Today is VI Day
It’s pretty much “mission accomplished” in Iraq. But it’s a victory we’re not willing to openly claim.
In another world and time, this war would have been lauded as one of the least brutal in history, although it was fought against some of the most brutal of opponents—Saddam Hussein, the insurgents, and al Qaeda. But thanks to our strange reluctance to credit that there is any good that can come from the horror of a war—or to realistically analyze what victory there might look like—this particular success is being noted not with a bang but a whimper.
I have written at length previously, in a two-part series that begins here, about how and why we have failed to define success in Iraq, and the importance of that omission for the public’s perception of this war.
I am not really suggesting a major celebration. Nor am I saying things couldn’t still turn in a worse direction for Iraq, especially as more of our forces withdraw. “Victory” is never permanent or static. But there is no question that things there are going about as well as any realistic person could have expected, and much better than most did expect.
Ace comments on the victory that has gone nearly unnoticed. And Zombietime has decided to declare today, November 22, VI Day:
Although our governments have chosen to not name any official day marking the end of this war, we the people have taken it upon ourselves to commemorate November 22, 2008 as the day of victory over the forces of tyranny, oppression and terror in Iraq.
Join fellow bloggers and other members of the public in this virtual ticker-tape parade for our brave troops…
VE Day and VJ Day were altogether different from VI Day, of course, and not just because the former were enthusiastically celebrated. One obvious difference between then and now is that World War II was a war against countries that had fought all out for many years and then surrendered—spent and exhausted. These surrenders marked an obvious end to the violence, even though we retained troops in those countries for a long time thereafter in what was a successful rebuilding occupation (in fact, we continue to have a significant number of troops there: see this and this). The people in those countries knew the difference between victory and defeat and they had a deep awareness, after many years of all-out conflict, and death tolls that dwarfed anything in the Iraq War, that they were beaten.
And speaking of all-out conflict, Americans knew that’s what they had been involved in as well, for close to four long years. There was no doubt about it; everyone was on a war footing, civilian and military alike. Almost every family in the US had someone serving overseas because in addition to hordes of volunteers, the draft reached into so many homes.
And it wasn’t just the fact of the draft, it was the huge number of men mobilized. The Vietnam era draft threatened many young men but a far smaller proportion actually served in that theater of war compared to WWII (in Vietnam, about 2.7 million served and about 58 thousand died from a total US population of about 203 million people; in WWII about 16 million served and 418 thousand died out of a total US population of about 130 million people). And in Iraq, not only has there been no US draft, but the actual numbers of those who have served in Iraq are far smaller (this site is somewhat out of date, but it still serves for purposes of comparison).
We have two other elements that have made this war in Iraq different from WWII: negative press coverage during much of its course, and antiwar fervor on the part of one major party for much of its course (the best comparison is to Vietnam, but that opposition got started later in the history of the conflict).
And now that President Bush has become an especially lame duck, and the economy has taken such a terrible turn, the Iraq war is virtually forgotten as it winds to a relatively successful close, although such a development would have been considered almost miraculous less than two short years ago. There will be no parades today, no crowds celebrating, and no exuberant sailors bending pretty girls backwards in a joyous embrace. But still, attention should be paid, and credit given.
It was noticed in our local rag. There was a photo of a crowd holding up Muqtada al-Sadr’s photo and the headline reads that Iraqis were protesting the agreement the government signed with the US to keep their forces in country fo the next three years. How’s that for acknowledging victory?
I’ve become bitter over it, that’s the only way I can describe the feeling I have over what has been done to the whole issue of the Iraq war. My husband was in the first Gulf war, the Iraq war, than retired from the Army and has been back several times as a contractor. This last time he went (he just came back in September) I can’t describe to you the difference he saw. He was very hopeful unlike the days before the surge and even during the surge. Of course some of the Iraqi’s have very mixed feelings about everything that has happened which is understandable. That doesn’t stop them from developing deep friendships with Americans. Heck, even Korea still has protests wanting us to go home. First time we were stationed there our driver drove us into the middle of a student demonstration! We had to duck and hide. I always had the sneaking suspicion he did it on purpose.
As one blogger has notably said: “All of this fluffy-bunny feeling is one good mosque bombing away from backsliding.”
Winning the war in Iraq secures Bush a favorable historical opinion, especially considering he did it, as NEO points out, despite the dogged opposition by various groups and with so few casualties. It must gall the BDS crowd to realize that historians will label him as one of our best Presidents.
Although the victory deserves celebration perhaps it’s best that the occasion passes with little fanfare. It’s ironic that the victory came just as a candidate who would have handed Iraq over to the enemy is elected.
My eldest nephew is on his second tour in Afghanistan. The next in line chose to go into the reserves after college ROTC (he actually was on a full academic scholarship in materials engineering so ROTC wasn’t to pay for college). If he had gone active he could have taught math at West Point which would have looked great on his resume, but we all know the overwhelming (sometimes bad) influence “young love” can have on one’s decisions. Anyway – he apparently is slated to deploy to Iraq next August. I suppose I shouldn’t worry as BO should have all our enemies beating their swords into plowshare before then but I do worry. Mainly because (and I mentioned this in a comment on a previous post) I believe if the president elect bows to the likes of Pelosi, Reed, George Soros, and moveon.org instead of following the advice of the commanders on the ground then too many soldiers will be pulled out too early and that is going to make it much more dangerous for those left there – not to mention the Iraqi citizens. I hope for the best.
Well tempered and well said, as usual, Neo — thank you. Much uncertainty and risk lies ahead, and time will tell whether it was “too soon” to call this, but it’s just the way I’m feeling at present. An acknowledgment of some sort feels sorely needed. Kelly and Dane, profound gratitude for your families’ courage and contributions.
Insurgencies do not end in a victory parade or a solemn signing of surrender documents. No, they just kind of die a slow death, which only becomes recognizable when one day you realize that it’s been several days since ther was a bombing. Michael Yon says some soldiers over there have not fired their weapons in months.
The durability ofIraq’s new start depends on those who step forward to lead and on the competence of their police and army. Freedom is never a permanent thing and they will have to continue to fight to maintain it.
For those who want to see an upsiode of what we have accomplished over there, I suggest reading this essay:
http://www.soldiersperspective.us/2008/11/20/touching-the-face-of-grace-tissue-alert/
You’ll be glad you did.
Thank you for calling this out. I went ahead with my own VI post. All my small number of readers are strongly anti-neocon so I guess this ought to leave me with none. Oh well. Truth wins. And Obama’s relatively center-hawk cabinet selections give me hope too.
For what it it’s worth, note that even Christopher Hitchens is and has been, for some time, a staunch and eloquent defender of the Iraq war effort, and extremely critical of the “left” for it’s ethical/moral bankruptcy.
It must gall the BDS crowd to realize that historians will label him as one of our best Presidents.
Not really. What history will show is the principle actors of 9/11 refocused on Afghanistan (the war before Iraq that’s still ongoing) after the diversion by Bush in Iraq. And that the situation is more unstable there than ever.
…also, that we weren’t actually attacked by Iraq at the time. And there were no WMDs found.
“that we weren’t actually attacked by Iraq at the time”
Straw man. Never cited as a cassus belli.
“And there were no WMDs found”
Again, not the major reason for OIF. But the statement itself is false anyway, as tons of yellowcake were discovered and shipped out of the country with no major press reports made. The Russian Operation Sarindar was executed successfully before the invasion, whereby their contributions to the chemical and biological programs were removed to Syria and Lebanon. Also, munitions were found with VX and Sarin. Biological samples found in scientists’ freezers in their homes. But the Big Media and the lawyers in the Party of Jackasses managed to cover it all up.
I would post links to these stories, but I know it’s UTTERLY FUTILE, because they would be disregarded and denied. It’s pointless and a pissing contest. I am only responding to it here because I just don’t want to see Logern lob his molotov cocktain and then run away.
The primary reason for OIF was that Iraq was a state that sponsored Islamic terror groups. The Baathists had had some informal contacts, meetings, and arrangements with al Qaeda. It was only a matter of time before the inspection regime was going to be removed by the U.N. and the WMD programs could resume. And then it would most definitely be a dangerous situation.
Also, if we are going to play the game of assigning blame, we can say that Afghanistan did not attack us on 9/11. The Taliban had nothing to do with the terror plot and its execution. But, the regime did harbor terrorist groups.
What the Party of Jackasses and the Far Left most objected to was the option for pre-emption contained in the Bush Doctrine. The U.N. objects to it. The E.U. objects to it. The Arab League objects to it. Russia and China object to it. So, the Jackasses side with America’s enemies against their country, in repudiating the policy.
“Jimmy J.” has it right. Insurgencies peter out, they don’t end all of a sudden. Watch the briefings by our commanders at the Pentagonchannel.mil or DODvClips.mil They’ll tell you that the insurgents are on the run, but there are a few still out there.
In a famous interview with Charlie Rose, Lt. Col. (Dr) David Kilcullen said that the shortest time it’s ever taken to defeat an insurgency was 10 years. When Rose expressed amazement, Kilcullen explained that it wasn’t 10 years of WWII style fighting, just 10 years until each and every insurgent was captured or killed.
http://www.iht.com/bin/print.php?id=7807571
Kilcullen, if you aren’t aware, was senior counterinsurgency adviser to Gen Petraeus during the height of the surge in 2007.
grackle called it. As a history buff, I also think that Bush will one day be considered a great President. Lefties, their minds generally unsullied by knowledge, do not realize that Lincoln was vitriolically reviled during his entire Presidency, Truman left office with historically low approval ratings, and Reagan was excoriated by the Left during his Administration.
Why? Because they made tough, unpopular decisions that ultimately benefited America. And that’s what Bush did as well. If BO doesn’t screw the pooch entirely in Iraq, but instead ends up as a beacon of democracy and enlightenment in the Muslim world, Bush will ultimately be considered a great President.
/listening for lefties’ heads to explode.
On reflection, I realize I should have said “implode.”
“…the BDS crowd…”
Neoneocon, what’s your take on Bush Derangement Syndrome? As a mental health professional, do you believe that such a syndrome exists? If not, why do you tolerate your commentariate using that term so frequently and easily? Are critics of Obama simply suffering from Obama Derangement Syndrome? Why have you worked so closely with “Dr Sanity,” a supposed mental health professional, who seriously pushed the “Bush Derangement Syndrome” meme and the idea that liberalism is a mental illness?
Thanks!
Critic: Why don’t you try doing a search for those terms on my blog, and see what comes up?
And then of course there’s this.
Dr. Sanity is a highly respected health professional (not a “supposed” one), brilliant woman, fine writer, and a good friend of mine. Is there some sort of requirement that we have to agree on everything?
What history will show is the principle actors of 9/11 refocused on Afghanistan (the war before Iraq that’s still ongoing) after the diversion by Bush in Iraq. And that the situation is more unstable there than ever.
Fine, I say let them “refocus”(read retreat) to remote areas all they want as long as the trade-off is an oil-rich democracy that is a US ally bordering Saudi Arabia, Iran and Syria. As for Afghanistan, US policy should be to simply keep it from becoming a protected terrorist center of operations, as it was before the 9/11-era Taliban regime was destroyed. I’m not overly worried about stability in Afghanistan other than that. Let the Afghanistan warlords run their little kingdoms.
…also, that we weren’t actually attacked by Iraq at the time. And there were no WMDs found.
After 9/11, the folly of a policy of waiting for an attack became all too obvious to many of us, if not the writer. The US waited for an attack and thousands of US citizens paid for that wait with their lives. In my opinion the US cannot afford to follow such a reactive policy.
For me the WMD issue was settled by an event and a fact: the discovery of a nuclear centrifuge buried on the property of an Iraqi Saddam-regime scientist and the revelation that 550 metric tons of yellowcake, probably originally purchased from Nigeria, was ready and waiting for Saddam, courtesy of the feckless International Atomic Energy Agency, as soon as sanctions were lifted. But there were many reasons to topple Saddam, his clear intention of reconstituting his nuclear program being only one of them.
BDS – A uniquely smug, generally politically left-wing, casually self-indulgent form of scapegoating; Lemming like group behaviour, particularly marked by an eagerly shallow and simplistic formulation to the world’s problems for which the group does not want to take personal responsibility, and certainly does not want to admit it’s authentic complexity. It’s corollary or mirror image is the elevation and aggrandizement of an Obama figure. Other examples of similar phenomena: China, Mao, the Cultural Revolution; Russian revolution, Lenin, Stalin, etc.; Germany, National Socialism, Hitler; Venezuela, “socialism”, Hugo Chavez; Global warming hysteria, it’s supporting psuedo-science, Al Gore; Ad nauseum…
ODS – In it’s early gestational phase, exemplified by an enraged reaction to orchestrated and casual violations of significant political campaign legalities, as well as betrayal of the Iraq War effort. Possible partial antidote: Show us the authentic birth certificate and passport records without a court order! Let’s hope that it doesn’t become a constitutional “crisis” requiring the “late-post inaugural” abortion of a fraudulent Obama presidency.
Victory is sweet indeed.
I attended a talk by Evan Thomas during July 2007 in which he asserted, over and over, and without any supporting evidence or even argumentation, that the US had lost in Iraq and victory was impossible. The audience was nodding while I sputtered ineffectually. I would be surprised Thomas or his audience understand any more today about the realities in the world than they did a year ago. Not that they would appreciate being reminded of what they don’t know.
I would like to say that Thomas is a disgrace to Andover and Harvard, but they might be proud of him for all I know.
How the surge worked is still not widely understood, imo. Really understanding it would shed a lot of light on how real people behave in the real world, what works and what doesn’t. Maybe people in the West don’t want to know. It’s more convenient that way.
Oblio,
Mr. Thomas isn’t alone among the long tradition of Harvard grads who slander the nation and root for its enemies. In fact, I would suggest that no other institution in America has done more to turn out graduates who hate their country and love socialism than Harvard.
I have met Harvard grads, when I was a Jesuit seminarian and after I had left the Jesuits, in the business world. I think the Ivy League graduates are overrated and think highly of themselves.
Logern:
“What history will show is the principle actors of 9/11 refocused on Afghanistan after the diversion by Bush in Iraq. And that the situation is more unstable there than ever….also, that we weren’t actually attacked by Iraq at the time….there were no WMDs found….”
…abu Grabass, blah, blah, blah… illegal war for oil, blah, blah, blah…Haliburton, blah, blah blah…shoving democracy down people’s throats, blah, blah, blah…permanent bases, blah, blah, blah…Bush lied, people died, blah, blah, blah…
Anybody else want to jump in and help Logern out? There are thousands of liberal inspired self-defeating slogans and I dont want Logern to fall over dead reciting the entire mind numbing litany.
You know Logern, if you were to be honest you would admit that you’d complain about our efforts in Afghanistan whether or not Iraq existed.
The saying is “You can always tell a Harvard man, but you can’t tell him much.”
I don’t think the issue is really whether Ivy Leaguers are arrogant and over-rated; in general, they are very smart, very polished, and work very hard. The kids I see going to and coming from elite universities almost always got there for good reasons. Not that they should believe their own press! It’s a pity that so many of them end up working at the wrong things.
I am reacting more to the intellectual and moral flabbiness on proud display from the children of the Establishment.
Maybe it’s something in the Charles. Niall Ferguson has gone wobbly since he arrived in Cambridge. Ferguson did better in New York.
Logern doesn’t need links. He knows what went on. He’s just hoping to mislead somebody who is stone-ignorant. Somebody. Anybody.
And, as I’ve said before, lies are easy and refuting is difficult which leaves the refuter running out of gas first.
Logern’s lies may end up being received truth simply because he outlasts the real truth.
“How the surge worked is still not widely understood, imo. Really understanding it would shed a lot of light on how real people behave in the real world, what works and what doesn’t.”
What works: fear, courage to overcome it, tenacity, greasing critically important palms…
A combination of aggressive tactics and strategy, combined with the increasing HUMINT flowing into our military about the enemy’s actions, cells, logistical support, movements, etc. We put in place a “drop a dime” program in 2005 that was also bearing fruit. In fact, it already was as far back as 2006.
Unfortunately, we live in the age of instant gratification with a population here in the U.S. that has no attention span that endures and no aptitude to slug it out in a long fight.
In war the will to prevail is a critical ingredient. If the country lacks the will to stick it to the enemy, then that enemy is going to stick it to us.
Perfected Democrat, I agree with your list, but there is also something to be understood about the calculus of tribal behavior.
The real government of Iraq was never in the Baghdad ministries; it lay with the sheiks and clan leaders. The right analogy from Anglo-Saxon history is probably in the story of how the Highlands of Scotland were pacified after 1688. Without local allies (symbolized by the Campbells and the Black Watch) and events like the Glencoe massacre of 1692, it would never have been achieved. And, of course, there is a lot more to that story as well.
The point is, the people who thought the action was in Baghdad talkfests and documents with sealing wax were badly mistaken. And the Surge tactics (that we know about) were probably a necessary but not sufficient part of the story. The Shia played their role as well. I suspect that the “worsening conditions” that had the Foreign Affairs crowd hot and bothered also played an important role in helping the Sunni sheiks to concentrate their minds.
FredHjr, I think I understand what you trying to say here, but I would not be so quick to make such a blanket assertion because I don’t think that you mean to include those who do have the attention span to understand we are in a long fight and those who not only understand, but have made a commitment to not only delay gratification, but to put themselves in harm’s way to fight it. Not to mention many of the rest of us.
What Logern fails to understand is that after 9/11, a law enforcement approach to counterterrorism became untenable. We had lost too many people at one time to follow the tried-and-true method of letting the crime occur, then seeking to arrest, try, and punish the offenders. The 9/11 attack changed that paradigm. The 19 hijackers all died in the wrecks of their airplanes. The planners were beyond the reach of arrest warrants and extradition treaties. Hence, a far more resolute–and violent–response was needed against al-Qaeda. This meant the military. While the cops certainly have their role to play, and can handle most “traditional” terrorist groups without military assistance (groups like the Basque ETA and November 17 in Greece come to mind), al-Qaeda was being shielded by a rogue government–the Taliban–and called for JDAMs, SpecOps, and AC-130s, not SWAT teams and lawyers.
Now, Logern may ask, what’s this got to do with Iraq? Why did we go into Iraq before the war in Afghanistan was successfully concluded? Fair question. Well, let’s stay on Afghanistan for a minute. By early 2002, Afghanistan had been liberated, and the remaining Taliban had either blended back into the populace (low-level fighters), or fled to Pakistan (the leadership). Yes, we had missed OBL and Zawahiri, but former AQ no. 2 Muhammad Atef was dead, the Taliban regime was gone, and infrastructure that AQ had established in Afghanistan had been destroyed or laid bare and was open to exploitation by Western military and intelligence agencies. Afghan political reform was proving a tougher nut, but that wasn’t a surprise to anyone who knew anything about Afghanistan’s history. So by late 2002, Afghanistan was looking pretty good. Now, not so much. But let’s be clear. The Taliban did not reconstitute itself in Afghanistan. The leadership licked its wounds in Pakistan, out of reach of US forces, then returned to Afghanistan in dribs and drabs, where it reconnected with its sympathizers and low-level fighters who had never left. Ok, back to Iraq.
FredHjr already hit the salient points in some detail, so I won’t repeat what he said. I will emphasize one thing, though. That’s timing. News reports from the late-2002/early-2003 timeframe indicated that Saddam was only months away from wriggling out of the UN sanctions regime and reestablishing his WMD program. Ansar al-Islam, an AQ affiliate that was to become Abu Musab al-Zarqawi’s organization, was already operating in Iraqi-government controlled Kurdish territory. Saddam had already given shelter to other terrorist groups, such as the Abu Nidal Organization, and had used his own agents to attempt the assassination of George Bush senior. He had also used his military forces to shoot at US and British aircraft patrolling the UN-imposed no-fly zones, an act of war that even President Clinton felt compelled to answer militarily in 1998 (Operation Desert Fox). While Saddam did not trust Islamist groups like AQ, and vice-versa, arms-length cooperation could not be ruled out. “The enemy of my enemy” and all that. So time was regarded as being of the essence to eliminate the Saddam threat before it became imminent. GWB said exactly that, although people like Sen. Kennedy twisted his words later and stated that Bush had said the threat was imminent. It wasn’t, but in Bush’s view the paradigm shift brought about by 9/11 required that we preempt threats before they could strike us.
Although I believe there is much to criticize on how the war in Iraq was run, I do not doubt that it was the right move at the time. It removed an implacably hostile actor from the stage permanently (and exposed the rot in the UN in the process), it set the stage for an Arab democracy–however imperfect it may be–in the heart of the Middle East, and it served as a Roach Motel from which far fewer AQ members checked out than had checked in. It handed AQ a catastrophic defeat in a theater it called its main front in its war against the Western infidels, costing them credibility in the Muslim world. It also gave our military and civilian agencies experience in fighting an insurgency, providing some lessons that can be successfully applied in Afghanistan. History will judge, but I believe George W. Bush will be if not another Lincoln, then at least another Truman, someone who got the big things right, who took a lot of heat for it and left office with low ratings, but whose decisions have been largely vindicated over time.
You know Logern, if you were to be honest you would admit that you’d complain about our efforts in Afghanistan whether or not Iraq existed.
Nah. And I’m sure I hold more than enough opinions that you would find reprehensible without having to also make some up.
Neo says: “Ace comments on the victory that has gone nearly unnoticed.”
I would venture to say that the basic truth is that actuality was covered up by the MSM, and willingly disregarded by all the liberal souls who deem themselves holier than the rest of us for repudiating all war in the name of world peace (happy ignorance of the threat which persists and reality of facts on the ground is the thing that provides them with rationale; were they to admit that taking the war to foreign shores kept all of us safer on our own, or that freeing a country to establish it’s own democracy will establish an ally as well as a “beacon of light” that will grow and thrive — and prove to be a model, hopefully, for other nations in that part of the world — would be admitting that they were wrong, and that cannot happen at any cost!)
(It’s exactly the same with the U.N. – they exist but accomplish nothing. They ignore unpleasant realities as the situation in Darfur just as they did Saddam. If they don’t acknowledge, then it just doesn’t exist And they can continue on their merry way, ignoring the regular bombings round the world which evidence the continued threat from Extremist Muslim terrorists. They are much happier playing “U.N.” and issuing meaningless resolutions and congratulating one another, while excoriating George Bush as a warmonger; renouncing Guantanamo, while welcoming respected human rights paragons like Ahmadinejad and Chavez….”
(Will be interesting to see how/if they deal with the Somali piracy now growing to extremes. Will they acknowledge it as a looming danger to all, or will they just tell the Saudis to pay the ransoms and keep quiet — and then return to business as usual?
(Somewhat amusingly, there appeared in today’s WSJ an Op-Ed by George Clooney with David Presman (a human rights lawyer) and John Prendergast — all co-founders of international advocacy organization “Not On Our Watch.” The title of said article was “Obama’s Opportunity to Help Africa.” It’s OK to denounce and criticize our President’s own efforts to protect our country and its people. And while we currently struggle with the unexpected economic implosion whose extent no one yet can determine, it is clear where these liberals’ priorities are. Need I say more?
“The kids I see going to and coming from elite universities almost always got there for good reasons.”
Yeah, the guy from my tiny New Mexico high school with the “D” average got the full ride scholarship to Harvard because he had the last name of Lopez…and was flunked out by the second semester. I was valedictorian, and got a subscription to Reader’s Digest.
What Logern fails to understand is that after 9/11, a law enforcement approach to counterterrorism became untenable.
Actually, the lesson from 9/11 was that resources and focus on terrorism by our intelligence and law enforcement agencies wasn’t adequate at the time.
It was true we had to follow the instigators, because of this failure — but that leads directly to Afghanistan not Iraq.
Furthermore, the Talaban and Al-q weren’t particularly strengthend by 9/11. There were reports out of Pakistan, including the tribal areas that were sympathetic to “revenge” for what bin Laden did.
However, Iraq was a recruiting silver platter handed to Al-q which they were able to use for years. I’ve no doubt we killed existing Al-q members, and I’ve no doubt we killed many more Muslims who would have been just as happy praying 5 times a day, until they were radicalized by what they perceived as a crusader encroachment.
Bush threw gasoline on a fire, and when you do that you get a bigger badder fire. Then we’re suppose to give him credit for putting it out. Bah!
Whilst I share Neo’s view that Iraq is broadly secure at present, it is still entirely possible for the incoming Obama administration to destroy that situation and restore chaos, by an over hasty and well advertised withdrawal. I fervently hope and pray that this will not occur, but if it does, those responsible must be held to account, at least in the blogosphere, if not elsewhere.
It is not difficult to predict the ensuing analysis in the mainstream media, informed by the near universal Bush Derangement Syndrome. In a nutshell, if Obama destroys Iraqi security with ill judged, politically motivated command decisions, the mainstream media will blame Bush.
That analysis should be challenged noisily.
As has been mentioned elsewhere, the Left principally hates Bush because he had the temerity to deploy US troops, in the US national interest, without the imprimatur of the UN. In so doing he changed the terms of the conflict between the free world and Jihadism and physically set the Jihad back by years. Those who value freedom everywhere owe him a huge debt of gratitude for that. For the Left, the Bush Doctrine cannot be allowed to stand, and failure in Iraq, laid at Bush’s door, would allow the Bush Doctrine to be further undermined.
Victory in Iraq day is a very good idea. It will offer some sense of national gratitude to veterans, which may not have been apparent to all in the US, and is virtually absent in the UK. It will also serve the purpose of underlining the stability now enjoyed in that country, and make clear that at this point in history, a stable democratic Iraq was in sight, whatever may occur in the future.
“Actually, the lesson from 9/11 was that resources and focus on terrorism by our intelligence and law enforcement agencies wasn’t adequate at the time”.
At the working level, these agencies were focused on terrorism, particularly the intelligence agencies. The 9/11 Commission was clear that the failure wasn’t one of effort. It was the direction of that effort, especially the hqs-level coordination that was lacking, i.e., the Washington part of the equation. Part of that was due to “Gorelick’s Wall”, which stipulated a level of separation between intelligence and criminal investigation greater than required by law (she said it, not me), and was still in existence during the early days of the Bush administration. It was not the only problem, of course, but it didn’t help.
You’re dreaming if you think there was ever any sympathy for the US in the tribal areas of Pakistan. There may have been tribes clamoring for revenge against AQ, but guar-an-teed that there was a preexisting grudge for something that AQ did to them; the attacks were just an excuse. We’ve been the Great Satan there for many years, long before 9/11. The 9/11 attack was roundly cheered over there, and many brainwashed would-be jihadis were dispatched into Afghanistan from their madrassas to assist their Taliban “brothers” once the US attacks began. Many of these cannon-fodder kids never came home.
You can make a reasonable argument that the Iraq war was the wrong war at the wrong time. But consider this: Far from being “contained”, as many on the left like to say, Saddam was gaining strength and only months away from slipping his already-frayed UN leash. While it is far from certain that he would have directly aided AQ, (my personal view is that he would have kept his distance, assisting only where he could be sure of plausible denial), his unhindered reemergence on the scene would have complicated our efforts to fight AQ anywhere.
Why did Muslims–typically Arabs–who you say just wanted to stay home and pray 5 times a day come to Iraq instead? In part, logistics. Afghanistan is not an especially easy place to travel to or in, and both Pakistan and Iran tightened their border controls in the days after 9/11. Iraq was closer, there was no language barrier, and there was more of an affinity for fellow Arabs instead of those rather strange Pashtuns. But make no mistake, those who fought us in Iraq didn’t suddenly hate us because we invaded Iraq and toppled Saddam. The radicalization process has been going on for many years, fanned every day in schools and madrassas, every Friday in many mosques, and in government-controlled newspapers. The US has had a PR problem in the Muslim world since at least 1948, when Truman recognized Israel in its first hour of existence. The chaos of the Iraq invasion (one of the criticisms I have of how it was handled) gave Muslims who hated the US the opportunity to strike us that they didn’t have before.
Furthermore, the Talaban and Al-q weren’t particularly strengthend by 9/11.
I guess that’s why there was joyous universal celebration and dancing in the streets throughout the Islamic world after 9/11, because bin Laden was so unpopular, right?
However, Iraq was a recruiting silver platter handed to Al-q which they were able to use for years.
Bush threw gasoline on a fire, and when you do that you get a bigger badder fire. Then we’re suppose to give him credit for putting it out.
Bush threw gasoline on a fire in the same sense that FDR in WW2 threw gasoline on a fire, namely, fighting back against those who want to destroy the US. The writer would have the US do nothing about terrorism. Why? Because to take action(instead of waiting like lambs at the slaughterhouse for the next act of terrorism) would upset nice Muslims and cause them to become terrorists. What rubbish.
FDR threw gasoline on the Nazi fire during WW2. In the end all the Nazis, including Germans recruited to Nazism by the US’s naughty declaration of war against Germany, were consumed by that particular fire. Truman ignited an even “bigger badder” fire on the heads of the Japanese. Only after being badly burned by Truman’s gasoline did the Japanese surrender.
Terrorism Is The Fault Of The US is the most cherished meme of the apologists, second only to the US Creates Troublesome Despots meme.
waltj and English patriot,
Since I am a veteran of the Left (I left the Marxist fold back in 1987) I know the great efforts they exert to revise the narrative, and that they will use their skills at revisionism and using their monopoly of the bully pulpits. So, the Bush Doctrine will be thoroughly trashed by these people, even to the point of greatly distorting the reality and twisting the facts. None of it should be shocking to anyone. It’s their stock in trade. Trust me, as you guys have commented above, they will use all of their means to distort the Bush Doctrine and make it fit their narrative of defeat.
The purpose of the Bush Doctrine was to bolster and elevate our deterrence posture vis-a-vis the Islamic world. The opponents of that doctrine want to return to the world of the cops and robbers game, with all the prior rules that tend to favor the criminals.
The awful tragedy of it all is the fact that it would seem that most Americans’ resolve has been completely eroded by the constant drumbeat of the Left’s propaganda. Clearly, only reality will disabuse people of that fiction. I don’t want it to happen, but am resigned to the fact that it will have to happen before we are truly able to defend our civilization from this 7th century savage cult. Believe me, if we suffer another catastrophic attack I will not be celebrating, but in the back of my mind I will be thinking that it’s our own damn fault and another lesson was needed.
For the REAL “Bush Doctrine” see this by Charles Krauthammer in the Washington Post – he was the one who coined the term “Bush Doctrine”:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/12/AR2008091202457.html
FredHjr correctly points to “control of the narrative” as the central front in the struggle. Sometimes it takes a refugee (or should I say defector) to explain what is really happening.
as tons of yellowcake were discovered and shipped out of the country with no major press reports made.
Yes that right but that not depleted yellowcake is in fact from Iraqi land and it is from Iraq resources not imported from outside.
Logern:
“It was true we had to follow the instigators, because of this failure – but that leads directly to Afghanistan not Iraq.”
{Sigh}
Look, this country has had that debate prior to kicking off Iraq. Approved by many leading democrat lawmakers at the time.
This was billed as part of the war on terror. (not “The War on the Select Few”). I dont see how it didnt fit. Besides that point, the Bush doctrine on Iraq was nothing more that the realization of the Clinton doctrine. You might recall a little something called the “Iraq Liberation Act”.
”
However, Iraq was a recruiting silver platter handed to Al-q which they were able to use for years”
And? I dont see what difference that made.
“I’ve no doubt we killed existing Al-q members, and I’ve no doubt we killed many more Muslims who would have been just as happy praying 5 times a day, until they were radicalized by what they perceived as a crusader encroachment.”
Nope. Still not seeing a reason to object here. Actually, Im not seeing a relative point here! So what?
Liberals tend to be cowed into inaction or prompted into action on what they think other people will think of them. Its a fool’s errand. If you’re all concerned with perception, you might consider that we are no longer considered toothless in the face of violent bullying. How’s that? You might consider the new perception of a nation willing to stick with its principals despite adversity. I think those are just as important for people who’s over-riding concern is what other people will think of them.
Truth:
“Yes that right but that not depleted yellowcake is in fact from Iraqi land and it is from Iraq resources not imported from outside.”
Here comes another guy with an irrelevant point. As if the origin of Iraqi yellowcake uranium made a difference.
Yes that right but that not depleted yellowcake is in fact from Iraqi land and it is from Iraq resources not imported from outside.
I think it unlikely that the mine at Akashat produced 550 metric tons of yellowcake. The reports I’ve read talk about less than 200 tons. But let’s pretend the writer’s assertion is true. It still means that Saddam was bent on nuking up. Produce it at home, buy it from Niger – neither circumstance helps the apologists’ argument.
Liberals tend to be cowed into inaction or prompted into action on what they think other people will think of them.
Yeah, I post for all the love I get here. It’s like unwilling prison love, true, but it’s love none the less.
Actually, why are you here Logern? What are you supposed to get from this exchange?
Logern,
The problem is that many of us here get different information and interpretation of these events than you get. Welcome to the new reality: because the journalism profession now hews to the “advocacy journalism” that’s taught in the major grad j-schools, the Big Media carries the water for the Democrats and the Far Left. They hate Boooosh. The hate Israel and da Joooos. They despise the U.S. military. They feel sorry for dose poor, poor jihadis. 9/11 was an inside job where the CIA and the Pentagon crashed the towers and killed our citizens. Blood for oil. Bushitler. Cheney’s a war criminal. On and on and on…
Well, some of us simply do not believe the narratives coming from that quarter. Some of us even know members of the military who have served in both Iraq and Afghanistan. We have decided to get our stories, information, and analysis from other places. And we’ve found those to be more reliable and deeper in knowledge.
I don’t trust the Left. I don’t believe the Left. I’ve caught them in so many lies and in so much bad faith that I’ve burned that bridge and am never going back.
Sometimes it’s interesting.
***In another world and time, this war would have been lauded as one of the least brutal in history, although it was fought against some of the most brutal of opponents–Saddam Hussein, the insurgents, and al Qaeda.***
You forgot the most vicious enemy of them all:
The democrat party.
as one of the least brutal in history,
It miegh be in the eyes all the time belives in rightness.
Nevertheless, let do reed some nots:
– Saddam killed millions in 25 years…. Due to 2003 war, One millions killed almost (ORB Survey Jan 2008)
– In one year, 9.0 Billions vanished from Iraqi money by US appointed Sheikh, in 25 years Billions of Iraq wasted during Tyrant Saddam.
Truth,
Let’s roll back to pre-Revolutionary War times using your logic. 🙂
Only for you though. You like ? 🙂
Your points are debatable but what’s the point? You won’t listen. So… Live the platitudes !!! Peace Man !@
Salaam Aleikum! “Truth” Allahu Ahkbar!
Superbly put, English patriot.
Despite his demonization by the left, it is becoming increasingly apparent that, despite all his bumbling, miscues, malapropism, and assorted blunders, Bush will one day be considered at least a near-great President for having taken and seen through a tough, unpopular decision that was in the best interests of America, and indeed all Western civilization.
Twenty years from now, when (assuming Obama doesn’t falter) Iraq is a free, democratic, pluralistic country in the heart of the Middle East, this will be the received wisdom re Bush.
And when will the Left in America be seen for what it is?
If historians are honest, their review of Pres. Boooosh will reflect justly upon him and his accomplishments. But it might not happen, given how completely penetrated academic historians are by the socialists.
Someone needs to tell the truth about the Left in America. It very urgently needs to be done.
what’s the point? You won’t listen. So… Live the platitudes !!! Peace Man !@……
Dependepend which half of cup you look at.
We looking to the same cup but each one look what he likes to see and to tell:
So the face of the freedom and democracy Iraq:
This is the relity on the ground now from your news not mine, not Truth thinking all thier , but you do’nt listen to it all the time.
Delete! Delete! Delete! (Undelete)
If historians are honest, their review of Pres. Boooosh will reflect justly upon him and his accomplishments. But it might not happen, given how completely penetrated academic historians are by the socialists.
Well, there’s always Conservapedia
http://www.conservapedia.com/George_W_Bush
Twenty years from now, when (assuming Obama doesn’t falter) Iraq is a free, democratic, pluralistic country in the heart of the Middle East, this will be the received wisdom re Bush.
It could be that no matter what happens in Iraq after Obama takes office Bush will be historically credited with winning the Iraq War. I believe future historians may have to concede that at this point in time the war was won. After becoming President if Obama mismanages the US troop withdrawals or some other aspect of the war to the point that Iraq again descends into chaos then Obama could become the goat of historians.
Let’s all hope Obama is brilliant enough to realize that in Iraq Bush has given him a wonderful inauguration gift. If Obama spurns that gift I predict history will judge harshly. With a stable Iraq added to US Middle Eastern allies Iran and Syria are diminished and Obama, if he wants to, may be able to accomplish something for the good in the Middle East.
An Israeli strike to cripple Iran’s nuclear infrastructure would be another gift that if I were Obama I would certainly enjoy receiving.
All we can do is wait to see what Obama does after taking office. All this talk and punditry is for naught for now. I didn’t vote for him but I’m willing to give the man a chance to prove his mettle.
“Then he waited, marshalling his thoughts and brooding over his still untested powers. For though he was master of the world, he was not quite sure what to do next. But he would think of something.”
2001: A Space Odyssey
grackle, agreed.
My proviso about Obama not screwing up Iraq was predicated on the assumption that historians/ pundits tend strongly left, and therefore will if possible blame anything in the next generation on Bush. On any honest assessment Bush deserves props for winning the Iraq War; whether he gets them or not remains to be seen. After all, by many accounts Nixon effectively won the Vietnam War, and yet has never received credit.
Re Obama, I too am willing to give him a chance, and am greatly heartened by his recent appointments. I’d feared a remake of the Carter Administration, when being completely devoid of adult judgment was an absolute prerequisite to consideration for a job. The gnashing of teeth on the unhinged Left gives me hope that Obama may be better (perhaps much better) than I’d thought possible two weeks ago.
Twenty years from now, when (assuming Obama doesn’t falter) Iraq is a free, democratic, pluralistic country in the heart of the Middle East, this will be the received wisdom re Bush.As if the origin of Iraqi yellowcake uranium made a difference.
The origin of Iraqi yellowcake uranium made no difference, yes that not make difference because it’s a lie believed by lairs
No evidence justifying sending troops to Iraq: former ADF chief
A Consumer’s Paradise of War
I do not remember V-day celebration in Russia about winning Chechen war, too, while nobody has any doubt that it has been won absolutely. Some shit still happens: a few terrorist attacks, a half dozen of policemen killed a year; but shit happens everywhere on this scale. And yes, it took around a decade to accomplish, with all events and tactic like Black Watch and the Glencoe massacre of 1692. Chechens are tribal, with highland clans (most belligerent) and low-land clans, so to use low-land clans as allies against highlanders was an evident option.
No surprise that the same people who said we had won the Iraq war back in 2004 still think we’ve won it. They’ve never admitted that it hadn’t been won, so it’s no surprise they would miss the ironic giveaway of picking a day arbitrarily to declare victory, once and for all (though even they admit it could easily be reversed.)
A more reasonable definition of victory would put the results of the war so far into historical context.
Firstly, this was not an existential war.
In an existential war, survival and/or the opponents demise as an opponent is victory.
But survival was never the goal of this war, as Saddam’s Iraq never posed anything close to an existential threat to the U.S.
Rather, the goal was to elminate the WMDs, which were pitched as a quasi/potential existential threat.
Once it was demonstrated at extremely great length that there were no such WMD, the rationale for the war — and with it the definition of victory — shifted to liberating the Iraqi people and forming a beachhead of democracy/bulwark against theocracy.
The latter has yet to be achieved, so no victory or, at the very best, only a partial victory/partial loss with potential for full victory or, indeed, full loss in the mid- to long-term.
And even if real democracy had been established in Iraq — rather than the dysfunctional version now in place — a declaration of victory would not be that simple.
That’s because in non-existential wars, the costs have to be tallied along with the benefits. In an existential war, costs are self-evidently irrelevant. You do whatever it takes to survive.
But in a war that is rationalized as a geopolitical engineering project, the costs must be weighed against the benefits — and EVERYTHING counts.
The damage to U.S. military credibility alone is enough to declare this war a failure, regardless of the final outcome. But add to that the damage to the U.S. reputation as a responsible international party with global interests and a global mindset, and you’re even more assured it is a lost cause.
Then there’s the money, all that death and destruction and the enhancement of Iran’s regional sway.
Given all those costs, the benefits just don’t add up to a victory.
Nation-building in Iraq was not a goal in itself, but a means to fight insurgency (at least, for Gen. Petreus, even if not for G.Bush). Since the latter goal is achieved, the possible failure of the former is not of much relevance. Iraq is only one of the theaters of a wider, global war, which still lies ahead, and victory here is as important as Midway or Iwa Jima victories in WWII. We have not yet reach the stage at which Hiroshima decision need to be made; but with each new uranium enrichment centrifuge installed in Iran we approach it.
Bogey, your assertion that Iraq war was not existential is true only if viewed as isolated event, but in reality it is not such, but a part of centuries old existential struggle between European Christian civilization and Islamic global conquest, and our enemies are right in seeing it this way.
In this decades long perspective continental Europe already capitulated, it is colonized by Muslims at accelerated rate, and Brussell’s pseudo-government is as collaborationist as Vishy. The only hope for the West – at this century, embodied by USA – to win is to pool resources with Islam’s ancient enemies: India, China and Russia.
Sorry Sergey, but Islam at large has never posed an existential threat to the U.S.
Part of the unfolding tragedy in the Iraq war was that so many Americans were led to believe that it was in fact an attack on Islam at large when, as it happened, the war turned out to be WITHIN Islam, with an insurgency playing Sunni against Shia, rather than both against Christendom.
And even if your view of a long-running theocratic war were valid, that too puts the lie to the ludicrous notion that we have won.
Radical Islam isn’t in the process of gaining footholds in the West as much as it’s on the way to losing them in the Middle East.
The movement has given way largely to fake religious gangsters. In bin Laden’s case, he mostly picked up the assorted kingpins of the Afghan trucking/smuggling mafia and gave them a more subtle, sophisticated organizing principle. These people rape children, steal what they like and execute prisoners on a whim. They exhibit classic gangster behavior with no links whatsoever to Islam, other than the ones they falsely claim for themselves.
These kinds of groups will always pose a public safety hazard. That is a matter of technology and the vulnerability of free societies, not of theology. By the same token, terrorists will never pose an existential threat because they are too self-destructive. Their tactics define weakness, not strength.
From the just out Global Trends Report (produced every four years by the National Intelligence Council, which represents all 16 American intelligence agencies))
“The appeal of terrorism is waning,” said Mathew J. Burrows, head of long-range analysis in the office of the director of national intelligence and a lead author of “Global Trends 2025: A Transformed World.” Mr. Burrows said polls and anecdotal evidence strongly suggested disillusionment among Muslims with Al Qaeda…
Al Qaeda has not achieved broad support in the Islamic world,” the report said. “Its harsh pan-Islamist ideology and policies appeal only to a tiny minority of Muslims.”
They must have someone like McHitlerburtonstein doing their image consulting. What people think of you doesn’t matter…the motto is.
By the same token, terrorists will never pose an existential threat because they are too self-destructive. Their tactics define weakness, not strength.
The writer is evidently unaware of the extreme danger to the US that the terrorists represent.
It wouldn’t take a high level of technology to destroy an industrialized nation’s economy. One EMP weapon, if it were loaded with enough fissionable material could do it.
If I were a terrorist with friendly contacts with a nuclearized hostile Islamic state and were able to obtain the necessary material I would fire one missile a few miles off the East coast of the US. A normal looking freighter vessel could easily be rigged to do it. The US missile defense system is designed to intercept missiles coming in on a high arc from across an ocean or the poles, not a single missile aimed straight up off the US coast.
It would be relatively simple and low-tech, not requiring a complex missile delivery system to pull off. The missile could be set to detonate at, say, 200 miles up, no need to ‘aim.’ The EMT effect would cover a circle of area hundreds of miles inside the US. All electrical activity within that area would cease to function. No phones, vehicles, television, computers or radios would operate, their electrical insides fried by the EMP effect. Refrigerated food would rot in the warehouse, potable water out of the tap would be nonexistent.
The level of loss of life would be unimaginable – not from the explosion, which would take only a relatively few lives immediately under the detonation. Your only hope under such a scenario would be to gather as much bottled water and canned goods as possible and try to walk out. Good luck, since the police and military would be beside the point and probably hard pressed merely to survive themselves. It would be every man, woman and child fending for themselves. One can easily envision marauding bands of murdering looters.
No nation, certainly not the US, has any agency or combination of agencies, that could deal with a catastrophe of this size. The US economy, two thirds of which is tied to consumer goods, would no doubt be dealt a fatal blow. Currency across the US could become useless. Bankruptcy actions would be unnecessary – a quaint memory, as would the stock market. It would make the Great Depression or the present economic situation look like a picnic.
I do not know what a US President would do under this circumstance but if I were President and it happened while I was in office certain nations in the Middle East would become little more than goat pastures for the next fifty to a hundred years. Damascus, Tehran, Palestine and other terrorist centers would become radioactive rubble, as would Mecca and Medina. I would assume that the Saudis and other oil producing nations would ‘see the light’ and pump oil as if their lives depended on it – as it surely would since energy would be at a premium and I would be in no mood to ‘appease.’
The enemy at this very moment is gaining the capacity do these and other catastrophic deeds. They make no secret of their intentions and yearn for martyrdom as a reward for their perfidy. Every day we continue a reactive appeasement type of foreign policy brings such an event closer to reality.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_pulse#Modern_scenarios
And we have historical precedent. Islam originally spread through the world by gentle persuasion, and the uplifting example its adherents showed to their neighbors.
Yes, even for impressionable, romantic dimwits there’s something about joining the movement, fetching up in Iraq, and having a life expectancy measured in hours that takes the luster off of terrorism. For that we can thank George Bush opening his “72 virgin match-making service.”
Disillusionment. Disillusionment? Disillusionment?? What does disillusionment have to do with anything? Don’t you suppose Russians were disillusioned with the Soviet model by about the time of, say, the New Economic Program? Could Germans have become a tad disillusioned with National Socialism before 1945? Could North Koreans possibly be just a little disillusioned with Juche by now? Even more apposite, don’t you figure the bloom was off the Baathist rose long before we clipped it off?
We’re not talking about democracy here. Disillusionment with Al Qaeda doesn’t mean they’re going to lose the next election.
The point is that if you’re ruthless and brutal enough to seize and exercise power, you can always recruit enough opportunists to keep you in power, because even if most people are disillusioned with you, they’ll keep that little nugget to themselves if they know what’s good for them.
No surprise either that the people who’ve been hoping we lose this war still hold out hope. Chin up, comrade!
sophism: a deliberately invalid argument displaying ingenuity in reasoning in the hope of deceiving someone
You and comrades still have hope that we may lose. They’re praying fervently every night. Well, not praying exactly, but you know what I mean. Keep a good thought!
Yeah, they have a dysfunctional democracy, not a nice clean one like Chicago.
casuistry: argumentation that is specious or excessively subtle and intended to be misleading
On planet Earth, U.S. military credibility is sky-high. The largest armed force in the Middle East annihilated in three weeks, and its leader hanged. Sets a fella (fellahin?) to thinking, it does…which is why, for example, Khaddaffi owned up to the IAEA about its own nuclear weapons program. He realized that Libya (a nation of three million clustered along the coast) would barely be a weekend training exercise for the Marine Corps. No Beach Out of Reach, and all that.
Wait — are you saying that Europeans (voice catches) won’t sign our yearbook? Oh no. How can we carry on without the approval of those operators of the theme parks that they call countries? For my part, I’m worried about what Bolivia thinks, because as everyone knows, as Bolivia goes, so goes Uruguay.
The Party teaches us that Ahmadinejad’s Iran doesn’t pose “anything close to an existential threat to the U.S.” Stop mongering the politics of hate and fear.
If Bogey man believes that the Jihad does not pose an existential threat to the US, he must either imagine that the jihadist could never obtain highly destructive weapons, or that he would choose not to use them.
Graham Allyson’s excellent work ‘Nuclear Terrorism’ should disabuse the dispassionate reader of the first of these attitudes. A short scan of jihadist literature, a quick reflection on the attacks already made, and a reminder of the theological justification for violence, should do for the second. The man who believes that true life begins at death, and that all his enemies are evil and deserve to die, does not hesitate to kill, nor indeed to die trying.
There is however a less obvious, but equally existential threat, posed by Jihadism.
Grackle describes a horrifying scenario, but the violence does not have to be this extreme to have a profound effect. Consider a well executed attack, with a contaminated device, from an organisation with no return address. Imagine that this is followed by credible threats of further attacks, delivered to western governments. Recognise the current popularity of the appeasement posture, and the regularity with which western governments have appeased Palestinian terrorists over the years, and then ask yourself which western governments would have the courage to resist the jihadists demands?
Such demands might even start covertly and gently – a bit of Shari’a here and there in the banking system, recognition of the legitimacy of polygamous unions in the tax code, influencing the school curriculum, soft policing of criminally inflammatory jihadist protests against ‘those who insult Islam’, a law against incitement to religious hatred which can easily be used to silence legitimate criticism of Islamism. Step up a gear and instruct the compliant government to adopt a more authoritarian attitude, perhaps compulsory ID cards or prolonged detention without charge, then use the new powers to restrict any criticism of the jihad……wait a moment, this is starting to sound a bit like somewhere I know….has Bogey ever been to Londonistan?
The jihadist does not need to kill many in order to terrorise all, and thereby to destroy our liberty. This defeat is already foreshadowed and could be so very much worse. The threat need not be to exterminate every man, woman and child, for it to be an existential threat to a free society. Jihadism poses just such a threat.
Another excellent post, English patriot.
To our erstwhile interlocutor’s point about “existential threats,” is there any doubt that had he lived 70 years ago he’d have argued that Germany, Japan, and Italy hardly posed existential threats to the US?
And he’d be right, of course, in the simple-minded sense that SS Panzer divisions wouldn’t have rumbled through Indianopolis, and the Kampei Tai wouldn’t have been patrolling San Francisco.
But in the broader sense, attacks on our values and way of life constitute an existential threat regardless of the presence or absence of physical occupation.
We’re not talking about democracy here. Disillusionment with Al Qaeda doesn’t mean they’re going to lose the next election.
People still make wrong interpretations in regards to two different things here.
Al Qaeda its not Islam faith or religion, this is very important to put things right. For some they worked hard to built a case and mix them for their self necessities and benefits.
You all had heard the Iraq war with all the piles of cases that built before the war then we weak up those case one by one fallen down and there are no bases for them.
If people keep call all Muslims whoever with or against Al Qaeda despite their graveness from their internal regimes and polices call them all as enemies of western world, the west should think about them in right way. They are just normal people looking forward to the bright side of life; they are not Al Qaeda members will not be you enemy they will never accepting to be treated like your enemy.
Otherwise then you force some (not all of them) to be full with anger against the west although may have far differences with Al Qaeda and I believes you do not like to be treated as enemy by them.
Your analogy of Islamic historical precedent it’s as same as Cursed and their historical precedent, or the Chinese also Japanese.
I think all comes to one major factor which strategic befits and control of the world. Today and before 5000 years its same killing more people invade and hold the land and that history repeats it’s self over and over.
Having now performed a Fourier transform on your post in an attempt to understand it, let me make a few points.
No one thinks all Muslims are in Al Qaeda, or that all Muslims are terrorists. No one even thinks that many Muslims fall in either category.
That’s the good news. The bad news is that, given suitable commitment and ruthlessness, it doesn’t take that large a proportion of the population to control the rest.
Not that many Germans were committed Nazis (as opposed to mere Party members, as required for many jobs). Similarly with Communist Party members in the USSR (sergey, correct me if I’m wrong).
(In both cases, I’m talking about serious, hardcore adherents, not those that played rhythm guitar to get along.)
But a small, hardcore, disciplined, and ruthless group can control a large population unless that population rejects them, which is what Islamic society needs to do to Al Qaeda and terrorism.
unless that population rejects them, which is what Islamic society needs to do to Al Qaeda and terrorism.
They did and do, it’s a proven fact in Iraq and in another places.
Al Qaeda was not in Iraq; Al Qaeda had never been have foots in Iraq before 2003.
They came with US. When Paul Bremer warned by Iraqis dismantled Iraqi military and police forces, he replied to them “we are her to fight tem on this land”!!
After five years, those 200 or so Al Qaeda members caught in Iraq returned to their state on claim they rehabilitate them.
Nevertheless, Iraqis who oppose US invasion been killed and tortured even their family members hold and detained to get them surrender.
The obvious reality is that from 2001 until now with 50Mil price tag for the head OBL, US “the super power” and its allies did not get him and you asked Muslim world who is powerless nation with tyrant regimes to do some thing, is it funny ask here.
Btw, Why US left OBL’s Son touring here and there free spending massive money also those OBL’s wife are living in different courtiers free with massive money.
The wise thing to do here is hold them all, detained them and see what will come after that.
Then there’s the money, all that death and destruction and the enhancement of Iran’s regional sway
U.S. alone critical of Syria at Iraq conference
Saudi Arabia’s successful experience in combating violent extremism using an unconventional “soft” rehabilitation strategy
laughable , just last month one shiek issut fatwa to kill MickyMouse, before that anothers fatwa to kill those who respomsibel for Stalaite TV in arab world, the more obvouse one:
BAE and Saudi
As Grackle explains at length, the threat to America’s public safety is a matter of technology, not ideology and certainly not military capacity.
As he explains, it is a relatively simple matter to deliver a weapon of mass destruction.
Therefore, no amount of military domination can prevent such attacks.
The question then, is how best to limit the prospects for such attacks.
The data so far show that intelligence gathering and conventional public security and safety measures — airport and border checks — are the best method.
The experience in Iraq demonstrates beyond a shadow of a doubt that military invasions create more opportunities for terrorists than they destroy.
At present, radical Islam relies almost exclusively on failed states to provide the conditions needed for its survival. It does operate within some non-failed states, but in limited ways that, by definition, limit the prospects for mass terrorism.
The question is not whether the threat is serious. Of course it is. At issue here is the nature of the threat. Many on this blog want to pretend that the threat is similar or even exactly like, that posed by the Axis powers in WWII.
But, as Grackle explained, the technology has redefined the terrain. In WWII, there was no way any state or sub-state grouping could deliver a weapon of mass destruction to the U.S. The only credible military threat came at that time from established states with the industrial might to field mechanized armies.
Those sort of threats still exist, with a rapidly arming China and revanchist Russia posing significant and potentially existential threats to the U.S. that must be considered as regards any geopolitics, including, of course the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
It’s telling, as well, that Sergey believes Russia has defeated the Chechens. He may well be correct and, if so, that’s more evidence that the concept of global radical Islam is hogwash. Under the global Islam theory, the Chechens are merely pawns under the sway of Al Qaeda or, perhaps, the Saudis, or maybe its the Iranian mullahs (these theorists never actually get into details.)
So the fact that Russia subdued Chechnya, and created the Putin autocracy in the process, shows that the idea of a global, integral Islamic threat is hogwash. It also shows how chimerical any such victory is.
Terrorism is a tactic, not an ideology or religion or race or military grouping. It will always be with us. There were always be the technological means to create mass destruction, and so, it will always remain a threat.
The answer to the question at hand:　have we won the war in Iraq, is obvious. We have not.
As others have pointed out here, MILLIONS of middle- and upper-middle-class Iraqis have fled the country and haven’t returned.
Baghdad is a divided city, ethnically cleansed and literally walled off between Shia and Sunni.
Kurdistan has yet to agree on a platform for sharing oil revenue and has yet to integrate its military forces into the Iraqi national military.
The only difference between today and one year ago, when the killing was at its peak, is that the ethnic war has killed itself out.
The U.S. deftly reversed its policies of not negotiating with insurgents and promptly put some of those same insurgents on its payroll to combat Al Qaeda. A smart move, but wrapped in a dumb war.
Sorry, but this war will always be a loser, because you have to set its costs next to its benefits.
That’s of course debatable, but to do so, you have to start by giving a reasonable, complete accounting of the costs as of today with the benefits as of today — not some dream about what may be decades from now.
Nonsense. Total, utter nonsense. What this establishes beyond a doubt is that you’re not paying attention, and are much given to unsupported, conclusory statements.
It’s just not serious enough to do anything about, that’s all.
I defer to your obviously great experience with hogwash, but this is a new low. You’re arguing this both ways, in an intellectually dishonest fashion. If the Russians didn’t defeat the Chechens, then it shows that military invasions are pointless. If they did defeat them, then it shows that global radical Islam is hogwash.
What conceivable outcome in your value system would have shown that a military invasion defeated a threat from global radical Islam?
That’s very good. Did you just figure out by yourself? It’s also a very facile, and completely pointless, observation. Crime will always be with us too, so perhaps we should just let it be too.
Wrong. We have. The terrorists, communist agitators, liberals, and you, have lost. America has won.
Even if one were to accept this assertion, so what?
See? There is good news after all.
Again, I have to defer to your firsthand knowledge re losers, but by historical standards this war was cheap. Dirt cheap. Wal-Mart cheap. We lost more men in the hour of Antietam than we have in this entire war. A stable, peaceful, prosperous and democratic Iraq has an incalculable worth.
Maybe we should invade Chicago or Detroit next, and clean them out. They need it, God knows.
As Grackle explains at length, the threat to America’s public safety is a matter of technology, not ideology and certainly not military capacity.
As he explains, it is a relatively simple matter to deliver a weapon of mass destruction.
Therefore, no amount of military domination can prevent such attacks.
The only folks who would be inclined to launch an EMP bomb to destroy the US are trained, supplied and used as surrogates by Iran and Syria. Military domination, namely destroying nuclear technology on the ground in these two states, can certainly work – as it has worked with Israel’s recent destruction of the Syrian nuclear works. Therefore, claiming “no amount of military domination can prevent such attacks” is just flat wrong.
The question then, is how best to limit the prospects for such attacks.
The data so far show that intelligence gathering and conventional public security and safety measures – airport and border checks – are the best method.
How are “airport and border checks” going to prevent a obscure freighter 55 miles off the East coast of the US from firing a missile into the airspace 200 miles over the US? Common sense dictates that “airport and border checks” are worthless against this type of weapon. These folks would NOT be checking in at an airport or a border. The writer needs to reconsider his logic.
The experience in Iraq demonstrates beyond a shadow of a doubt that military invasions create more opportunities for terrorists than they destroy.
The terrorists have had their asses handed to them in Iraq. I say it would be a good thing if EVERY terrorist in the world went into Iraq, where they would have the “opportunity” to be killed.
At present, radical Islam relies almost exclusively on failed states to provide the conditions needed for its survival. It does operate within some non-failed states, but in limited ways that, by definition, limit the prospects for mass terrorism.
What’s the point here? That ONLY “failed states” would pose a threat? And who are these “non-failed states?” Iran? Syria? These two states are “non-failed.” Does the writer really believe that Iran would NOT destroy America, given the chance? The writer does not care to explain(these theorists never actually get into details), but if he does think these two states pose no threat then he must be very, very naive. Wake up and smell the EMP.
Many on this blog want to pretend that the threat is similar or even exactly like, that posed by the Axis powers in WWII.
But, as Grackle explained, the technology has redefined the terrain. In WWII, there was no way any state or sub-state grouping could deliver a weapon of mass destruction to the U.S.
Does the writer know that both Germany and Japan were working on their own WMD during WW2? That it would have been just a matter of time before they perfected and delivered WMD on the US? That the ONLY reason it didn’t happen is because the US beat them to the punch? The same situation exists right now with Iran.
Terrorism is a tactic, not an ideology or religion or race or military grouping. It will always be with us. There were always be the technological means to create mass destruction, and so, it will always remain a threat.
Perhaps terrorism will always be a threat, perhaps not. But even if terrorism remains a threat far into the future that is no reason to roll over, hide our heads and give up. That’s exactly what the terrorists(and Iran and Syria) are counting on.
Sorry, but this war will always be a loser, because you have to set its costs next to its benefits.
Benefit: Saddam is dead and Iraq is no longer a threat. So far it is worth the cost in my opinion.
Al Qaeda or, perhaps, the Saudis, or maybe its the Iranian mullahs (these theorists never actually get into details.)
Both these states are the most fanatic and tyrant who deploying deformed version of Islam.
Madrasah all around the world crated and supported by Saudis are the breading hols for the fanatics were radicalized people mind as the tyrant Saudi likes and this obvious in many places and historical events.
Iranian they using Hussaiena and those Shiites places like Noor Al-Hudda and other names that Iranian like to linked them to their agencies to support them and trying to built colony that people are living on land but their hearts to Mullah in Tehran the very obvious example NasserAllah when he said if Ali Khaminie asked me to kill my self I will do.
Sadly what we saw in Iraq that US brought those their hearts and supported by Iranian like Al-Hakeem and his Bader militia midwives by Iranians 25 years ago and others like Al-Ja’afary and so on and so forth.
by Iran and Syria.
Oddly here we got same talk different actions, before Iraq and that Axis of Evil, S. Korea was the major state have the treat in matter of technology and production of MDW but we got Iraq hit few time and finally invaded on having dangerous and threaten US!!
So now Iran publically enriching uranium discarded UN regulations and preventing inceptors, suddenly we wakeups on hit to Syrian facilities.
Bogey’s view of modern terrorism, and the policy which naturally follows from it, is likely to be tested to destruction by the incoming Obama administration. No more nasty neocons engaged in pointless foreign wars. Just sensible, clever people in charge, who know that jihad terrorism is a tactic to achieve strategic goals, not the logical conclusion of an ideological mission to transform all human societies into one big Islamist paradise on earth. We shall see, now that the Left are charged with responsibility, what comes of it and will have to hope that the inevitable mess can still be sorted out when they have finished.
On a few specifics….
On the contrary Bogey, military domination can deny to terrorists the apparatus of a nation state and freedom to act with impunity inside certain geographical borders – precisely what has occurred in Afghanistan and in the counter-insurgency phase of the war in Iraq. The first phase of the Iraq war denied that apparatus and freedom to Saddam Hussein, the head of a Nazist regime, with a proven record of genocidal deployment of chemical munitions.
Not so. The experience in Iraq quite clearly demonstrates that if a conservative President chooses, rightly, to ignore the child-adults of the Left and the lofty Whigs in his own party, and instead uses the military instrument to its full capacity, even the highly determined and incredibly vicious modern jihadist can be utterly defeated.
Correct. Islamism and jihadism however are ideologies, and can be defeated, by a combination of physical inderdiction of their weapons and combatants, and philosophical challenge, loudly and insistently, of their ideas.
Whether the jihadist is capable of destroying western societies, as is his stated intention, remains in question. A well placed WMD, supplied by a well organised Islamist state (Iran, Taliban controlled Afghanistan, a future Pakistan) or an opportunistic and hostile autocracy (Saddam’s Iraq, Gaddafi’s Libya), could hasten the disintegration of the western democracy into something very nasty.
The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have delayed that event.
Apologies, my system didn’t include the quotes from Bogey’s post, and the sense is lost without them: my full post should read:
Bogey’s view of modern terrorism, and the policy which naturally follows from it, is likely to be tested to destruction by the incoming Obama administration. No more nasty neocons engaged in pointless foreign wars. Just sensible, clever people in charge, who know that jihad terrorism is a tactic to achieve strategic goals, not the logical conclusion of an ideological mission to transform all human societies into one big Islamist paradise on earth. We shall see, now that the Left are charged with responsibility, what comes of it and will have to hope that the inevitable mess can still be sorted out when they have finished.
On a few specifics……
1. As Grackle explains at length, the threat to America’s public safety is a matter of technology, not ideology and certainly not military capacity.As he explains, it is a relatively simple matter to deliver a weapon of mass destruction.Therefore, no amount of military domination can prevent such attacks.
On the contrary Bogey, military domination can deny to terrorists the apparatus of a nation state and freedom to act with impunity inside certain geographical borders – precisely what has occurred in Afghanistan and in the counter-insurgency phase of the war in Iraq. The first phase of the Iraq war denied that apparatus and freedom to Saddam Hussein, the head of a Nazist regime, with a proven record of genocidal deployment of chemical munitions.
2. The experience in Iraq demonstrates beyond a shadow of a doubt that military invasions create more opportunities for terrorists than they destroy.
Not so. The experience in Iraq quite clearly demonstrates that if a conservative President chooses, rightly, to ignore the child-adults of the Left and the lofty Whigs in his own party, and instead uses the military instrument to its full capacity, even the highly determined and incredibly vicious modern jihadist can be utterly defeated.
3. Terrorism is a tactic, not an ideology or religion or race or military grouping. It will always be with us. There were always be the technological means to create mass destruction, and so, it will always remain a threat.
Correct. Islamism and jihadism however are ideologies, and can be defeated, by a combination of physical inderdiction of their weapons and combatants, and philosophical challenge, loudly and insistently, of their ideas.
Whether the jihadist is capable of destroying western societies, as is his stated intention, remains in question. A well placed WMD, supplied by a well organised Islamist state (Iran, Taliban controlled Afghanistan, a future Pakistan) or an opportunistic and hostile autocracy (Saddam’s Iraq, Gaddafi’s Libya), could hasten the disintegration of the western democracy into something very nasty.
The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have delayed that event.
English patriot, if we ever met, I would be honored (honoured?) to buy you a drink.
Yet again, supporters of the invasion of Iraq argue that benefits alone justify a non-existential war.
Of course there are benefits to the invasion and to a military aggression in general. The question, however, is whether those benefits surpass the costs. A closely related question is whether military aggression is sustainable over long periods. History shows over and over and over again that it is not.
Given that we lack the resources — as every society in history has — to maintain military aggression over decades, it doesn’t seem very smart to rely on it as the primary guarantee of geopolitical stability and public safety.
The declarations of victory in Iraq will take on some sadly hilarious overtones — as has almost every one of the right’s declarations about the war — when, in the next couple of months, it will be necessary to pass through Congress yet another emergency spending measure to pay for Iraq.
We can expect no increase in taxes — since Americans have never wanted to pay for the war, despite all the talk about loving it in the beginning — so there will simply have to be more borrowing to pay for what, I suppose, some people will call the very expensive post-victory clean up and maintenance operations.
Bogey: these wars have been and will continue to be expensive and painful in human costs, but failure to prevent the jihadist from doing his worst, would be infinitely more costly.
Occam: Thank you, I am sure the honour (honor?) would be all mine, and I shall watch out for your posts in future and join the debate.
The declarations of victory in Iraq will take on some sadly hilarious overtones – as has almost every one of the right’s declarations about the war – when, in the next couple of months, it will be necessary to pass through Congress yet another emergency spending measure to pay for Iraq.
The anti-war folks are always railing about the cost of the Iraq War as if we pro-war folks are oblivious to the cost of military actions. Since all wars are costly, either in money or lives, the unstated assumption behind such protests is that war itself should never be an option – which is a ridiculous position. By this philosophy the writer would have been against America’s participation in WW2 and the defeat of the Axis powers would not have been accomplished – because it would have been too costly. Let’s hope Obama will be more realistic in his attitude.
Given that we lack the resources – as every society in history has – to maintain military aggression over decades, it doesn’t seem very smart to rely on it as the primary guarantee of geopolitical stability and public safety.
The writer speaks of “decades” but the Iraq War is only 5 years long. Exaggeration is one of the hallmarks of their debate tactics.
The writer seems to believe that the Iraq War is a result of a US policy that uses war as the “primary” tool of foreign policy. The writer conveniently overlooks the fact that the Iraq War was preceded by 13 long years of ‘diplomacy.’
All Saddam had to do was live up to the agreements after he was defeated when he invaded Kuwait and he would still no doubt be happily torturing hapless Iraqi citizens, rewarding the families of suicide bombers, murdering political opponents and embezzling funds from the UN. Saddam chose the hard road and paid the price but only after many years of perfidy.
Thanks, English patriot.
Btw, I lived in the UK for many years, and brought home the ultimate souvenir: a bride.