Petraeus reports the surge is surging: in time, or too late?
The BBC, for all its negativity towards the Iraq war, is reporting that the violence:
…has subsided in Ramadi over the past six months—largely, correspondents say, because tribes have turned against al-Qaeda. The Americans have taken parts of Baquba, but it is still unclear how much they control.
They quote General Petraeus as attributing this success to the surge. He also points out that civilian deaths in Baghdad were down in June, and mentions that increased US troop numbers have only recently reached full strength. Although the BBC surrounds this encouraging news with the usual negative counterpoint, it’s still interesting that they’re even airing an interview with Petraeus in the first place.
Ralph Peters has also reported today on his own interview with Petraeus. It’s clear that, whatever the Iraq war was originally about, the occupation has turned into a fight against al Qaeda there, as Petraeus reports:
Al-Qaeda-in-Iraq’s key weaknesses are an ideology that does not resonate with Iraqis and an indiscriminate brutality that alienates the people. Popular sentiment has begun to shift against them….Successful operations of this nature have played out in recent months in Ramadi, Hit and Baquba. In each case, Iraqis turned against al Qaeda and sided with the Coalition.
Perhaps a surge such as the present one might have had better results if it had occurred some time ago. But a more chilling thought is that it might not have, because al Qaeda had to demonstrate its horrific brutality in order for the Iraqi people to understand what they are up against and to cooperate with the US troops.
Petraeus goes on to discuss the morale of those troops, the political realities in Iraq, and campaigns in other regions of the country. Read the whole thing, as they say. But it’s a statement towards the end of the interview that most resonates for me:
…if I could only have one [thing] at this point in Iraq, it would be more time.
Time is on our side. But it is, paradoxically, the one thing that seems to be in short supply—because of the political realities in this country and not for any other reason.
I wrote yesterday about what might be behind the extreme impatience of the NY Times and the Left. However, rumors that Bush is about to cave based on wavering Republican support have been scotched by yesterday’s report that he is not considering a troop withdrawal:
…[Tony] Snow said any debate happening right now among Bush and his aides is a continuation of discussions they have always had about the goal the president set from the beginning: bring troops home eventually, but only based on improvement “on the ground, not on politics.”
“There is no intensifying discussion about reducing troops,” he said. “We are continued to be committed to letting the surge work.”
And Harry Reid continues to be committed to refusing to allow it to work. Even the BBC acknowledged that the surge troops have only recently reached full strength, but Reid doesn’t let that stop him from declaring the campaign a failure:
The surge (in troops) was supposed to provide Iraq political leaders the space to make the compromises necessary to unite this nation. It hasn’t happened, despite the bravery of our troops,” said Reid…
Patience is not Reid’s strong suit, nor is history. Contrast this with what General Petraeus has to say on the same subject:
Iraqi leaders are grappling with first-order questions—akin to our own debates at the birth of our nation over states’ rights and so on. And the progress has been less than what all of us—the Iraqis as well as Coalition leaders – had hoped to see.
There have been some encouraging signs, such as progress on some critical legislation and the rise of opposition to extremists in many areas, but, ultimately, the political issues must be resolved by Iraqis in an Iraqi way. Our role is to create an environment in which political compromise becomes possible—by breaking the cycle of sectarian violence and lifting the pall of fear.
Reid can mouth all the platitudes he wants about the “bravery of our troops,” but he has a way to go before he actually understands what is going on there, and the fact that such things cannot be accomplished in a couple of weeks, despite “bravery.”
Reid’s extreme impatience is contrasted with Petraeus’s cautionary words:
None of us, Iraqi or American, are anything but impatient and frustrated at where we are. But there are no shortcuts. Success in an endeavor like this is the result of steady, unremitting pressure over the long haul. It’s a test of wills, demanding patience, determination and stamina from all involved.
General Petraeus and his troops are up to the task. Is Congress—and are the American people?
The war against the muslim supremacists–the Great Islamic World Crusade of Conquest–is going to last for many more decades.
The war is caused to a large degree by the demographic bulge of young men in many muslim countries. Cannon fodder for the mullahs, as it were.
Only idiots and cowards would choose dhimmitude over resistance to the Islamist crusade. Of course, there are plenty of idiots in the current US Congress, so the short term response of the west is a bit shaky.
Neo asks, “General Petraeus and his troops are up to the task. Is Congress–and are the American people?”
Congress is not. The MSM is not. The American sheeple who get most of their information about Iraq from the MSM, know not what they do.
We are on the verge of another horrific betrayal of a people that deserve better. We are trying to bring the fruits of representative government and modern markets to the Iraqi people. The Islamists have fiercely opposed this change at every turn. They cannot prevent it. The prevention is taking place in the editorial rooms of the MSM and in the Congress of the United States.
If we cut and run this time, when will we ever have the will to use our military as other than a home guard? Will we not have become a true “Paper Tiger?”
Pingback:University Update - Iraq - Petraeus reports the surge is surging: in time, or too late?
Reid definitely has the will, the will to destroy both America and Iraq.
“Stamina and patience” have not been part of the discourse, even from this Administration. I won’t plague you with all the different themes, but the war was billed as “cakewalk” early and often.
I do not think we can leave Iraq; not soon, and perhaps not ever. Thanks to this war, we can take all types of airstrikes and naval engagement with Iran, but no matter what the provocation, we cannot take effective military action unless we have a draft and a complete change of mindset.
I know passionate Bushites believe the president had nothing to do with the banner, but he should have said “This war is just beginning and we need patience and stamina because the losses of life will be ten times what they were in these first six weeks.
Americans, whom war-supporters are turning against, saw the sign and the president in a flight suit and heard “The forces…have prevailed” and, silly, stupid them!, assumed the words meant what they said.
Those of us who are liberal differ with you on this: we think the war planners sold the American People a war that is analogous to selling them a car that doesn’t work.
You blame Democratic leaders for the American People’s inability to ignore the facts and get in the car and drive. You think if we all push, maybe the car will move. But, really, it won’t go anywhere. We are stuck with it.
Senators Snowe and Lugar and all the senators who wonder how did we get into this position ” will all face the same miserable set of choices.
The “stamina and patience” argument was lost, not by Harry Reid, but by “The last throes, if you will,” and “Greeted as liberators” and (unfortunately) the “Mission Accomplished” banner.
Tomj,
But, in the beginning, leftie opposition to the war was not about the difficulties we would encounter in the “occupation” phase, it was that we couldn’t even overcome Saddam’s army in the first place. Since you parrot lefties today, perhaps you can recall you and your fellow lefties saying things such as “Kuwait was one thing, but now we’ll be up against the elite Republican Guard. It’ll be a bloodbath.”
Nope, all the lefties have done since the beginning is oppose and obstruct. You were wrong about the major combat phase, and we were wrong about the occupation. That doesn’t mean you were “right all along” because you lefties never expected it to get this far in the first place, which it did.
So by your standard we lost WWII because we still occupy Germany and Japan to this day.
“This war is just beginning and we need patience and stamina because the losses of life will be ten times what they were in these first six weeks.”
Maybe you should READ the speech President Bush gave. I think that was the point of his very next line. And as speaking as someone who returned from Iraq a few months ago, if we follow the socialist democrat’s way, please tell me which US city you would like the terrorists to destroy. Also, please let me know how your supposed “progressive” values will endure under Sharia?
As soon as the House voted a few months ago to cut and run, the terrorists your side supports (but yells at us when we point it out) rallied and shouted in glee. Evey time a leftist sees a way for the US to be defeated in Iraq, they eagerly go after it. You even have the SAME talking points as the terrorists!!!
So how ELSE am I supposed to take the above besides knowing the left has stabbed my fellow Sodliers and I in the back?
ChrisG
good honest questions.
really.
I don’t expect anything from you, no thinking, no analysis, no sensible argument. You will be very comfortable here.
Your whole set of facts is dishonest.
dear Lee
I pointed out that supporters of the war made promises and presumptions of ease long after the “Mission Accomplished” Fiasco. “The last throes, if you will” was Cheney in September of 2005.
Wars should not be fought unless there is an actual Declaration of War. Otherwise people get bored. Americans loved this war when we were winning all the battles.
President Bush himself, by the way, set limits on our support and markers the Iraqi Government had to hit.
This war is a sad example of lost opportunities.
At least Tomj only expects from others that which he’s willing to strive for himself.
Dear Tomj,
And I pointed out that your and leftie opposition to the war didn’t start when things “started going wrong”. You and your leftie cohorts seem to hold everyone accountable for erroneous thinking and mistakes except yourselves. You said Saddam would never be deposed. You said Iraqi elections would never take place. You were wrong. Now, of course, your opposition isn’t about “casualties” or the “lawless Anbar” or even the “resentment of the Iraqi people” anymore, since it’s obvious to even the MSM that the people have sided with us. It’s about how the Iraqi gavernment can’t pass an oil profit-sharing plan. Our own government is full of partisan fighting. Why do you hold the Iraqis to a higher standard than your own gavernment? Now, the only people opposed to this are the terrorists and the American Left(you). Deny it all you want, but facts are facts.
Lee
Sorry. I never said any of those things. I doubt if you could find anyone who did who was a mainstream person.
I don’t hold the Iraqui Government to any standards. We will be in Iraq 50 years from now.
Remember, President Bush said there were marks the Iraqui Government had to hit and many Republicans in congress agree.
Now that we are there, we will stay there. I wish we had 500,000 or more troops on the ground in Iraq. If I were running for president I would ask for a doubling of troops, at least.
I opposed the war because I believed a military strategist who said we had Saddam neutralized and cornered and the war would only make Iran stronger.
I have none of the beliefs you ascribe to me. But then, nobody but your straw man arguer does.
For someone who “holds none of those beliefs”, you sure do “espouse” them on a daily basis.
danieldrezner.comHere’s some of your pre-war opposition:
http://www.danieldrezner.com/archives/000194.html
You didn’t “change your mind because of failures”, you and the left were convinced it was a “lost cause” from the beginning.
Just the facts.
“I don’t expect anything from you, no thinking, no analysis, no sensible argument. You will be very comfortable here.
Your whole set of facts is dishonest.”
I should be insulted, but I am long used to the “support” I get from the left. And that’s just it, you expect blind obedience to your views. Sorry. You will not get them. As usual, when a member of the US Armed Forces opposes your views and the Democrat’s idiocy, your “support” for us evaporates and you tell us to shut up.
NOT ONE of my facts is dishonest and I could even point you to where Code Pink brags about sending money and names the democrat that assisted in getting the funds and supplies through Jordan.
As I stated, there is no way I can look at the left wing and not see allies of the islamofascists at worst or dhimmis at best.
You will have to excuse me for not “shutting up” or bowing to your insults. I speak with facts and the truth of first hand experience.
As for the Declaration of War. Yes, that would have been great, but someone was filibustering a lot at the time. However, since GWI ended in a cease fire, which Saddam violated repeatedly, it was really not needed.
TomJ:
I once had respect for your opinions. After your unjustified slam of ChrisG, that respect has evaporated. You owe the man an apology, big-time.
God Bless, ChrisG. Thanks for your service. Apparently, half the country doesn’t deserve you.
Stumbley,
I need to thank you for some info you posted on another thread. I was unaware of the 4th of July attack on the Airman. Even doing a search, I only found two interlinked stories on it. Considering my wife just had our second child and is recovering from surgery and we live on the economy, this latest attack has raised my blood-pressure slightly.
I do not owe Chris G an apology. He mis-states the position of opponents of the war. Let me remind you what he said:
“…if we follow the socialist democrat’s way, please tell me which US city you would like the terrorists to destroy. Also, please let me know how your supposed “progressive” values will endure under Sharia?
“As soon as the House voted a few months ago to cut and run, the terrorists your side supports (but yells at us when we point it out) rallied and shouted in glee. Evey time a leftist sees a way for the US to be defeated in Iraq, they eagerly go after it. You even have the SAME talking points as the terrorists!!!
“So how ELSE am I supposed to take the above besides knowing the left has stabbed my fellow Sodliers and I in the back?”
There are so many lies in ChrisG’s three paragraphs, that un-packing them and denying each one would take all night.
americanprogress.organd not all Iraqi veterans foment the “Stabbed in the back” slur. Here is a link to a very different veteran:
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2007/07/millard_interview.html
Tom,
I’m not going anywhere. Take your time.
I’m willing to bet I can find support for ChrisG’s statements in 30 minutes, that’s just so I don’t rush myself.
Im with Tom on this one in that Chris made assumptions “strawmen” out of Tom’s main points that werent actually in them. Some of which I agree with, although I certainly cant see immediate withdrawal being anything less than a worse disaster.
Im with Tom on this one in that Chris made assumptions “strawmen” out of Tom’s main points that werent actually in them. Some of which I agree with, although I certainly cant see immediate withdrawal being anything less than a worse disaster.
dear Lee
Thank you for referring me to that website. It is interesting that the numbers that the anti-war crowd proposed look pretty accurate now. There are over a million refugees; there is a great and continuing loss of life.
I do not have “Talking Points”. like any one here, I use sarcasm too often, but I am a citizen just like you. I opposed the war because what I read convinced me that Iran (and China) would be the ultimate winners of a US invasion, and then I further was disturbed that the two prong attack with 500,000 men was overruled by Rumsfeld when Turkey would not allow our armies to pass through.
I favor using military power in a way that leaves our troops with an overwhelming winning hand.
But I am not a military strategist.
It is tragic to argue about a war that our country is waging. You can blame the democratic party and the democratic members of congress.
But the fact is that President Bush waged this war and has failed to argue compellingly for how long the war would be fought.
Many military experts have testified before congress that an insurgency “usually lasts 12 years.” In a war that started with no immediate threat to the United States in March of 2003, to declare, and here is the verbatim transcript:
“Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the Battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed. And now our coalition is engaged in securing and reconstructing that country.
“In this battle, we have fought for the cause of liberty, and for the peace of the world. Our nation and our coalition are proud of this accomplishment – yet it is you, the members of the United States military, who achieved it. Your courage – your willingness to face danger for your country and for each other – made this day possible. Because of you, our nation is more secure. Because of you, the tyrant has fallen, and Iraq is free.”
In the NINTH (!!!!) paragraph Bush mentions “difficulty”, but implies it will be a mopping up operation. The overwhelming number of deaths and refugees have come since then. Bush said: “We have difficult work to do in Iraq. We are bringing order to parts of that country that remain dangerous.”
There is no good solution to this war except stay and referee a civil war and defeat an insurgency. This war was produced and sold to the American people by President Bush and his allies. If the American people are sick of this war, blame President Bush. He was the one who declared victory in that silly publicity stunt on May 1, 2003.
redstate.comSee, Tom,
Only 19 minutes, and that was taking my time:
http://www.redstate.com/stories/war/dems_grand_ayatollah_al_zawahiri_orders_dems_to_cut_run
I also noticed you quoted Bush verbatim, up until the crucial “ninth” paragraph, where your spin and implications take over.
Now that we are there, we will stay there.
Interesting statement coming from someone who self-describes as among “those of us who are liberal”, no? You know, those types who are constantly looking for ways to cut funds to the soldiers fighting to protect them? Whose Senate leader says the “war is lost” even before the military commander — whom that same leader voted to support — had had a chance to begin to implement his strategy? Who, with a few notable and honorable exceptions, have espoused and promoted a cut-and-run “strategy” practically from the start?
Of course, none of those people would be what bfflo tom would call a “mainstream person”, would they? And in any case, I see Tom is already working on his “I never said that” Clintonian side-slip — which is good, since he’s going to need to use it a lot more often. Because I doubt the side-slip will really give him and his ilk — i.e., those of them who are liberal — enough cover once lies like ““Stamina and patience” have not been part of the discourse” are exposed and the recriminations really start to kick in.
Sorry, I was there and saw it in person. I saw the terrorists celebrate and hail the democrats and saw the look of despair on the Iraqis faces.
I did say “I” not “all Iraqi veterans” and I stand by my statements. But great for your idiotic position, you found one vet who might agree with you. I can list hundreds who agree with me. I need only to look at leftist “anti-war” protests to see your hate and bile. I see your websites and see what the islamists are saying. I have seen the islamofascists writings and know that they despise what the left supposedly stands for, yet these leftists at Move-on/ANSWER/ACT etc still support them.
You want to see what the islamofascists are saying you can go to jihadwatch, memri.org, and Palestine Media Watch. When I was in Iraq, our translators would go into detail on what the Arab/Persian media was saying and what the terror leaders were spewing. The terrorists ARE trying to hit our cities and CONUS bases and several attacks have been stopped by the FBI. The latest Al Qeada bile is a tired series of lies attacking our views on secular government, women’s rights, freedom to elect rulers, and how they will “defeat us” and rule over us. It would be laughable in reading, but this is how these people believe and are acting. Already in parts of Europe, there is Sharia law zones where militants enforce Koranic “law”. In the US, we are seeing this cropping up in cities where Islamic cab drivers will not allow seeing eye dogs or lone women to ride.
Then I see the Democrats calling us all sorts of names and using the same talking points the terrorists use. This too is not lost on the Iraqis.
Again, how else am I supposed to take the left?
dear Lee
1. Here is Bush’s 8th and 9th paragraphs:
“We have difficult work to do in Iraq. We are bringing order to parts of that country that remain dangerous. We are pursuing and finding leaders of the old regime, who will be held to account for their crimes. We have begun the search for hidden chemical and biological weapons, and already know of hundreds of sites that will be investigated. We are helping to rebuild Iraq, where the dictator built palaces for himself, instead of hospitals and schools. And we will stand with the new leaders of Iraq as they establish a government of, by, and for the Iraqi people. The transition from dictatorship to democracy will take time, but it is worth every effort. Our coalition will stay until our work is done. And then we will leave – and we will leave behind a free Iraq.
“The Battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11th, 2001, and still goes on. That terrible morning, 19 evil men – the shock troops of a hateful ideology – gave America and the civilized world a glimpse of their ambitions. They imagined, in the words of one terrorist, that September the 11th would be the “beginning of the end of America.” By seeking to turn our cities into killing fields, terrorists and their allies believed that they could destroy this nation’s resolve, and force our retreat from the world. They have failed.”
He declares Victory in the 9th paragraph.
americablog.comdear Lee
Everyone who has the internet can make an argument like you made about Zawahiri. Neither you nor I have any power except talking to each other. Why the Gotcha?
Democratic leaders and President Bush do the things they do because they love their country. We disagree about policies, not basic rights and freedoms.
Here is the loathsome Z praising President Bush. Does that mean President Bush “takes his marching orders from Zawihiri”? Of course not! But here is old Z praising Bush:
http://www.americablog.com/2007/05/al-qaeda-2-zawahiri-endorses-bush-plan.html
He declares “one victory” in a war that “still goes on”.
“The transition from dictatorship to democracy will take time,…”
What part of that “implies” it would be “easy”?
He declared victory in ONE battle, not the war. He also laid out the exit strategy for Iraq (something our “one year” mission in Bosnia never had). It looks like many of his points are being advanced also.
Iraq has always been one BATTLE in the war. There are thousands more going on world-wide from Indonesia to Africa to our own back yards,
Tom,
If you think Z’s bile is “support” for Bush, I have a bridge to sell you.
Yes, we love the USA. At least you understand that. I do not hold signs saying “we support our troops when they shoot their officers” and “Bush is Hitler” followed by “Death to the Jews”. That is what the “anti-war” crowd is doing. That is what I get to have thrust in my face when I was in Iraq.
ChrisG
I hate Sharia. The places where the West gives into Sharia Law are poison to me.
You ask: “Then I see the Democrats calling us all sorts of names and using the same talking points the terrorists use. This too is not lost on the Iraqis.
“Again, how else am I supposed to take the left?”
What Democratic leader called you any name, much less “all sorts of names”?
Nor do Democratic Leaders use the “same talking points the terrorist use.”
If you tell yourself such lies, it is no wonder you speak the way you do.
Last Saturday General William Odon wrote that supporting the troops in Iraq means bringing them home. I suppose he takes his Talking Points directly from Al Qaeda also?
See for yourself. You live in a created cocoon with imaginary enemies. If I did not know better, I would think you were a satirist pretending to be a right winger. Here is General Odom:
http://dyingwarriors.blogspot.com/2007/07/supporting-troops-means-withdrawing.html
Of course, Tom, Zawahiri’s “endorsement” of Bush’s surge plan was under the assumption they would win. Of course, now that Al Qaeda is on the run, they’re playing a different tune:
http://archive.gulfnews.com/articles/06/01/24/10013650.html
In the Civil War, General McClellan “supported” the troops, too.
Lee and ChrisG
One of the reasons I could never do a 180 like Neo is the logic that this side employs.
The responsibility for leading the nation comes with the office. President Bush failed to lead. You want “plausible deniability” for what was a Victory Lap that the President took less than two months in a war that is still being fought Four Years and two months later.
Actually, it’s the terrorists who use the same “talking points” as Democrats. See my link above.
I am a Soldier, not a satirist. Your insults are disgusting and untrue to the extreme.
So a Yale professor who retired 20 years ago agrees with you? Wow….. Active duty generals agree with me (actually, vice versa). And looking at the links and sidebars on that site, I am left shaking my head at what I see.
Here are some links for more research
discoverthenetworks.org These people look at who is funding the “anti-war” movement.
zombietime.com Pictures and videos of “anti-war” protests, media photoshopping, and bias.
Congressional members insulting US troops? Like THAT is difficult: Murtha, Durbin, Pelosi, Kerry, just START the list.
I deal with very REAL enemies on a daily basis. The left is the ones living in a “cocoon”.
I would get into it more, but I have a baby to put to sleep.
Though I do feel better that you hate Sharia. This means I am not dealing with a talking point troll as I have on other cites. I am very blunt and very irritated by the left’s antics so I seem harsh. Maybe I am, but I get to see reality daily.
I know you would have preferred Bush “lead us to appeasement and defeat”, but the fact you don’t like “where” he has led us is not the same as “failing to lead”.
The South(our own country) had to be occupied for ten years, a period known as “reconstruction”. During that time, we saw holdouts like Moseby and Shelby, saw the rise of insurgent groups such as the Klan and the James-Younger gang. By your standard, we must have lost the Civil War because Lincoln declared victory at Appomattox, when it obviously continued after major combat operations.
TomJ. Now you’re just a buffalo chip.
moveon has really gotten into your head, I see. I can no longer find a link to the KGB defector who, when interviewed, described how the West would be defeated from within, precisely by infiltrating sources of authority and information: academia, the media, and government. He says (paraphrased) “Our work succeeded beyond our wildest dreams. You have already lost.”
Certainly we’ve lost with people like you around. Truly one of Lenin’s “useful idiots.”
Stumbley,
Not sure, but are you talking about Anatoly Golitsyn, former KGB major?
Lee: I wish I could remember. I had the link saved, but somehow lost it. It was an interview that had been YouTube’d, and was exceedingly interesting, in that it really explains a lot of what we’ve had to put up with with A and UB and their ilk. It’s not necessarily that they’re particularly evil, it’s just that they’ve been taught poorly and know no history–by KGB design. I’ll see if I can find the link again.
Lee: Found it. It was Yuri Bezmenov. Here’s the link, at Pajamas Media:
http://pajamasmedia.com/2007/06/from_the_kgb_playbook_demorali.php
crossroad.toStumbley,
Your link(and every other site that has it) says the youtube video is “no longer available”(surprising, no?)
Here’s a link to the transcript:
http://www.crossroad.to/Quotes/brainwashing/2007/bezmenov.htm
Perhaps someone can do better. Even my link is only a partial transcript.
It is interesting, if difficult, to count as high as the number of people who are invested, for one reason or another, in a US defeat in Iraq. I mean Americans, not Islamists.
There are BDSers, who do not want the US to lose the war on terror. They want Bush to lose the war on terror. The possible connection does not bother them, or if it does, is acceptable if Bush loses the war on terror.
There are politicians who have run cynically to move their only remaining swing votes–the McGovernites–in order to win an election.
There are the usual anti-US military types.
There are journalists and teachers and ordinary citizens who have spoken so much and so fervently about how this is immoral and/or impossible that victory would be a personal and possibly a career catastrophe for them.
In addition to RIchard’s comment, I have started to conclude that God and Destiny has a peculiar sense of humour concerning the United States. The US has been basically riding a tiger these last few centuries. Always propelled by change, social and technological, and always threatened both by foreign and domestic elements that must be dealt with before further advancements could be made. Things like the Civil War must be resolved, things like the trouble with the Ameri-Inds had to be taken care of. Many things, foreign and domestic, were challenges that tested the might of the United States almost past the breaking point. Yet the US has never broken, even as the challenges enlarged to species shattering sizes. The Cold War, however, came the closest to defeating the US, and would have had a good chance to had the Soviets survived their own economic disaster causing policies. So we skipped the specter of species annihilation and Perpetual Nuclear Winter, only to realize, as a rather funny joke, that as we faced the next challenge on our list that the old specter of the Cold War was still around!
Because the Cold War was never concluded with a hot war, most of the assets in proxy nations and in the US, were still there for the successor to Communism to use. The Islamic Jihad has made great use of the Protocols of Zion, the US-Soviet proxy wars, and the Soviet propaganda apparatus in the ME for their own purposes.
The reason why I see this as a joke by Greater Powers, is that it is a sort of back slapping lesson never to allow fear of using weapons that could obliterate your entire planet from Sol, to make you blind to the realities of the situation the US is in. Which is that of riding the tiger. Weapons, threats, weaknesses, and hatreds will always fester, grow, and seek to overthrow the progress America has made. They always have, and they always will.
WMD restrictions will never hold, by themselves, because new weapons and techniques will always be developed. America will always face greater and more threats as time goes on, one after the other, replacing the old threats now eliminated and gone quiet.
People thought when the Wall came down that we were at the end of history. Destiny and God had something else in mind, however.
For the United States, there can be only two choices. Death or glory.
This kind of thing has happened several times and not only with Al Q. Whenever the ‘other side’ gets the upper hand the Iraqis learn they don’t really like what they have to offer… then when we get the upper hand back things calm down….
Pingback:Flopping Aces » Blog Archive » » McCain’s Speech On Iraq