, the director of the Marine Command and Staff College who oversaw efforts to train Iraqi security forces in Anbar. In all, more than a dozen military officers are on the team, which is overseen by Capt. Michael Rogers of the Navy, a special assistant to Pace.
The review, which includes the participation of Gen. George Casey Jr., the top commander in Iraq, and General John Abizaid, the head of the United States Central Command, is slated to be completed in early December
The war on terror is not going to end as World War II did — with an instrument of surrender signed on the deck of the USS Missouri in Tokyo Bay.
Gen. Peter Pace said winning in this war on terrorism will be determined by conditions, not a signature on a piece of paper.
"Winning is having security in the countries we're trying to help that allows for those governments to function and for their people to function," he said.
By Alan Caruba
When the President decided to bring about regime change in Iraq, I thought it was a good idea. Saddam Hussein was among one of the world’s worst dictators, widely credited with slaughtering large numbers of Iraqis and using chemical warfare against both the Kurds of northern Iraq and during his eight-year war in the 1980s against Iran.
However, I couldn’t shake the notion that his animus toward Saddam was personal. His father, Bush41, had been the object of a thwarted assassination attempt attributed to Saddam, and had lost his bid for a second term despite the successful execution of the first war to drive the Iraqis out of Kuwait.
Bush came into office with a promise to cut taxes and then 9/11 completely altered whatever other plans he had. What followed was a brief, successful incursion into Afghanistan to drive out the Taliban, but it was a war largely fought by local warlords whose assistance was purchased with gobs of money and by the application of American air warfare. The result, however, is that the Taliban are back. I doubt anyone wants to take any bets on how long the Bush-backed government in Kabul will last.
In retrospect, one is forced to ask if democracy, American-style, can be implemented in places where there never has been any true democracy? It’s a question I should have asked myself back then.
Within a year of the Iraq war’s inception, some warnings regarding its prosecution were being issued, but few were listening. In January 2004 the Army War College issued a report that criticized the Bush administration’s global war on terrorism as “unfocused.” Its author, Jeffrey Record, said that the war in Iraq was “unnecessary” and “a detour” that diverted attention and resources from the threat posed by al Qaeda.
by Thomas Lindaman
To the Honorable Senator John F. Kerry (D-MA):
I read with great interest your recent speech at a rally for California gubernatorial candidate Phil Agenlides where you said the following:
"Education, if you make the most of it, you study hard and do your homework and you make an effort to be smart you can do well. If you don’t, you get stuck in Iraq."
By way of introduction, allow me to offer a bit of personal history. Unlike you, I did not serve in our military. However, I have friends and extended family who have either served or are currently serving. I have traced my lineage back to two relatives who fought for the Union during the Civil War. Even though I chose not to serve, I feel more than qualified to comment on your statements.
I found your statement deeply offensive. But your attempts to spin your ill-advised statement into an attack on Republicans and conservatives were even more offensive. Allow me to point out something else you said:
"I apologize to no one for my criticism of the President and his broken policy."
Sir, your comment wasn’t criticizing the President or his "broken policy." It was directed to college students. Nowhere in the statement you made about education did you reference the President by name or by insinuation. Your response is intellectually dishonest at best.
To compound the problem, you blamed your statement not on a momentary lapse of reason, but on a purposeful misinterpretation of your statement. Here is what you said:
"…my statement yesterday, and the White House knows this full well, was a botched joke about the president and the president’s people, not about the troops."
First off, how would the Bush Administration know your intent? It was your statement, not theirs. Second, I have to point out again that you didn’t mention Bush or anyone in the Administration.
by Thomas E. Brewton
The View from 1776
Liberal Republicans, Democrats, and independents declare that our invasion of Iraq was based on lies, was immoral, and now is a failure. Glibly they demand that we simply withdraw our troops from Iraq, but none of them has presented any evidence of thinking about what happens next.
The standard rationale is that, by pulling our troops out, we can concentrate on the presumptive real objective, capturing Osama Bin Ladin. In that simplistic scenario, we end the terrorist threat, and everybody can go back to watching American Idol on TV.
However dangerous Al Queda may be to the future hundreds or thousands of victims of terror attacks, Al Queda cannot at this point threaten our national survival. Iran can and does threaten our continued existence as a nation.
The Middle East situation is like a chess match, in this case against Iran. Making a single move, then walking away from the board forfeits the match to Iran. What happens then?
Iran is emerging as the dominant power in the Middle East, having boxed us and Israel between Hezbollah on the west and Iran itself on the east. Whether Israel renews the military campaign and eventually destroys most of Hezbollah’s military capability or not, Hezbollah emerges as the only military power able so far to stand and fight successfully against the IDF, others having been destroyed in a matter of days or weeks.
As sectarian violence in Iraq continues to escalates, U.S. forces are finding themselves caught between factions who have struggled against each other for more than a thousand years.
Sunni Muslims and Shiite Muslims are religiously incompatible and neither side wants to be dominated by the other. The terrorism seen daily on our television screens isn’t only directed at our forces, it’s clear that Sunnis and Shiites are also killing each other.
Hasn’t the time come when the United States should bid farewell to Iraq? Shouldn’t the Iraqi government we helped install be charged with dealing with this growing problem? Doesn’t the continued presence of U.S. forces invite charges that our nation is backing one or the other faction? Haven’t we suffered enough casualties in this latest undeclared and highly questionable war?
WASHINGTON, June 10 /Christian Newswire/ — Following is the transcript of President Bush's radio address to the nation today:
THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. This was a good week for the cause of freedom. On Wednesday night in Iraq, U.S. military forces killed the terrorist Zarqawi.
The killing of Zarqawi is an important victory in the global war on terror. This Jordanian-born terrorist was the operational commander of al Qaida in Iraq. He led a campaign of car bombings, and kidnappings, and suicide attacks that has taken the lives of many American forces, international aid workers, and thousands of innocent Iraqis. Zarqawi had a long history of murder and bloodshed. Before September the 11th, 2001, he ran a camp in Afghanistan that trained terrorists — until Coalition forces destroyed that camp. He fled to Iraq, where he received medical care and set up operations with terrorist associates.
After the fall of Saddam, Zarqawi went underground and declared his allegiance to Osama bin Laden, who called him the "Prince of al Qaida in Iraq" and instructed terrorists around the world to "listen to him and obey him." Zarqawi personally beheaded American hostages and other civilians in Iraq; he masterminded the destruction of the United Nations headquarters in Baghdad; and he was responsible for the assassination of an American diplomat in Jordan and the bombing of hotels in Amman. His goals in Iraq were clear: He wanted to stop the rise of democracy, drive coalition forces out, incite a civil war, and turn that country into a safe haven from which al Qaida could launch new attacks on America and other free nations. Instead, Zarqawi died in the free and democratic Iraq that he fought so hard to prevent, and the world is better off because this violent man will never kill again.
Iraqis can be justly proud of their new government and its early steps to improve their security. And Americans can be enormously proud of the men and women of our Armed Forces, and the intelligence officers who support them. In the past three years, our troops have overthrown a cruel dictator, fought the terrorists and insurgents house to house, and trained Iraqi forces to defend their new democracy. All the while, they stayed on the trail of this brutal terrorist, persevering through years of near misses and false leads and never giving up hope. This week they got their man. And all Americans are grateful for their remarkable achievement.
Zarqawi is dead, but the difficult and necessary mission in Iraq continues. In the weeks ahead, violence in Iraq may escalate. The terrorists and insurgents will seek to prove that they can carry on without Zarqawi. And Coalition and Iraqi forces are seizing this moment to strike the enemies of freedom in Iraq at this time of uncertainty for their cause. The work ahead will require more sacrifice and the continued patience of the American people.
I'm encouraged by Prime Minister Maliki's determination to defeat our common enemies and bring security and rule of law to all Iraqis. This week he took another major step toward this objective when he completed the formation of his cabinet — naming a new Minister of Defense, a new Minister of the Interior, and a new Minister of State for National Security. These new leaders will help the government address its top priorities: reconciliation, reconstruction, and putting an end to the kidnappings, beheadings, and suicide bombings.
As they pursue these goals, they will have America's full support. On Monday, I will convene my national security team and other key members of my Cabinet at Camp David to discuss the way ahead in Iraq. On Tuesday, Iraq's new Ambassador to the United States will join us, and we will have a teleconference discussion with Prime Minister Maliki and members of his cabinet. Together we will determine how to best deploy America's resources in Iraq and achieve our shared goal of an Iraq that can govern itself, sustain itself, and defend itself.
There's still difficult work ahead in Iraq. Yet this week, the ideology of terror has suffered a severe blow. Al Qaida has lost its leader in Iraq, the Iraqi people have completed a democratic government that is determined to defend them, and freedom has achieved a great victory in the heart of the Middle East.
Thank you for listening.
“(The Jewish state was) a creation of the Jewish community of New York and London … For me, the Jewish state of Palestine is a missing star in the American flag. You are the head of the snake for me. If I want to destroy the Jewish state of Palestine, I have to destroy you." – Zacarias Moussaoui
by Sharon Hughes
The American people have heard so many conflicting stories about the attitudes of the Iraqi people towards America, as well as our soldiers’ attitudes about the war effort, that reporting such stories has become a battleground in and of itself.
There is no doubt that negative feedback about the war is emphasized by the mainstream media which, while accusing legislators of politicizing the war, in fact are as guilty, if not more, of doing the same. Case in point: Cindy Sheehan. Who would argue that the air and print time given to this anti- war poster-mom of the left wasn’t exhaustive? Yet hardly a mention has been given to the Blue Star Moms and others who have also lost sons in the war, and have something to say, but from a different point of view than Sheehan. Let’s not forget, the media made Cindy Sheehan.
The headlines of major print media, especially online where articles are grouped by topic, could be enough to make the less informed think we are losing the war, that the effort and sacrifice paid already by our troops have been in vain. However, when you read the stories themselves, very often there’s little substance to support the headline accusations, once you get past the spin.
That’s why I like to read and hear it from the Iraqi people, our soldiers, and others who are not interested in politicizing the war.
Such as Franklin Raff who reported in his article, "Media treachery in Iraq exposed!" for WorldNetDaily, about the Iraqi officer of significant rank who asked:
"Why do you people not tell our story? Why do you not say what is going on? Why do you come to our country and see what is happening, you see the schools and the hospitals and you see the markets and you eat with Sunni and Shia soldiers – everybody eats together, everybody works together –you see that Saddam is gone forever and we are free to speak and complain. You see we are working and eating together and fighting together – Sunni and Shia – you see what we are building here, you see the votes we make as one people. Then you say to the world about a great war and horrible things and how we are all killing each other? We are not animals! We are Iraqis. Look around you! Look!"
And Officer Dan Maher of the New York Police Department, who recently spent a year helping to train an Iraqi police force. He took a tape recorder with him to record his experience, and NPR radio recently interviewed him, also playing short clips of what he captured on tape, which you can hear HERE. He tells his experience straight, just like it is. And many others have and are doing the same, but their voices are rarely heard.
I’ve interviewed several soldiers, officers and journalists who have been in Iraq, on my show since the war began and they all echo Dan Maher’s attitude.
No one wants to go to war, except aggressors who want to dominate the world. Not soldiers. Not officers. Not presidents. Not Americans. Not our allies. Not any civilized people or freedom-loving country. Nevertheless, when the safety of the people is at risk, both imminent and in the foreseeable future, the brave and understanding are willing to enter the fray when necessary.
There have always been, and always will be, the bullies of the world who will not stop, unless they are stopped. That’s why war is a reality. And that’s why the great majority of us, who stay at home while our troops defend us, are so grateful for their effort on our behalf. That’s why "supporting our troops" fighting the war on terror is alive and well.
Oh, I know I’ll get a ton of mail for saying these things from those who disagree. But I comfort myself with the knowledge that the vast majority of Americans wish there was no such thing as war, but understand the consequences of not standing up to the bullies of the world. If you can say anything about America, you can say this…we will not be beaten in the school yard of the world.
To those who think my comments are ridiculous, let me ask you, what do you think then of 9/ll terrorist, Zacarias Moussaoui’s statements in court on Thursday, April 13th, 2006, in answer to Prosecutor Rob Spencer’s questioning? …
Spencer: "So you would be happy to see 9/11 again?"
Moussaoui: "Every day until we get you. I’m glad there was pain, and I wish there will be more pain."
Spencer: "So, you have no regret, no remorse?"
Moussaoui: "No regret, no remorse. We have an obligation to be the superpower. You have to be subdued."
Is war a seamless operation? No. Is the war in Iraq running smoothly? What does that mean? War is hell! But, in the midst of it all, because of the bravery and sacrifice of our soldiers, much good is happening to defend us at home and to extend freedom in countries that have not known freedom.
Who is telling the truth about the war in Iraq? Those who don’t have an axe to grind. Those who are saying it like it is…like it really is.
© Sharon Hughes 2006
Sharon Hughes is President of The Center for Changing Worldviews and a radio talk show host heard on KDIA AM1640 in San Francisco, RIGHTALK.com, and online at Oneplace.com. Her column appears in many recognized news sites in addition to the ConservativeVoice, most recently FRONTPAGEMAG, and she writes analysis for the international blog Publius Pundit and the Media Research Center’s NewsBusters.org. For further information visit Changing Worldviews www.changingworldviews.com,
WOMANTalk www.womantalk.us, and Sharon’s Blog changingworldviews.blogspot.com .Contact: sharon@changingworldviews.com.