September 2, 2008

Son of a...

More bad news for Democrats.

Let me decipher for you. It's good news for the country.

Here's how Democrats Joe Biden, Harry Reid, John Murtha, Jim Webb, Chuck Schumer, saw the issue...

And my personal favorite, Keith Olbermann with a 10-plus minute Special Comment when Bush announced the surge.'s special alright!

And yet today, Olbermann feels he's credible enough to scrutinize Sarah Palin's resume? I guess ESPN knew what kind of fraud they were letting go.


draco said...

Let's discuss the surge for a moment, leaving out the fact that its goals are less than clear. The surge HAS WORKED, in that it has brought violence down. Yay. WHY?
Because you simply have a bunch more US soldiers and Marines walking around. It's like putting a cop on every corner of a city. It'll work, but its not practical. If we were destroying Al Qida and Iraqi insurgents at the same time, I'd understand. But we're not. Afghanistan is a far more dangerous place, and you can bet that any terrorist packed up their IEDs and tippy-toed into Pakistan until the successful surge ended. We can't keep troops in Iraq because of the cost to both men and treasury, and the Iraqis are just about ready to hand us a withdrawl date. And I'm not so sure that Iran won't play at least a cordial part in Iraqi politics. So for the same reasons as the cops on every corner, the surge has worked. And for the same reasons, it won't make a difference in the long run.

page13 said...

You completely forget the year-long reports of Iraqis stepping up to work with the military...

No, the surge worked because the US military got aggressive, instead of the prior policy to sit around and play a politically correct war; to be a sitting duck for insurgence.

The aggressor in any conflict sets the rules. When the US turned up the heat, they sent the insurgents running. The result, (sure it's short-term victory for now) we are winning - despite the leftist's predictions of failure.

draco said...

But that's exactly what I'm saying. Its working for now. But what's the end goal? What if the new Iraq moves closer to Iran? Or what if we pull out, and the insurgents return, fresh from Afghanistan, with increased sophistication? I agree the surge worked, but what's the ultimate goal here?

page13 said...

Glad to see you agree the surge worked. Not many on the left want to admit that, you deserve credit.

Also glad to see the danger of a hasty pull-out is not a good idea in your opinion. Except Barry and Dem leaders didn't (and still don't) see it that way BEFORE the surge was implemented.

The end goal, maintain stablity until the locals can control the region on their own.

Remember, it took many years of American military influence remaining in Germany and Japan to keep the peace permanent there.

draco said...

Well, I'm 25 and I've spent 7 years in the Army, but I'm also getting my MBA, so bear with me. Tactically, the surge was a good idea. So the soldier in me agrees.
But the business side of me asks the only question that matters: what's the net gain for America? What have we gained from Iraq? You asked me in another post why I think Obama got it right? Well, he opposed the war. I hope Iraq stabilizes, if only for the Iraqis that are suffering. But I'm troubled by the fact that the Iraqi government has already opened dialogue with Iran. So again, what did we gain by going there. And I will not buy the "to overthrow a dictator to help the people" bullshit, because that's 6th grade garbage. So what do we get for our sarcrifices?

page13 said...

First, thank you for your service.

The Iraq goal was to break up the unholy alliance between Iran, Syria, and Iraq.

Since Reagan pulled out of Beruit, the US had been running from radical Islam, or least failed to respond to terror attacks (the Cole, Cobar(?spell) towers.

Even after the first Iraq war the radicals in the middle east didn't take us seriously, inpart because of our failure to take out Sadaam then. A lot of Iraqi's thought we abandoned them back in '91.

After 9/11, Hussien's enthisiastic support of Lebanese terrorists, and the emerging alliance with North Korea, we needed to fight back. Bush made all that clear.

Today, the middle east is a lot more stable, not just Iraq. Even in Isreal, daily bombings have subsided. I'm not saying the Iraq war caused that, but it helped.

The US stayed the course, differing from prior years, refusing to abandon the Iraq people. The Islamic (and Persian)people NOT associated with terror now trust us more.

There's more work to be done, but unless violence spikes again, the US shouldn't need to flex its muscle in the region anytime soon.

draco said...

I hope you're right about the immediate future of that part of the world. But I don't think it's gonna work out that way. But let me comment on your perception of the situation so far.

First, there was no alliance between Iraq and Iran/Syria.

If you remember, Iraq and Iran had fought a 10 year war before Saddam turned toward Kuwait. And the US was on his side. (Rumsfled shaking hands with him in the photo).

That war started aften the Iranian revolution and the embasy hostage situation. It's important to realize why Iran hates us. The CIA overthrew a popular government in Iran, to ensure that oil supply got here without problems. It wasn't Islamic extremists that started the revolution. It was students that saw their elected goverment get knocked down in favor of a corrupt puppet. Iraq attacked then, because they thought Iran would be an easy win. It wasn't. Iran was pulled together by the ayatollah, who created hezbollah. That little army was initially made up of younf boys who blew themeslves up in order to stop Iraqi attacks on their homes. So, there was no alliance. The US helped for a while, then left Saddam to his own devices.

In 1991, we correctly left him alone because even though he was a creep, Iraq under him checked Iran. The people we let down were the Kurds, who really don't even figure into this because all they wanted was an independent state. That's never going to happen as long as we want Turkish support. But we kept weakening Saddam, and Iran grew stronger.

W. saw in Iraq an easy win. He did think the Iraqis wouldw lcome us.
First, there are no "Iraqis". There are Sunni and Shites, and they hate eachother. And the 90% majority favor Iran. So by going in there and messing this up, we've guaranteed that if there really is democratic rule, 90% of the "country" will move closer to Iran. IF this was really about nuclear proliferation from the gate, why not go directly after Iran or N. Korea, whom we KNOW have them and are shopping them around?
Easy. Because we thought this would be a slam dunk, and we'd have a base that much closer to Iran. If you read the story in th the NYT today, that's looking less likely again.
So here we are. Trying to save face. You ask why I support Obama? Because he may be technically wrong about a tactic in this mess, but he never would have brought us here in the first place.