The Nightmare Scenario for the Anti-War Crowd

I can see how strongly you feel from your words.

Heard it all before from this crowd:

"WMD, mushroom clouds, links to al Qaeda and 9/11"
"We'll be welcomed as liberators"
"End of major combat operations"
"Insurgency in its last throes"
"No civil war" and on and on and on...

It stand to reason that if you put more cops on the street that criminals who heretofore have been flaunting themselves in the wide open will have to take cover till the heat is off. Certainly violence in Iraq has gone down... it had virtually no where else to go. It still has not been reduced to nil.

And the biggest problem still remains... a little thing called a functioning goverment that is not infiltrated by extremisits from both sides manuevering to protect their interests... nevermind the Saudis, Iranians, Turks, et al who are doing their part by sending in "foreign insurgents" and the like.

Face the fact, Dale: an overwhelming majority of Americans do not support a continued open-ended occuptation of Iraq that will cost well over a trillion dollars and untold hardship on our military.

Everyone knows it's a mess that will be extremely difficult and complicated when we begin the process of extricating ourselves from it.

"...a former American commander in Iraq, Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez said that despite the security gains, there was "no evidence" that Iraq's leaders were working toward a peace accord. He endorsed a Democratic measure in the House to withdraw all combat troops by December 2008."

Great analysis, Dale.

The "Cut-and-Run"-crowd and the party they support have now become the "We Have to Lose"-crowd in order to save face. They were wrong then and they're wrong now.

It's entertaining to watch them try to untie the knots they've bound themselves up in, however.

David,

You conveniently skipped over the latest member of the "cut-and-run crowd: one Lt. General Sanchez quoted above.

I didn't skip over anyone, Michael ... he was included. So, what's your point?

Point is even military commanders see the point which you can't: the reduction in violence caused by the surge has done nothing to help the larger issue of a functioning governement in Iraq that is capable of meeting the real benchmarks for "success."

Most Americans understand this, and they know all too well that an open-ended occupation of Iraq at a cost of more than a trillion dollars is neither sustainable nor in our national interest (witness our crushing debt and less than desireable dollar).

Like it or not, we will be changing the strategy in Iraq to include a pullback of a majority of troops and a different role for the significantly reduced numbers that remain.

Great article Dale,
That is amazing as liberal a newspaper as the Times admitting this. It must of really hurt them to admit this. I strongly agree with your article.
As far as Sanchez, he hasnt been in Iraq for quite awhile to make any accusations, concerning this war. Or at least, thats my take on it anyway.

Michael - You face the facts. The Dems are running away from the anti-war rhetoric faster than than Marion Jones on steroids. They know that we are winning and that the majority of Americans want us to win.

Since the Dems want power much, much more than staying true to their promises to people like you, they will gladly change their tune in order to get it.

Unfortunately for them, the only candidate the cut and run crowd has left is Ron Paul. Whatever will they do?

Nanci - good point.

I wonder if the anti-war types will now flock to Ron Paul and be true to their defeatist belief or will their liberalism get the better of them as they hold their collective noses and vote for one of the leading Dems?

General Sanchez is retired from active duty. His tenure as Commander in Iraq was not a stellar one. Now he is a "spokesman" for the Democrats. Perhaps this is his way of atoning for his failures.

At some point in this election season, with the successes we have seen in Iraq, the
Presidential hopefuls would have to acknowledge those successes.

Michael;

"Point is even military commanders see the point which you can't: the reduction in violence caused by the surge has done nothing to help the larger issue of a functioning governement in Iraq that is capable of meeting the real benchmarks for "success."

That is demonstrably not the case from the latest reports, Michael. From the grassroots, Sunni and Shia are joining forces to protect their neighborhoods and towns. This is the basic poliitical cooperation that leads to political reconciliation on a national level. That's been the goal the whole time. I'll agree with you wholeheartedly that we've made mistakes prior to getting to this point; but, the fact still remains we've changed our approach and that new approach is yielding dividends.

"Like it or not, we will be changing the strategy in Iraq to include a pullback of a majority of troops and a different role for the significantly reduced numbers that remain."

That isn't a change in strategy, Michael ... that HAS been the strategy from the start. It was the tactics that required the revisions that showing ppositive signs towards success.

Was the bloodshed of the Revolutionary War worth it, Dean? How about the Civil War? Maybe WWI or WWI?

There's bloodshed in war, Dean. When in your opinion is it "worth it" to fight evil? When is it worth it to protect and defend freedom? Ever? Never?

There's no gloating, Dean. Just a sad resignation that sometimes you have to fight, and shed blood, to protect life and the freedoms that make life valuable.

What do we get, Dean? Freedom and liberty for millions with the very real chance of extending that to millions more.

We also have engaged our enemies over there so we don't have to fight them over here.

You have a problem with this? I don't. In fact I will be off to that part of the world very soon to do my part for this great country of ours.

This will be three times, Dale?

Really? Um...we are what- winning now? that is rich, there are millions that have fleed that country- the red cross has those numbers..many are dis-placed- jailed, raped killed or worse. Our bought- and paid- for leaders need to remember they work for us. The majority of Americans want our troops home sooner that later..I say now!-Every one is entitled to an opinion..I just choose to go with the majority and apparently no one in congress to stop the slaughter.Thts what makes our country great ..in the face adversity we shall over come- ignorance, war mongering and hate. we will have our country back and to those who are raping us...either your with us..or your against us..our numbers are growing.

"I say now!"
CITIZEN M, Nov 25, 2007, 8:21pm EST

So? WHo are you?

I say finish the job! There, I cancelled out your vote.

There is no American ground commander in theater that touts the current lull in violence like you guys. Laugh it up, I guess you RW folks need a break. Point is America wants out of Iraq, regardless what current spin on "victory" by Bush and Co. Political suicide is promotion of "generational" warfare to protect the profit margins of Exxon. Defeat, as America understands it traditionally, was ordained when Bush invaded and will be laid at his feet by the historians.

You still haven't answered my questions, Dean. You've just pontificated.

Why should he David? Revolutionary War?? WW1 and 2?? "Fight for freedom??" What in the world does the Bush adventure in Iraq have to do with any wars America has ever fought?

Sam, Dean... don't even get into it with these bozos. They listen to Rush and Hannity who tell them what to think, because they can't think for themselves. Blah, blah, blah... it's so predictable.

One, I wasn't talking to you Sam. But, thanks for inserting yourself into someone's question.

Two, this current conflict is but one theater in the larger war with Islamofacism. Like our other wars with facists movements, this one is, indeed, a fight for freedom. Like our War for Independence and our own Civil War, this is a fight for freedom.

You don't have to take my word for it. Take the word of our enemy. They say Iraq is the central battle in the Jihad against the infidels.

Michael;

Your comments are starting to sound like a broken record. Nothing substantive. Nothing of value. A complete waste of bandwidth.

You are the one who is predictable. Sarcasm with no point.

Oh Michael I ain't skeered of David. Islamofacism. Have'nt you guys given up on that tired chestnut? It don't hold up militarily, logically, historically and completely ignores the political reality on the ground and the historical record. It is a motivation and excuse that does not hold water but serves the imperialism of the oil lobby. We have far more to fear from domestic crazies than a world wide movement with the potential of overthrowing western nation. Yet you guys keep hammering on Islamofacism.

If that's the only comparision between the previous conflicts, try again.

"... imperialism of the oil lobby..."

Dean, you're projecting again. You accuse those of us of "inventing" some Islamic bugaboo, but you resort to "evil oil baron" conspiracies? It wasn't Exxon or Mobil or, BP or Shell, or any of the other oil companies that invaded Iran and Kuwait it was any oil company that was paying money to the families of terrorists attacking Israel; it wasn't the oil companies who sent 19 young men in airliners flying into our edifaces, killing 3000 of our innocent citizens.

If anyone is not dealing in reality here, Dean, it would be you as evidenced by your last statement.

Dale you sound bitter and hateful...very hard to take you seriously.

SO who am I? Well it depends:
To the school secretary Im the parent that demands that the recruiters leave our kids alone. Im the one that notifies the parents that you can opt-out your kids information to the military. To my boss Im a pain in the ass..but I get the job done. To my kid Im an annoying piece of work that is as exciting as a shoe horn. To my congressman Im the person who got 8 of my freinds to sit in his office every friday until he agreed to meet with us. To my neighborhood Im the one to put together the 4th of July party. to the neighbor kids..Im the sucker to buy the over priced candy they have to sell for fundraisers. Who am I? Im one of the many few who do too fucking much whilst getting less and less money for doing 3 times the work..Im the tried hungry the almost poor..Im pretty much every person in this country..Im bent pissed and steamed..maybe we dis-agree with what were mad about but every one who has 2 marbles rolling around in the gourd they call a head..are pissed. Thats who I am..no body as far as this administration is concerned.

That's what I thought.

Lori - to each their own.

Sam - you seem to want to classify a cloudless day as dreary.

David - keep up the good fight. I appreciate your support.

Most of the comments by the anti-war types miss the point. I'm not trying to prove you wrong - I'm simply focusing on how the Dems are USING you!

Sunday 25 November: 36 dead

Baghdad: car bombs, roadside bombs kill 18 in Bab al-Muatham, Waziriya, Rostomiya, Rusafa; 5 bodies.
Baquba: gunmen open fire on car, kill 3 members of the same family.
Basra: gunmen kill civilian; 3 bodies.
Mandali: gunmen shoot 2 borthers.

Ain't it good that we won again ?

Don - you don't understand the ebbs and flows of war. The fact that there is a spike in violence for one day does not mean that is the trend. The trend has been very positive. After all, did you expect that our enemies would just roll over and give up?

Besides, the point of this article is how the Dem presidential candidates are abandoning their anti-war followers.

You did understand that, didn't you?

Sam, I have to take issue with your declaration: "Islamofacism. Have'nt you guys given up on that tired chestnut? It don't hold up militarily, logically, historically and completely ignores the political reality on the ground and the historical record."

What history are you talking about? How in the early 1800's the US was paying 11 Million dollars in ransom and tribute to the ideological ancestors of this radical movement, until the USMC went and did their bloody duty at Tripoli? How about the USMC attachment to the UN peacekeeping mission in Lebanon, where we were bloodied to the count of 243, in 1983? Do you have any idea of what islamofascism is, and how it developed in the modern world?

Sorry to get off-point, Dale. This is a great post, and I'm featuring ir on GP. I think Sam's comments show how frustrated the left wing is with their elected Dems. You hit the nail on the head.

The Shah of Brezere took tribute from many nations, as was the habit in those days. He was no Islamic ideolouge, merely an oppourtunist. He voluntarily ceased by threat of cannon fire to raid American commerce and signed a treaty to that effect. America did not occupy Tripoli or attempt to exploit it's national reasources. The comparison is silly.

The 1983 attack was indeed done by Islamic forces as we were injecting ourselves in a sectarian conflict between ruling Christians and competing Muslims, a conflict simmering for at least a century before. DO you Christopher, have any idea of the region's history beyond RW propaganda? The left is not frustrated. We prefer facts.

" The left is not frustrated."

No, the Left is impotent.

good article and the points are on target...so what will happen if things continue to stay relatively quiet?

The Iraqi legislature will pass a revenue sharing agreement, more Iraqi's will join in securing their country, and we can bring the vast majority of our boys home.

Well David if postive thinking will get us out of there then I'm all for it. However you don't build a self sufficent embassy the size of the Vatican with blast walls and missle batteries, huge military bases with barracks for thousands and improved runways, hangers, and fuel storage for squadrons of elite aircraft if you're planning of bringing "the vast majority of our boys home." You do that if you don't trust the host country, or don't give a damn whether the host country can be trusted or care at all for their soveign rights. You do that for a staging area for a continued war of aggression, to let the Ruskies and Chinese know this is an American possesion and to dare the Arab world to "bring it on." The military infrastructure and purpose is not lost on the Arab/Islamic world and like colonial imperialists of all history we may kill enough natives for a while but eventually we will be ejected.

Sam;

I said a vast majority. I didn't say all. The U.S. will be in Iraq for quite some time. This isn't extraodinary. We're still in Europe and Japan after 60 years and still in Korea after 50.

Ah, there lies the rub David. Iraq is none of the above. Iraq is Vietnam. Read Stanley Karnow's excellent history of the Vietnam War. The statements from Washington, the cultural ignorance and WW2 hubris are almost exactly the same BS flowing from the neo-con crowd. The similarites are really quite remarkable. BTW, "vast majority" is a fluid term. As I have said before and surely you must see is correct America will NOT spend generations over there defending the profits of Exxon. If Dubya had his Rovian way with a "permanent" Repub majority of subservient lapdogs ceding the Constitutional power of the legislative to the executive with the permission of stratgically placed RW judical appointments the imperilisitc fantasy might have been sustained, for a while at least. Now, as America understands the TRUE ambitions of the neo-con there isn't a snowballs chance in hell John Q will put up with American/Roman occupation of the Iraq.

"Iraq is Vietnam."

No Sam. Iraq is Mesopotamia. Viet Nam is a whole continent away ... on the other side of Asia. I understand anti-war Liberals ... those aging 1960 hippies and their progeny ... would like to make this Viet Nam revisited. It's not going to happen this time, Sam.

David that was neither a clever or substantive reply. "Like to make this Viet Nam revisited?" How would anyone "like" to revisit a disaster? Surely it is the neo-cons who relish failure as it is the proven record of their policy. Neo-cons thrive in disaster, fear and war profiteering. Can you dispute that factually?

Vietnam was American intervention into a civil, cultural strife that was centuries old. We came on the heels of French colonialists and supported the dregs of their crumbling colonial admin.

Iraq is American intervention into a civil, cultural strife centuries old. We came on the crumbling remains of Brit mandates and Baathist governments we helped to sustain.

In Vietnam we sent advisors to help the S. Vietnamese forces train and sent billions in arms and infrastructure. As the advisors failed we inserted combat troops, still hoping for "victory" of our S. Vietnamese allies.

In Iraq we invade, assemble a "government" with no popular legitimacy, cobble together native forces to "step up as we step down." They will not shoot on their own and know we WILL leave eventually and collaborators will pay. So they accept our training, arms, etc., and bug out at the first shot. We spend trillions on training, arms and infrastructure.

In Vietnam the government was corrupt from peasent to President.

In Iraq, ditto.

Vietnam was bordered by cultural kins with ancient bonds and animosities.

Iraq is somewhat different: It has no culturally legitimate borders as they were drawn by Brits a mere century ago. They are not bordered, they are surrounded by cultural kins with ancient bonds and animosities.

Vietnam the natives lived on different time scale than Americans with their commercial to commercial attention span. They can wait out superior fire power.

Iraq, ditto.

We could go on and on. It will happen this time David. The same forces are at play with the same limitations. Wishing it not so will not change the inevitable.