Consequences of Iraq War

Leftie surrender monkeys like to say that the war in Iraq has been counterproductive because it is a training ground for terrorists. Well, it turns out Iraq is teaching somebody else how to fight too: U.S. Marines.

"About 90 percent of these [boot camp] instructors are battle-tested. Many have multiple combat tours under their belts. Some have been wounded; some have received medals for valor. In short, they've been there and done that. ...

'The field training has changed dramatically since I joined in 1998,' said [Gunnery Sgt. Anthony] Loftus, the Marine Corps drill instructor of the year for 2006 and a two-tour veteran of the Iraq war. 'It is more combat-focused.'

For example, today's recruits are drilled more heavily on close-quarters shooting, which is suited to urban warfare, and on spotting improvised explosive devices, the No. 1 killer of U.S. troops in Iraq.

They also are getting more training in how to make ethical decisions on the battlefield and how to cope with military and civilian casualties. Commanders often mention the importance of junior Marines making the right decisions, particularly amid high-stress urban warfare in Iraq." (Here.)

-tdr

Technorati: Iraq

Look Out Satan, Here Comes Saddam!

According to Al Jazeera unconfirmed reports out of Iraq claim that Saddam Hussein has been executed. (Here.) Sweet! Congratulations to the Iraqi people on doing with their former dictator what a farcical UN tribunal was unable to do with Slobodan Milosevic: mete out swift and appropriate justice.

This has been a good week for America and our allies and a bad week for our enemies. Ethiopia routs the Islamists in Somalia and Iraq executes the Butcher of Baghdad. Maybe these are signs of hope for better times in 2007.

-tdr

Technorati: Iraq, war, terrorism.

How Iraq Hurts The War On Islamist Jihad.

Opponents of the liberation of Iraq claim America's failure to catch Osama Bin Laden so far is proof that Iraq is a distraction. Not so.

The real problem with the unresolved conflict in Iraq is that it leaves the United States unable to combat Islamist insurgencies when they crop up elsewhere. Ethiopia shouldn't have to be leading the fight against the Islamists in Somalia. (Here.) We're fortunate that Ethiopia has the ability and the will to take on the fight for us.

-tdr

Technorati: Iraq, Terrorism, War on Terror.

When "Jaw-Jaw" Is No Better Than "War-War."

When Chris Matthews of MSNBC's Hardball talks about Iraq he likes to dredge up the 1954 statement from Winston Churchill about diplomacy being better than war. The quote goes something like "It is always better to jaw-jaw than to war-war" or "It is better to talk jaw to jaw than to have war." (Here.)

That the quote came from one of the greatest war-time leaders of the 20th Century, who spent his time before he became Prime Minister futilely warning the West about Hitler, appears to be lost on Matthews. If Churchill were alive today he might amend his quote to say, "It is better to talk jaw to jaw than to have war. Except when it's not."

Today America is being led to believe that we need to talk to Iran about achieving stability in Iraq. As if Iran can be a partner in peace. As if Iran even wants stability in Iraq.

"Iran's Revolutionary Guards are training hundreds of Al Qaeda fighters to carry out attacks against coalition forces throughout the Middle East. ...

"Al Qaeda fighters stay at guest houses on the outskirts of Tehran used by the Revolutionary Guards for conducting training in sophisticated terror techniques. Some of the training is carried out by the guards' elite Quds (Jerusalem) force, their main paramilitary unit. Apart from standard training in firearms and combat drill, the fighters all learn how to prepare car bombs.

"Many of those trained in Iran then travel to countries such as Iraq and Afghanistan, where they use their new skills to carry out attacks on coalition troops." (Here.)

Iran does not want stability in Iraq. Iran is using Iraq as a battlefield in its war against the United States. Rather than making a deal with Iran, America needs to recognize that defeating Iran is a necessary precondition to winning the war on Islamist Jihad.

-tdr

Technorati: Iraq, War, Iran.

The Real Meaning Of President Bush In Vietnam.

Much is being made of the President's visit to Vietnam. Apparently, Ted Koppel joked recently about Bush joining the National Guard to avoid Vietnam but now going there. Ha, ha, that is so funny, Ted. What a laugh riot. And what irony. What a shallow point of view.

The real significance of Bush's trip to Vietnam is much darker and not funny at all. Three decades ago America abandoned Vietnam and stood by while it was overrun by the Communists from North Vietnam. Today, America is once again poised to abandon a fight and leave allies to their fate. The Dims and the media are finally getting their Vietnam in Iraq.

-tdr

Technorati: Iraq, Politics, Bush, Vietnam.

Whither Iraq?

Now that the Democrats have taken the House and the Senate what will they do about the war? One thing that's not too promising is the statement by the Democrat's leader, Nancy Pelosi, the next Speaker of the House, that Iraq is not a war to be won, but a situation to be solved.

It's bad enough that so many Dims seem to think the war against terrorism is not a real war. Now apparently, their leader believes even the war in Iraq is not a war. Whatever. It's ironic evidence of the denial Dims are in about the current state of the world. For all the talk about the President being in a state of denial at least he recognizes that America is fighting a war.

So what is next for Iraq? Washington is waiting for the Iraq Study Group report to give everybody political cover to do something. If the report leads to a bipartisan consensus on how to achieve success in Iraq, it will be useful. But if the report just gives Washington cover for America to wash its hands of Iraq and fully withdraw from the country, it will be a tragic mistake and a repeat of the mistake we made in Vietnam.

The mistake of Vietnam was not getting involved. The mistake of Vietnam was abandoning our Vietnamese allies. That abandonment led to more violence in Southeast Asia in the immediate aftermath of South Vietnam's fall and to 30 years of oppression in Vietnam.

More important, Vietnam started a pattern of American conduct which has emboldened the Islamist Jihadists fighting us. In their view, they don't have to defeat us militarily. All they have to do to win is bloody America enough so that America withdraws on its own. Witness Vietnam, Lebanon, Somalia, and now Iraq.

If America "redeploys" out of Iraq and leaves the Iraqis to their own devices, it will be trumpeted as a victory by the Islamist Jihadists, it will embolden them to fight us harder, and it will attract more followers to their cause. The risk to America is great at this time. The recent election of the anti-war Democrats reveals that America is losing its resolve and listening to its fears.

Despite this there is one hopeful sign in this article. Retreat disguised as redeployment may be giving way to a true redeployment strategy that will not abandon Iraq.

"In calling for a timeline for U.S. troop reductions, some Democrats have advocated a parallel increase in the number of U.S. military trainers to improve the quality of Iraqi security forces. Some have called for maintaining substantial numbers of U.S. ground forces in nearby Kuwait – or perhaps at major bases in parts of Iraq, such as the Kurdish-dominated north, that have lower levels of violence.

Under this scenario, the U.S. troops would generally be pulled out of harm's way in Iraq, but could act as a 'quick-reaction force' to reinforce Iraqi security personnel if overwhelmed by insurgent attacks." (Here.)

If we're going to redeploy it's better to keep troops in Iraq. If we redeploy all of them elsewhere, there's no way we'd ever send them back in again. We owe it to the Iraqis who relied on us, especially the Kurds, to stay. But especially we owe it to ourselves to stick this out. If we retreat from Iraq it will reinforce our enemy's perception that America is a paper tiger and embolden them to attack us elsewhere. You want more terrorism? Then abandon Iraq.

-tdr

Technorati: Iraq, War.

Rats Jumping Ship?

This Vanity Fair piece (here) about neocon recriminations over Iraq is disgusting. The piece runs quotes in which all the big neocons who supported the liberation of Iraq and the Bush Administration's war strategy to attack terrorism by pushing democratic regime change turn on the President. The story will be told in full in January's edition but the magazine has published a preview. Just in time for the November midterm election. What an odd coincidence.

The preview presents quote after quote from prominent neocons all turning on the President or his Iraq policy. It's a shameless display of rats seeking to protect their personal reputations. In their defense several of the neocons quoted in the piece claim that Vanity Fair is distorting their positions. (Here.) Let's hope so.

America is passing through one of the most difficult periods in its history. The threat from Islamist Jihadism is real yet many discount the threat. The President and his neocon supporters saw that threat more plainly than many and pushed an aggressive strategy to fight it.

This war is a contest of wills. The side that loses the will to fight first will be the side that loses. The Democrats have lacked the will for a long time now. Many Americans in the middle are losing the will. The midterm elections will show that. Now if even the architects of America's war policy lack the will to stick it out for the long haul, we've lost already and we might as well bring all of our soldiers home now. And God help the brave Iraqis - Kurds and Arabs alike, Afghans, and Kuwaitis who counted on us for help. The most dangerous thing to be in this world is an ally of the United States.

As Michael Rubin says in his own defense:

" ... I am a Republican, but whether the Republicans or Democrats are in power, Washington’s word must mean something. Leadership is about responsibility, not just politics. We cannot go around the world betraying our allies — in this case Iraqis who believed in us or allied with us — just because of short-term political expediency. This is not just about Iraq: If we abandon Iraq, we will not only prove correct all of Osama Bin Laden’s rhetoric about the US being a paper tiger, but we will also demonstrate — as James Baker and George H. W. Bush did in 1991 — that listening to the White House and alliance with the United States is a fool’s decision. We can expect no allies anywhere, be they in Asia, Africa, or Latin America, if we continue to sacrifice principles to short-term realist calculations. It’s not enough to have an attention span of two years, when the rest of the world thinks in decades if not centuries."

-tdr

Technorati: Iraq, War, Bush, Terrorism, Neocons.