Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Iraq: "Dunkirk was not a redeployment"
Posted by: McQ on Monday, July 10, 2006

Investors Business Daily offers us a little retrospective our entry into the War on Terror. It also contends it most likely could have been avoided had the party seeking power now done more when it had power:
The Democrats and anti-war left want us to entrust them with the war on terror in 2006 and 2008 — a war that could have been prevented when they did have the reins.
IBD points to the fact that the War on Terror actually began in the Carter administration with the taking of the US embassy in Iran. Our lack of response and then our failed attempt to rescue them (Desert One) showed and inept and bumbling US.

But it was probably Mogadishu and then our response to the first World Trade Center bombing which finally encouraged the terrorist faction identified with 9/11 to go ahead with that plan:
Fast-forward to the Clinton administration, and once again we see the fruits of Democratic foreign policy. On Oct. 3-4, 1993, the armed forces of the world's only superpower engaged in battle with the forces of Somali warlord Mohamed Farrah Adid in the streets of Somalia's capital, Mogadishu.

After a 15-hour battle, 18 Americans were killed and 80 wounded. One dead U.S. soldier was dragged through the streets in an act designed to humiliate the U.S. in the jihadist world. There was no military response to the humiliation. Osama bin Laden was watching.

[...]

The death and humiliation of American forces in Somalia strengthened bin Laden's belief, as he told ABC's John Miller in 1998, "that the American soldier was just a paper tiger." America, he gloated to Miller, "rushed out of Somalia, in shame and disgrace, dragging the bodies of its soldiers."
8 months after Modadishu, the first attempt on the WTC was made with a truck bomb. while it failed to topple the tower, our response, again, was noted.

Then followed Kohbar Towers, the USS Cole and the Embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania. Hundreds were killed, thousands wounded and we did virtually nothing. Finally 9/11 happened and we could no longer ignore terrorism or the terrorists.

We struck in Afghanistan first and later in Iraq. But the party who asks we give them the power to prosecute the War on Terror has fought parts of it every step of the way, more interested in opposing their ideological political enemies than considering the long-term ramifications of arbitrarily abandoning portions of it because they disagree with the efficacy of the action (even after voting to approve the action). As IBD notes:
Dunkirk was not a redeployment.
Abandoning Iraq at this critical juncture would be more akin to Dunkirk and Mogadishu than Japan or Germany after WWII. If Mogoadishu was the spark for the terrorist, we'd hope we learned from our arbitrary withdrawal. It appears, at least to some, the lesson has been lost.

The end game seems to be at hand in Iraq, and while we'll still see problems and backward steps during this phase, seeing it through to the end is critical to more than just Iraq's success.

Iraq is a critical demonstration to the next generation of would-be terrorists that not only are US soldiers not "paper tigers" but neither is the US government. Psychologically they need to have imprinted on them the understanding that they will not be ignored or given a relatively free pass if they strike the US. They need to understand that we will do what is necessary to respond, root them out, remove their safe havens and, if necessary, take out their state sponsors. We have a mind-set to change. Iraq is a demonstration of that will and ability, a demonstration that will pay unseen dividends in the future ... unless we leave before the job is done.

To this point the party of "immediate redeployment" has shown little appreciation for these important points. Until it does, few thinking people are going to feel comfortable with giving them the power to prosecute this difficult but necessary war.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
This is a great article. I have filed it away for later use. It really lays out a good timeline. Democrats always wonder why they have a national security problem with voters. They would like us to believe that planning for 9/11 began Jan. 20th, 2001, the day President Bush took office. Therefore, it is all George Bush’s fault. However, this article clearly shows how this all got started, and voters are not stupid.

Great find!
 
Written By: hrconservative
URL: http://hrconservative.blogspot.com
Iraq is a critical demonstration to the next generation of would-be terrorists that not only are US soldiers not "paper tigers" but neither is the US government. Psychologically they need to have imprinted on them the understanding that they will not be ignored or given a relatively free pass if they strike the US. They need to understand that we will do what is necessary to respond, root them out, remove their safe havens and, if necessary, take out their state sponsors. We have a mind-set to change. Iraq is a demonstration of that will and ability, a demonstration that will pay unseen dividends in the future ... unless we leave before the job is done.
First, Iraq did not "strike the US." In so suggesting, you appear to be adopting (one of) the Bush Adminstration’s illusory rationale(s) for the war and equating the war with Iraq with the war against Islamofascist terrorism. That is a grave error. Second, your postion smacks of the same kind of argument that kept us mired in a fruitless war in Vietnam.

That said, I do agree with your points concerning American international credibility. When the U.S. engages in military action, it should win; following your point, in some ways, we must win. This is a powerful argument in favor of the Powell Doctrine, which clearly delimits the use of American military power. It is clear beyond peradventure that the Iraq War violated the precepts that ought to govern the engagement of the American military. I was unequivocally opposed to this foolish war.

However, now we are there and the question is what is in our national interest recognizing the realities on the ground. On one hand, we must be concerned, as you mention, with our credibility in the world (though I’m not sure, as you seem to suggest, that the Isalmofacsists will be deterred regardless of now many teeth we prove to have). How best to enhance our credibility at this point is debatable. Yes, as you say, we might stay "until the job is done." Even that, however, is open to interpretation. What is the job to be done? If it was to removed WMDs from Iraq, then the job is done (and was unnecessary). If it was to topple Saddam Hussein, then the job is done as well. Even if the job is to erect the bones of an Iraqi democracy then one might say that job is also done. But if "the job" is defined as making Iraq into a politically stable, peaceful nation then clearly the job is not done, and, in my mind, will likely never be done. Either the Iraqis will accomplish this or they will not; it is beyond us, and certainly beyond our military power. (But more about that below.)

To be measured against the risk to U.S. prestige is the cost. The cost in American deaths and Americans wounded. The astronomical financial costs, money that could be used here in America, for Americans instead of for Iraqis. Or even better invested in other intermational projects with better prospects for success. In additon, it is unclear (to me at least) that we are in fact enhancing our international status by our prolonged presence in Iraq. I suspect, in fact, that we are doing just the opposite. We are engendering worldwide contempt which thwarts our efforts in all other international matters: Iran, N. Korea, etc. (Most of this loss of prestige, I woud agree, is attributable to the credibility we squandered with our ginned-up pre-invasion rationales.)

In sum, it was a much easier to decision to oppose the war at its inception than to insist upon immediate withdrawal now. The stakes are different; the circumstances have changed dramatically. However, it must be remembered that there are enormous costs associated with our continued presence in Iraq and the gains there are ephemeral at most (see below). This, to me, counsels withdrawal, which could plausibly be sold (or could have been) with our success in a) removing Hussein and b) enabling the construction of the democratic apparatus in Iraq. Indeed, in this sense, it is actually those who argue that we must remain until the "job is done," defined "the job" in a manner that allows small prospect of attaining that goal, who are undermining American credibility. It was our war; we can define what victory is; we can end it when we choose.
The end game seems to be at hand in Iraq, and while we’ll still see problems and backward steps during this phase, seeing it through to the end is critical to more than just Iraq’s success.
I simply don’t agree with this. I think that there is a real prospect of all-out civil war in Iraq. Indeed, I beleive that is — and has always been — the most likely outcome of removing Saddam Hussein. And, at this point, it is unclear to me whether the American military presence is making an Iraqi civil war less likely, or more likely. This must also be considered when the ramifications for American credibility are assessed.
 
Written By: David Shaughnessy
URL: http://dsthinkingloud.blogspot.com/
This article is garbage. Every good lefty knows that history began the day George W Bushhitlerhalliburtoneocon was sworn in.
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
Mr. Shaughnessy... consider your assumptions, for you assume facts not in evidence multiple times.

The implication, despite your reasoned tone, is that you’ve never even questioned those assumptions to see if they are true. And a man who refuses to consider whether his axioms are flawed isn’t reasoning properly, if indeed he is reasoning instead of rationalizing.

 
Written By: Dave
URL: http://
First, Iraq did not "strike the US." In so suggesting, you appear to be adopting (one of) the Bush Adminstration’s illusory rationale(s) for the war and equating the war with Iraq with the war against Islamofascist terrorism.
I never said they did. That’s a mistaken inferrence you’ve drawn.

What I did say was this:
They need to understand that we will do what is necessary to respond, root them out, remove their safe havens and, if necessary, take out their state sponsors.
Iraq falls into that latter category.
Second, your postion smacks of the same kind of argument that kept us mired in a fruitless war in Vietnam.
Not at all. There was not even an inkling of an end-game in Vietnam. We indeed arbitrarily "redeployed" our troops. And that decision was one from which those today’s terrorists (not to mention Saddam) drew strength and conviction that we could be defeated.

We’re most assuredly in the end-game in Iraq. I’m simply saying it is to our benefit to see it through and I point out why that is so.

And, given what you’ve objected too ...
That said, I do agree with your points concerning American international credibility.
... this makes no sense, except to the extent that it is just plain old common sense. And that’s my point. If it is that obvious even if you disagree with the premise, why isn’t it common sense to the Dems as well?

Whether one agrees or disagrees with how we got to Iraq, common sense and history tells us it is to our benefit to finish the job.
I simply don’t agree with this. I think that there is a real prospect of all-out civil war in Iraq.
There may be. But I would suggest that prospect diminishes in proportion to the increasing strength of the Iraqi government (and as more and more factions buy into its legitimacy). It is a fact that it is growning stronger every day. That puts us solidly in the end-game with the trick being not to get out before they’re completely ready for us to do so and not stay longer than we’re needed.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Dear McQ:

I’m not sure what you mean by "state sponsor(s)" of terrorism or how you fit Iraq into that category. Do you mean all terrorism or just the Islamofacist variety that specifically threatens the U.S.? If the former, then we have a fundamental disagreement as to the role of American military force in the world. If the latter, then how does Iraq fit into that category? The current Iraqi state is essentially a puppet of the U.S.; surely, it is not a state that sponsors terrorism. If, on the other hand, you are referring to the Hussein regime, then my point stands: Whatever Saddam Hussein was doing or not doing, he assuredly did not attack the U.S., and to suggest otherwise buys into the fallacious argument employed by the Bush Administration to deceive the American public (and the world community) into believing that Iraq was somehow connected to the 9/11 attacks. (By the way, the Bush Administration never actually declared this argument, either; they merely implied it until the point was inescapable.)

Now it may be that your argument actually is that if we leave Iraq then Iraq may become de-stabilized and susceptible to a Taliban-like government that will indeed sponsor terrorism aimed at the U.S. If we did withdraw, and if that did happen, I might well support military action (as I did in Afghanistan). That is a possibility, but almost everything is possible, and it is better to deal with the real than the imagined, even though we should plan with our imaginings in mind.

I do hope that you are right and I am wrong about the prospects for peace and stability in Iraq. But it behooves us both, I suggest, to allow that the other’s prediction may come to pass.


As for defending the Democrats . . . well, that isn’t my job. Thank god.
 
Written By: David Shaughnessy
URL: http://dsthinkingloud.blogspot.com/
I’m not sure what you mean by "state sponsor(s)" of terrorism or how you fit Iraq into that category.
Look up who was a sponsor of both Hezbolah and Hamas Dave. Then review the newly translated documents being released daily showing a growing connection between Iraq and AQ affiliated groups.

It was one of the many reasons we went to war with Iraq.
Do you mean all terrorism or just the Islamofacist variety that specifically threatens the U.S.?
I mean those it sponsored and supported. Surely this doesn’t come as news to you?
Whatever Saddam Hussein was doing or not doing, he assuredly did not attack the U.S., and to suggest otherwise buys into the fallacious argument employed by the Bush Administration to deceive the American public (and the world community) into believing that Iraq was somehow connected to the 9/11 attacks.
I’m not sure why this seems to be the default position of those who react to "state sponsors of terrorism". No one said he directly attacked the US. Nor is that necessarily important in the context of the WoT.

What I said was he and his state sponsored terrorists. Indications are he at least had some links to organizations which have carried out attackes against US interests. And there’s no doubt he actively supported two terror organizations outright - Hezbolah and Hamas.

That makes him a state sponsor of terrorism. What their particular flavor might be seems a bit irrelevant. The point is that in a war, you deny your enemies bases of support.
I do hope that you are right and I am wrong about the prospects for peace and stability in Iraq. But it behooves us both, I suggest, to allow that the other’s prediction may come to pass.
Well certainly I believe both possbilities exist, David. Otherwise I wouldn’t be saying stay the course. There should be an obvious reason I believe that to be important.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
In 1990 during the interview with Glaspie Hussein directly suggests that Arab terrorism would be employed against the United States simply because he acknowledged that Iraq, the country, was not in the same league as the United States on a military footing (with the ability to carry a war to US soil at any rate). His statement was that while we might be beyond the reach of his army, we were never beyond reach of individual arabs, presumably references to chopsuey bombers or hostage takers. I’m paraphrasing, but the intent was clear in his language.

That was a direct threat, by a head of state, to a US ambassador, telling us to stay out of his business or ’someone’ would take revenge, if not officially, then...eh voila, through a third party.
If that doesn’t sound like a man who understood state sponsored terrorism than nothing does.
How much was he paying the families of explodidopes from Palestine at one point, $10,000? $25,000? He had a fund going for the purpose.
No state sponsor ship my yankee foot.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Heh heh. Dunkirk reference was great. Except Murtha wouldn have the BEF redeployed to Newfoundland.

 
Written By: Harun
URL: http://
Iraq constantly fired upon our planes that were keeping no-fly zones in place - those were part of a cease-fire agreement.

Which is why you’ll never see Bush nor Blair in front of a Belgian court.
 
Written By: Harun
URL: http://
Heh heh. Dunkirk reference was great. Except Murtha wouldn have the BEF redeployed to Newfoundland.
And WHY not? From Newfoundland the BEF could easily stage raids onto the Continent, IF it were required, should the situation in Vichy France deteriorate to the extent necessary to require such action.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
McQ:

I think we disagree on the scope of the struggle we are engaged in, or least how much of that struggle to which we should apply military force. To me, military force should be an absolute last resort, employed in clearly delimited circumstances to achieve clear and discrete goals. See the Powell Doctrine. In my view, it doesn’t do to announce a "War On Terrorism," to which we must apply military force en masse. That is far too vague and open-ended for realistic success. Indeed, such an amorphous goal would seem to nearly guarantee failure. I know you know this, but it bears repeating: Terrorism is a tactic. You don’t declare war on tactics anymore than you do on . . . drugs . . . or poverty. Indeed, the distinction between "terrrorists" and "freedom-fighters" or "civil warriors" is itself often difficult to discern. Such an ill-defined enemy bodes poorly for military force. No, I think our military might must be specifically targeted at the Islamofascists, those who attacked out county and threaten to do so again. Iraq was not, and is not, in that category.

I have to run but I’ve enjoyed this discussion and I look forward to reading your response later, should you care to make one.
 
Written By: David Shaughnessy
URL: http://dsthinkingloud.blogspot.com/
Fast-forward to the Clinton administration
Why "fast-forward"? Why did the article leave out the Marine barracks bombing in Lebanon in 1983 and our subsequent pullout? Just asking.
 
Written By: cllam
URL: http://
I think we disagree on the scope of the struggle we are engaged in, or least how much of that struggle to which we should apply military force. To me, military force should be an absolute last resort, employed in clearly delimited circumstances to achieve clear and discrete goals. See the Powell Doctrine.
I don’t necessarily disagree David. I’m simply at a loss to figure out how furthre diplomacy would Iraq whave had any success in Iraq.
In my view, it doesn’t do to announce a "War On Terrorism," to which we must apply military force en masse. That is far too vague and open-ended for realistic success.
Well I guess it has to do with how you precieve it. I’ve never taken the WoT to be exclusively a militarily war. Neither has the administration which has explained numerous times that the WoT involves the diplomatic, financial, intelligence and police sphears more the the military. It just happens the military is the visible part of all of this. Iraq and Afghanistan are only parts of the whole.

So I certainly don’t have any allusions as to the scope of the effort.
I know you know this, but it bears repeating: Terrorism is a tactic. You don’t declare war on tactics anymore than you do on . . . drugs . . . or poverty.
I’ll agree the name is unfortunate, and I’ll also agree it’s fairly unspecific (as well as being a tactic). But I’m not too wrapped up in the name per se. I think we all know who we’re fighting and I don’t think it will be too difficult to assess or define success (or victory).
Indeed, the distinction between "terrrorists" and "freedom-fighters" or "civil warriors" is itself often difficult to discern. Such an ill-defined enemy bodes poorly for military force.
I don’t find much difficulty at all deciding who is and isn’t a terrorist, David. As I noted in the post, those who attack US interests to advance their cause de jure and use the tactic we’re talkiing about are terrorists. They can call themselves anything they choose, but from this side of the glass they’re terrorists.
No, I think our military might must be specifically targeted at the Islamofascists, those who attacked out county and threaten to do so again. Iraq was not, and is not, in that category.
I think our basic disagreement is you want to limit such a war to those who fit whatever your definition of "Islamofascist" might be, and I want to expand it to those who attack America and American interests and use terrorism as a tactic or support those who do.

Iraq definitely fits into that category.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Why "fast-forward"? Why did the article leave out the Marine barracks bombing in Lebanon in 1983 and our subsequent pullout? Just asking.
Good question and I have no problem including it. But it is one point on the one side as opposed to a veritable litany on the other.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Interesting aspect of the 83 bombings, I thought the Soviets figured into that whole Lebannon situation since they were sponsoring places like Syria and Egypt.

That rule no longer applies for the Clinton era non-response.
Mustn’t forget the game was geopolitically much larger in the 80’s than it was in the 90’s when we ’were the only remaining superpower’.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
The US has failed to deal with Terrorism...period. There are a host of reasons and the reasons varied from administration to administration, R or D but America failed to deal with terrorism. Carter because of domestic politics, but also military ineffectiveness (Yes, the US COULD have destroyed Iran, but it was incapable of inserting a commando company INTO Iran.). Reagan because Terrorism was seen as subsidiary to the "Great Struggle" of the Cold War, plus it was seen as a proxy fight by Soviet Friends and/or Allies against the West. The Soviet Union would have prevented any form of the GWoT and it would have been seen as a distraction from the Central Security Issue confronting the US, the USSR.

It began to change under Bush 41, with the end of the Cold War, but as Secretary Baker famously said, "We don’t have a dog in that fight." Neither the President nor the Public was interested in entering into a sustained campaign in the Third World upon the heels of the long war just ended.

I do tend to blame Clinton more than his predecessors, mostly for adopting the Law Enforcement Paradigm (LEP) for combating Terrorism. The LEP had an appeal, the Clintons being lawyers, the legalistic paradigm has(d) an appeal to the Democratic Party in general, the general anti-military stance of the D party, the US was hesitant about nation-building and long-term operations in the Third World. The problem was that the Clinton Administration never revised its strategy, even though it was fair to say that Al-Qaeda was growing stronger, even as we put it’s members in jail. But to be fair, Bush 43 did not come into office with any different set of policies. It was the impetus of 9/11 that yielded the GWoT.

So there is plenty of blame and inaction and justifications/reasons on all sides.
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
True enough - would have been better off if we’d re-adopted a ’millions for defence but not one penny for tribute’, ’shores of tripoli’ approach again much sooner.

You nailed it though, we were looking to bask in our long coming ’victory’ over the evil Soviet empire and weren’t about to start in after terrorists.
One slight difference though - prior to WTC 1 - All the attacks were ’over there’, even if they were attacks on Americans (do disco’s in Germany not count either?).
WTC 1 was an attack HERE, proving the problem was no longer ’foreign’.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
McQ;

I am and have been writing only about military force in this thread. I am in total agreement that the struggle against Islamofacism must be prosecuted on many levels. But military force is unique, and requires special justification and clearly defined goals.

Here’s how I see it: I don’t believe in preemptive war. I don’t believe that American militray force should be employed except after an attack or to prevent an imminent attack. And, by that, I mean, imminent. Not possible. Not theoretical. We were attacked by Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda. They are the Islamofacists I refer to and against whom American military power ought be aimed. Now, al Qaeda is not a state with clearly defined borders, uniformed military, etc., so that means there must be some flexibility in defining the enemy.

But this is how you defined the enemy: those who attack America and American interests and use terrorism as a tactic or support those who do. While it is possible that you wrote in haste, that definition appears to include several distinct classes of people: 1) those who attack America; 2) [those who attack] American interests; 3) [those who] use terrorism as a tactic; and 4) [those who] support those who [attack America, attack American interests, or use terrorism as a tactic].

To me, that defintion is far too amorphous for military action. As to the first category, yes, I certainly agree that those — like al Qaeda — who have attacked the U.S. must be delat with militarily. But from there it gets progressively murky: what attacks on which Aemrican interests warrant a military response? Surely, not all. As for those who use terrorism as a tactic, well, there are plenty of terrorists who pose no threat to the U.S., certainly not one that merits preemptive military attack. as to But the enemy is not everyone in the world who uses terrorist tactics. As for the catch-all — the Bushistic "those who support those" — well, such positions certainly should be noted and responded to. But with war? I think not.
 
Written By: David Shaughnessy
URL: http://dsthinkingloud.blogspot.com/
Here’s how I see it: I don’t believe in preemptive war. I don’t believe that American military force should be employed except after an attack or to prevent an imminent attack. And, by that, I mean, imminent.
That’s fine David, and you are entitled to that principled belief. 50 years ago I might have been right there with you, but technology and cheap and available weapons of mass destruction have rendered that principle a quaint luxury in which we can’t afford to indulge ourselves anymore.
We were attacked by Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda. They are the Islamofacists I refer to and against whom American military power ought be aimed. Now, al Qaeda is not a state with clearly defined borders, uniformed military, etc., so that means there must be some flexibility in defining the enemy.
Well again, more than just military power should be aimed against them. But to Iraq. There were numerous reasons given for invading Iraq. Many had to do with the threat posed by WMD and the reality that the man had links to terrorist organizations. As you might imagine, given the trauma of 9/11 and the history and recalcatrance of Saddam, the chance he might be dealing under the table with terror groups bent on even greater destruction wasn’t something we could afford to ignore.

This goes back to my first point. There is no margin for error in today’s world. We could afford, in the past, to sit back and see what our adversary had in mind and, for the most part, even weather his attack if necessary. But today doing so could mean the instant vaporization, spread of a plague virus or any other of a number of attacks which will effect thousands if not millions. We can’t afford the old strategy any longer.
To me, that definition is far too amorphous for military action.
Context David. That definition was attached to more than just "military action". I was very specific when I said I was including "the diplomatic, financial, intelligence and police spheres" as well. I included the full range of action available against those enemies. I realize you’re talking only about military action. I wasn’t.

The rest of your comment addresses your false premise.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
McQ:

Allow me to pose a specific question to you: When is American military force warranted? What is the McQ Doctrine?
 
Written By: David Shaughnessy
URL: http://dsthinkingloud.blogspot.com/
Short answer: When American security is threatened and diplomacy has failed. Level of intervention to be determined by level of threat.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.qando.net/blog
Looker -
In 1990 during the interview with Glaspie Hussein directly suggests that Arab terrorism would be employed against the United States simply because he acknowledged that Iraq, the country, was not in the same league as the United States on a military footing (with the ability to carry a war to US soil at any rate). His statement was that while we might be beyond the reach of his army, we were never beyond reach of individual arabs,
All Hussein was doing was warning one of his options was assymetric warfare. Not exactly a news flash item, as every ME nation had assimilated what the Algerians had done 40 years years earlier, how the Jews did it 50 years before, and how effective what Reagan called his "Holy Mujahadeen Freedom Lovers" were in Afghanistan as he feted several future Taliban and Al Qaeda members at the White House.

Fortunately, for us in 1990, Saddam had not built up any guerilla forces because he believed his Russian advisors - that a secular leader fighting radical Islamists and ethnic factions and members of the Ba’ath Party seeking to do another coup - meant military power should not diffused, but kept concentrated in traditional chain of command formations for added State regime security.

But the slaughter of the Gulf War led Saddam to reverse and embrace the power of Islamic Fedayeen irregulars, have irregular forces networks set up, put more emphasis on Islam as a uniting factor (The words "There is no God but Allah", that cherished phrase of Muslims from peaceful Mullahs to head-choppers, was added to the Iraqi flag after the Gulf War).

And while the US was far more effective in the invasion than ever expected, far faster, there was still time to get key people out and hidden to run the insurgency, then the unbelievable luck of the US neglecting wholesale looting of machine guns, sniper rifles, RPGs, and IED stocks from unsecured ammo dumps for nearly 6 months as the US obliviously ignored the weapons sites in favor of painting schools, building playgrounds, and building the mega-bases the Neocons thought would be stepping stones for the Syria, Lebanon, and Iranian invasions of liberation that were supposed to give final security to our "greatest ally and most special friend" Israel by eliminating the "Evildoers"....even "Liberate the Oppressed Saudi Women of the Abayas" after that.

Ah, those were the days!

Looker - How much was he paying the families of explodidopes from Palestine at one point, $10,000? $25,000? He had a fund going for the purpose.
No state sponsor ship my yankee foot.


He was a late entry as a terror sponsor, and by no means the worst, money-wise. That club is reserved for our good friends the Saudis, our good friends in Pakistan, our good friends in the UAE, and of course the "freedom-loving, democracy-hungry" people of Iran. The "Junior" Club has Somalia, Morocco, Syria, and the Sudan.
McQ - Iraq is a critical demonstration to the next generation of would-be terrorists that not only are US soldiers not "paper tigers" but neither is the US government. Psychologically they need to have imprinted on them the understanding that they will not be ignored or given a relatively free pass if they strike the US. They need to understand that we will do what is necessary to respond, root them out, remove their safe havens and, if necessary, take out their state sponsors. We have a mind-set to change. Iraq is a demonstration of that will and ability, a demonstration that will pay unseen dividends in the future ... unless we leave before the job is done.
That would have been a good speech back in 2002, but a bungled postwar in Iraq, a seditious Left-Wing, and a President inarticulate to the point of incoherence has made that speech obsolete until a hopefully better President is in office, or let’s hope not...Americas Lefties and Euroweenies observe another mass carnage in the West, the weakness and the fetish for enemy civil rights they champion washed away in human blood.

McQ -
To this point the party of "immediate redeployment" has shown little appreciation for these important points. Until it does, few thinking people are going to feel comfortable with giving them the power to prosecute this difficult but necessary war.


If Iraq breaks out in full Civil War, we just accept that we pissed away a modest number of casualties but a massive loss of treasure (700 billion +) we are on the hook to repay to Japan, China, Saudi Arabia, and France - a deferred war tax set up to start a few years after Bush leaves office.

SHAUGHNESSY - Good posts!!
 
Written By: C. Ford
URL: http://
"From Newfoundland the BEF could easily stage raids onto the Continent"

Buy a map.
 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider