The American Spectator

Stuart Koehl| 8.30.10 @ 6:56AM

"War, as Sun Tzu wrote about 2,300 years ago, is of the most vital importance to a state. So, he wrote, "it is mandatory that it be thoroughly studied." To that we must add that the study of war is not limited to the art of war. The aims of a war must be studied before, during and after the conflict."

Recommend you follow the advice of Sun Tzu, in light of your propensity to write articles that display absolutely no understanding of the Art of War.

GOD who knows all!| 8.30.10 @ 1:15PM

We accomplsihed filling the pockets of Halliburton, and Bushist buddies.
Stuart Little is a child, who a Cub Scout Troop could defeat.
We are running a meat grinder, ala Vietnam, and making the Military Industrial Complex richer.

Stuart Koehl| 8.30.10 @ 1:48PM

I have a personal relationship with God, and you ain't Him.

NavyBrat| 8.30.10 @ 1:51PM

Tell the guys who died there that it wasn't worth it. Tell that to their families. Tell that to the families in Iraq who's members were sent to rape & torture rooms for no reason at all. Tell it to the Kurds who got gassed WHOLESALE. What you know about war couldn't fill a thimble.

seth| 8.30.10 @ 4:36PM

Navybrat- There is a whole lot of evil in the world. There is no way we can stop it all. I think the best course is to follow the wisdom of the Founding Fathers and avoid foreign entanglements when ever possible.

NavyBrat| 8.30.10 @ 8:41PM

seth.

Glad you weren't President in WWII.

Larry| 8.31.10 @ 12:01AM

I don't follow your reasoning. How does the fact we waterboarded, beat up, humiliated, and electrocuted Iraqi's in "torture rooms" (while photographing the whole debacle...) make this war worth fighting?

Christian| 9.3.10 @ 3:46AM

Larry, the acts of some soldiers in Iraq was deplorable, but please don't compare it to the acts of the regime of Saddam Hussein. His was a wholesome torture venture, including medieval instrument, mass-rapes, mass-beatings, mass-killings. They don't compare on the same day. His was also a regime that gave money to the survivors of suicide bombers so to encourage them, harboured terrorists, gave money to terrorist organisation, and used weapons of mass destruction on its enemies.

As a non-American I cannot say if the price the US payed was to high, but the Arab Socialist regime of Saddam Hussein was good riddence.

keithbo61| 8.30.10 @ 2:31PM

Being a leftist talking point billboard makes you neither intelligent nor correct. Think some things out on your own sometime. You just might find more than one side to a story...

Alan Brooks| 8.30.10 @ 5:39PM

"GOD who knows all!| 8.30.10 @ 1:15PM
We accomplsihed filling the pockets of Halliburton, and Bushist buddies.
Stuart Little is a child, who a Cub Scout Troop could defeat.
We are running a meat grinder, ala Vietnam, and making the Military Industrial Complex richer."

This guy left out controlled demolition; making the blood of young Palestinians into matzoh;
and MKultra.

Butch| 8.30.10 @ 7:23PM

You shallow thing! Tell it to my two nephews. Folks, I've been following ya'll for about a year. OK if I join in?

Richard Ong| 8.30.10 @ 7:43PM

Any day you can work "Halliburton" into something you write, is a great day, I always say. When you absolutely can't think of anything sensible or useful to say, bammo, "Halliburton" get's 'er done.

Convet| 9.2.10 @ 3:03PM

And you know NOTHING!

The Big E| 8.30.10 @ 7:46PM

Sun Tzu also said, "There is no instance of a country having benefited from prolonged warfare." I think history bears him out. Yet that advice, you seem to ignore.

Stuart Koehl| 8.30.10 @ 8:16PM

And yet the history of China is one of continuous warfare. In fact, the history of every country is one of continuous warfare. The United States was at war with somebody from 1776 through, well, today. It's difficult to name a period when U.S. forces were not engaged in combat somewhere, whether it was on the Indian frontier, or with the French, the British, the Mexicans, ourselves, the Spanish, the Germans, the Haitians, Dominicans, Filipinos, the Germans (again!), Italians and Japanese, the North Koreans, the Chinese, the Soviet Union (covertly and by proxy), the North Vietnamese, the Cambodians, the Cubans, Hezbollah, the Syrians, the Iraqis, the Somalis, al Qaeda, the Taliban, the Iraqis (again). . . you get the picture.

Only the dead have seen the end of war.

Peace is a condition whose existence we can deduce because there have been intervals between wars.

If you want peace prepare for war.

The B ig E| 8.31.10 @ 9:02AM

My understanding is that Sun Tzu was referring to war as an individual campaign against a particular enemy from the onset of open hostilities till the utter defeat of one side or the other, not the general state of warfare in which humanity has existed since the dawn of time. Unless Sun Tzu's use of "war" is defined in that manner, then much of his second chapter is irrelevant.

Prolonged campaigns are not beneficial, and the ultimate form of prolonged campaign is one left unfinished.

Stuart Koehl| 8.31.10 @ 1:56PM

Sun Tzu, being a good Confucian, was more concerned about Tao than anything else. War disturbed the Tao, hence had to be avoided, which is why Sun Tzu's prescriptions make combat the last resort. Michael Handel has written an excellent comparison of Sun Tzu and Clausewitz which is used at the Command and General Staff College

Darin| 8.30.10 @ 6:59AM

Was the war in Iraq necessary? It's not a fair question. What if England and France had stood up to Germany in the mid-1930's? Would WW II in Europe have occurred if Hitler's occupation of the Sudetenland had been opposed and even reversed? What if Imperial Japanese aggression had been halted during the same time period? Would the war in the Pacific have occurred? Impossible to know.

What if the war in Iraq hadn't happened and Saddam provided chemical weapons (like those he used against the Kurds) to terrorist groups who bombed a US city? Would preventing this be worth it? You may recall that after the 9/11 attacks, there was much finger-pointing saying the attacks "should" have been prevented. Can those same people say with aboslute certaintity that a chemical attack on a US city was NOT prevented because of the war in Iraq? If so, based on what?

You can play the "should have" game all day, but it accomplishes nothing. Saddam did have chemical weapons, but not in the quantities the entire world expected (we won't go into the truck convoys going into Syria just before the war kicked off).

People who give "advice" after the fact are babbling idiots. People who give "advice" before the fact and refuse to face potentially unpleasant results are even worse. If you're opposed to war, I don't want to hear you whine if a US city (maybe yours) is attacked. War is not a pretty thing, and it's best left to those who know that and can deal with it.

Mike| 8.30.10 @ 9:01AM

"Can those same people say with aboslute certaintity that a chemical attack on a US city was NOT prevented because of the war in Iraq? "

Can you say with absolute certainty that a chemical attack won't happen on US soil if we don't attack Canada? Your argument is absolute nonsense.

I could easily rebut every one of your tired arguments about Hussein giving chemical weapons to terrorists, etc., but those arguments were closed long ago. The pro war side lost.

People who give advice (against a stupid and wasteful war ) are babbling idiots or worse??!

Short term history has judged and long term history will continue to judge the Iraq war as a pointless tragedy of epic proportions.

Darin| 8.30.10 @ 9:19AM

Iraq used chemical weapons against it's own people. Canada has not. So much for that logic.

I'm curious as to your views on the 9/11 attacks. Using your logic, we should not even try to prevent such attacks in the future. Preemptive strikes/wars are a calculated risk. Every intelligence agency in the world (US, Germany, Britain, China, Russia, etc.) thought Saddam had nuclear weapons. Saddam repeatedly refused to let inspectors do their jobs and repeatedly lied. Nuclear weapon material was found in Iraq (yellowcake uranium), but not in the quantities expected. Was it never there, or was it moved?

You are saying we should do nothing about this and wait for a nuclear bomb to go off in a US city. When it happens, be sure to tell the families of those killed that "the pro war side lost."

As to the Iraq war being pointless, tell that to the families of those Saddam put through industrial shreddars. Or to the tens of thousands found in numerous mass graves in Iraq. Tell them the war wasn't worth it and, by definition, Saddam should still be alive and in power.

Redstateboy| 8.30.10 @ 11:12AM

No use Darin pointing these things out to those like Mike.. their minds are like Concrete.. All mixed up and permanently set.

stephanie| 8.30.10 @ 12:32PM

Sort of like our illustrious leader.

steamboat| 8.30.10 @ 1:04PM

Darin:

Beautiful Response to Mikey. I have to agree with Redstateboy. Mikey is a probably a lost cause. The old cliche - A mind is like a parachute, to function it has to be open.

Will| 8.30.10 @ 5:34PM

Far more people have been killed in the 7 years since the invasion than in 27 years of rule by Saddam preceding that. Why? Because US post-invasion planning was criminally bad.

Richard Ong| 8.30.10 @ 7:46PM

You lead a rich fantasy life.

Will| 9.1.10 @ 1:53PM

Erm, no I don't. You do.

Christopher Holland| 8.30.10 @ 9:30PM

This is rubbish. Where do you get your facts from? And you conveniently forget the Iran-Iraq war and the 1990-91 invasion of Kuwait. To quote Groucho Marx: 'Who am I supposed to believe - you or my own eyes?'

Dan Hirsch| 8.30.10 @ 9:36AM

Mike,

So Chamberlain was really right, it was "Peace in our time?" It was just a really, really short time...

Wouldn't it be nice to have a government that could recognize an allied Iraq as an effective counterweight to the soon-to-be-radioactive shenanigans of the Iranians and the Turks' turn toward militant sharia? Wouldn't it be nice to have a voting population in the US that saw that?

I often get the notion that for the US to be considered to have been successful in Iraq, we would have to have left behind a miniature USA with the broad lawns, shiny huge schools, extensive NGO structures, teachers' unions and civil rights groups that now "bless" our own country, as well as an all-knowing political class. Maybe, the unhappiness and universal declamation is that those damn Iraqis are voting, and voting without CBS News and ACORN's help.

In 1940 our two most dangerous foes were Germany and Japan; until recently they were our closest allies. Methinks that our modern way of thinking will leave Iraq poorly off and vulnerable to the doom we'd hoped to avoid: The subordination to Iran or as a convenient battlefield for the Wahabbis and the Persians.

Sucks to be Iraq, don't it?

social structures

canuckistani| 8.30.10 @ 9:46AM

Mike,
Great points.
Hussein had been a useful idiot for Reagan during the post-Shah period. He was deserving of one prestigious military title: Grand poobah of incompetence. His ability to combat under-armed factions within the country were one thing, but his colossal failures at projecting his power are as much the flaws of US policy as anything else.
It would be curious in times ahead to read about the inner workings of the relationship the CIA and the DoD had with Hussein and how this unmeshed with his fateful invasion of Kuwait.
I think it clear that it is this one error that forced us to take our eyes off the ball in Iran, Pakistan and quite possibly Al Qaeda.
His legacy will be felt inside our security apparati for years to come.

knoxharrington| 8.30.10 @ 12:41PM

Mike,

You are absolutely correct. The in excess of 4,000 Americans killed - and tens of thousands of Iraqis - were absolutely pointless deaths. No amount of evidence, common-sense, reason, logic, rhetoric or argumentation is going to convince some people otherwise.

Trying to equate Hussein with Hitler is like comparing - the analogy is so poor I couldn't think of something remotely equivalent. Anyway, the neo-cons got what they wanted and we are all left holding the bag.

NavyBrat| 8.30.10 @ 2:00PM

Yeah, knoxharrington. Iraq was SO MUCH BETTER before we go there. Idiot.

NavyBrat| 8.30.10 @ 1:59PM

Darin:

You can play the "should have" game all day, but it accomplishes nothing. Saddam did have chemical weapons, but not in the quantities the entire world expected (we won't go into the truck convoys going into Syria just before the war kicked off)."

THANK YOU for bringing this up. In his book, "Lone Survivor," Marcus Luttrell writes about his team finding the trucks believed to have been carrying some of the mobile centrifuges abandoned near the Syrian border. He said, "whatever was in those vans had been removed, and in a hurry." It doesn't take Carnac the Great to guess that those weapons made it across the porous Syrian border & a burried somewhere in the desert. And I'll take the word of a Navy Cross recipient over that of some political hack or urinalist ANY DAY.

Oh, & let's not forget the 500,000 tons of yellowcake uranium removed from Iraq & currently being destroyed in Canada:

http://www.americanthinker.com.....wcake.html

Will| 8.30.10 @ 5:40PM

UN Inspectors reckoned that 90-95% of Saddam's chemical and biological capacity had been destroyed by the start of the war. The remainder was useless anyway, becuase he had had it since the 80s and it only had a shelf life of 7 years. His nuclear program was a joke by 2003, effectively non-existant.

NavyBrat| 8.30.10 @ 8:46PM

I'll take the word of one of our SEALS over the Useless Nations. The same organization who allows some of the world's most awful despotic governments sit on the head of its "Human Rights Commission." The same organizations that crucifes Israel at every turn, yet always coddles those who provoke her. The same organization that denegrates OUR NATION, without whose membership, it would be nothing more than a collection of thugs, has been world powers & communists.

Oh, & of course the UN has NEVER been wrong before, either, right?

Stuart Koehl| 8.31.10 @ 5:50AM

"UN Inspectors reckoned that 90-95% of Saddam's chemical and biological capacity had been destroyed by the start of the war."

Sounds nice, until you consider the lethality of chemical and biological weapons.

In the past eight years, the United States and its coalition partners have discovered hundreds of chemical munitions--artillery shells, unguided rockets and aerial bombs. A number of these were used as IEDs against our troops, several of whom were treated for exposure to Sarin.

The bulk of these weapons were filled with mustard agent (HD), a thick, viscous liquid that vaporizes when warm. When it comes in contact with skin, it causes burns and blisters; when inhaled or ingested, it destroys internal organs from the inside out. It is highly persistent and can linger for months in low-lying places.

Other Iraqi chemical munitions we have discovered were filled with the nerve agent Sarin (GB), either in binary or unitary form. An odorless, colorless liquid, Sarin is percutaneous--it can be absorbed through the skin. One drop, whether inhaled or absorbed through contact, will kill you in a very unpleasant manner. Nerve agents are chlorinesterase inhibitors. That is, they block an enzyme needed by the body for the transmission of signals across the synapses. When this happens, all voluntary and involuntary muscle responses are disrupted; the victim goes into convulsions, foams at the mouth, and eventually dies from cardio-pulmonary arrest--usually within 3-5 minutes.

Consider that a single 122mm artillery round (the most common kind of chemical munition we have found) contains about 30 lbs of chemical agent. This means, released in a crowded area amongst unprotected people, one such round has the potential to kill thousands of individuals. In the hands of a terrorist, a crop duster or ultralight aircraft could deliver enough nerve agent to make 9/11 look like a minor traffic accident.

One such weapon in the hands of Saddam Hussein was one too many. Now consider that we found hundreds of these munitions.

Also, you should read the Duelfer Report in its entirety. Among its other findings, it still could not ascertain whether or not Saddam had indeed destroyed his chemical stockpiles; undeclared materials uncovered by the UN could not be accounted for, and the Report says (in a term of art) that it cannot rule out they were moved to another country. The Report also states that Saddam had positioned Iraq to restart its WMD programs, both chemical and biological, within months of sanctions being lifted.

So, laugh at Saddam's joke--that's your privilege, because you are, after all, just an insignificant little git with no real responsibilities for anything.

And I, for one, am glad that's all you are.

Kenny| 8.30.10 @ 7:01AM

Exactly right, Jeb.

Iraq will resort to chaos once the U.S. full leaves, and maybe sooner.

The Bush Administration never studied Iraq. If it did, we woud have crippled Iraq's army, captured Hussein if possible, and left saying we'll be back if you become a threat again.

This nation building with Arabs was a fool errent.

Ryan| 8.30.10 @ 8:17AM

Wrong, I think.

Overwhelming force - ie, the Surge - should have been used from the beginning. We dallied around too long from the start, instead of pushing for more decisive victories.

Grzmlyk| 8.30.10 @ 9:14AM

I agree. When you go to a war with a country determined not to piss off its inhabitants, you are trying to thread a needle that cannot be threaded.

The "hearts and minds" thing is, I think the result of modern media and the concommitant desire to fight a war with JUST ENOUGH force. The result, of course, is a lack of true commitment (we mounted enough force in Gulf I, but then prematurely left, negating a lot of our progress there).

I don't pretend to be a military expert, but ever since WWII, it's obvious that we have decided as a county never to use overwhelming force to gain a clear-cut victory against an enemy.

And so we haven't.

And now, whenever an enemy attacks us on our own soil, we have decided to kill it - with kindness.

Gee, I wonder how THAT'S going to work out for us.

JoshINHB| 8.30.10 @ 10:31AM

The problem is that Bush never had a coherant reason for invading, a clear goal or an exit strategy.

Was it to kill Hussein and destroy the Bathist regime?

Or was it to create a functioning arab democracy?

Both goals are expressed interchangeably, but they would require vastly different force structures and post combat postitions.

Specifically, the goal of creating a functioning arab democracy would require a multi-decade occupation with the US building governmental structures from the ground up. Something that Bush never planned for or that would be politically possible to sustatin.

If the goal was to eliminate Hussein and the Bathists, then we accomplished that quickly and should have propmptly left with a warning that we would and could do the same to whatever piss ant tyrant ultimately succeeded Hussein.

Iraq will be just another arab dictatorship shortly after we leave the country next year.

Grzmlyk| 8.30.10 @ 11:04AM

It pains me to agree with you about Iraq's imminent fate.

I do seem to recall the Bush rhetoric pretty early on was to plant a West-friendly "democracy" in Iraq.

The thinking was that Iraq was more Westernized than, say, the post-Shah Iran, it had a fairly well-formed middle class, a populace that was somewhat educated, etc. The arguments I saw tended to run along the "reverse domino theory" vein.

Obviously, we underestimated the challenges, not just among the internal factions - the Shia, Sunni and Kurds - but within those factions and the fact that the middle east simply doesn't think as the West does.

But I do agree we were more suited to remove the Baathists than to engage in nation-building for sure.

I'll admit that, early on, I was on board for the nation building. It seemed possible. But the way we fought the war, dragging it out in order not to offend those we were trying to kill, was absolutely disheartening. Taking a city at the cost of blood and treasure on Monday just to turn it over to the insurgents on Tuesday made no sense whatsoever to me. Also, it wasn't a war without fronts; we hopschotched across the country right after shock and awe, declaring a city conquered and then not bothering to occupy it.

I'm no military strategist, but that doesn't make sense to me, and it's because we were trying to accomplish incompatible goals.

We really are a pitiful giant, unwilling to defend ourselves at home and unable to assert ourselves abroad.

Of couse, this makes liberals very happy.

Pete| 8.30.10 @ 2:05PM

Oh please, don't polish the turd. Bush went to war to try to regain his father's honor after he left Hussein in power and to "get" Hussein when he threatened his daddy's life.

Immanuel| 8.30.10 @ 4:27PM

Bush slaughtered 5K of our troops, and maimed 40K more, all for Halliburton's stock, and his cromies to get rich.
We paid off the "Awakening Councils" as they were Sunnis, and they pacified Anbar Provence.
The "slurge" did nothing, but splurge more mullah on the mullahs.
Now that we stopped paying the Sunni Awakening Councils, and the Shite rulers not paying them as agreed, the violence is up.
Young, dumb, and full of cum, that is how these military brass like em. Sheep to the slaughter and money to the Military Industrial Complex.
Oy Vey!

NavyBrat| 8.30.10 @ 8:50PM

"Young, dumb, and full of cum, that is how these military brass like em. Sheep to the slaughter and money to the Military Industrial Complex."

As you sit there sipping your latte. The only "courage" you know comes in a 12 oz bottle that you need when you try & chat up a potential bed warmer for the night. Why don't you just spit on our troops & call them "babykillers" while you're at it. That is, after all, what you're saying in your asinine statement.

GW| 8.30.10 @ 11:46PM

Halliburton's Stock price in 2000? About $26/share. Halliburton's price today? About $28. For being in bed with the president of the US, Halliburton has trouble keeping up with inflation...

Convet| 9.2.10 @ 3:07PM

You have no honor pinhead. All you have is mush for brains. Go crawl back into your daily kostic hellhole MORON!

Larry in Iowa| 8.31.10 @ 2:13AM

I'm sure glad you lefties have such keen insight into the motivations and thoughts of others. Knowing with such certainty what motivates others. Making his daddy look good, increasing profits for Haliburton etc.

Next time someone questions Obama's motives, or those of any other leftist I wonder how long until you screech that to do so is unfair?

Now that we've established that, because of their own actions, lefties have no right to complain when we slam the anointed one perhaps we can get down to considering his motivations. Why is he working so hard to destroy America? Does he hate the US that much or is it just because he is so colossally ignorant? Does he simply hate free enterprise and a republican form of government or is he in love with fascist style totalitarianism? My bet is that he, like the trolls lurking in such abundance here, simply hate the idea of American exceptionalism and yearn for the US to be humiliated and turned into a third rate power.

Sheila| 8.30.10 @ 11:02AM

We are still trying to "thread a needle that cannot be threaded" in Afghanistan, where our troops cannot fire back when fired upon and are supposed to patrol with their weapons unloaded. Whether Saddam had WMD or not is really not the point anymore; I had mixed feelings about Iraq from the beginning, but as soon as Bush started crowing about our "freeing" the Iraqis and "giving" them freedom and democracy, I was sickened. Just how many Americans were motivated to give up their lives so the damned Iraqis could be free from the strongman they, themselves, put in place? As long as we continue to overlook racial, religious, and cultural differences both at home and abroad, we will continue our long decline as a people and a nation. Democracy cannot be built or imposed from above; Japan may have a democratic veneer, but much of its economic and political structure is autocratic and uniquely Japanese. Most Russians never pined for democracy (despite their elite, self-chosen "intelligentsia" appealing to the West's useful idiots); they wanted consumer goods without any real effort or the risk of unemployment, and they wanted a bit more freedom of speech without any real political responsibility. That's where the U.S. is now - about half the country wants their "fair share" of goods and rights with no effort or responsibility. That is the root cause of our failure both in Iraq and Afghanistan - it is a failure of Americans as a people who no longer possess the collective will or self discipline to survive as a distinct and independent nation. Decline and fall.

Grzmlyk| 8.30.10 @ 11:12AM

On balance, I agree with you, Sheila.

I will say that, at first, I thought Bush's more mawkish, aspirational talk about giving freedom to Iraqis was cover for what I thought was a daring geopolitical gambit in order to gain a reliable ally in the region.

But you are right - I disagreed at the outset with Bush that all people want freedom. They really don't. In America, most people are happy to be told what to think, how to spend their money, whom to like, whom to hate and what to value. The rest, of course, are champing at the bit to control and exploit the willing sheep.

The history of the world is written in the blood of tyrants, and the world is governed by force. The American Experiment was a sliver of sunshine against a very dark backdrop, and the clouds have now obscured it.

Warrior| 8.30.10 @ 9:36PM

Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of Liberty.
- Thomas Jefferson

Ken (Old Texican)| 8.30.10 @ 7:26AM

Mr. Babbin
Quite obviously, you are, and have been privy to a lot more data than I have.

Question: What were you doing when Israel bombed the Iraqi Nuclear reactor?

Why didn't we stop the Iraqi reactor?

More important perhaps, what will we do except sit on our hands, while Israel writhes under the existential threat of nuclear death?

I really detest it when people who ought to know better throw out the word "nationbuilding" as a dirty word.

Hells bells, when did our "occupation" of Germany end concurrent with "de-nazification"...and roll over into "nation building...and sustaining" in the face of Russian Communism?

We have helped sustain Taiwan.
We have helped sustain South Korea.
We have helped sustain Japan.
We should have helped build and sustain a decent government in Viet Nam.
We helped sustain numerous small countries on the Pacific rim.

Does being Muslim make Iraq unsustainable?
I'm sure I don't know. I wonder how many "in the know" American leaders thought we could...or should...sustain West Germany...in 1950 with all the "ex-NAZIS" running around loose there?

Stuart Koehl| 8.30.10 @ 9:01AM

Ken makes an excellent point: if Jed's former boss had done his job and fought Gulf War I to its logical conclusion, instead of going all wobbly, we wouldn't have had Gulf War II, nor in all likelihood, Clinton Administrations I & II, and thus in all probability, 9/11 as well.

canuckistani| 8.30.10 @ 9:56AM

It will be fascianting to read communications in years to come about the relationship gone bad with Hussein.
I consider the peculiar relationship we have with Saudi the most difficult to comprehend. It is a good one, but so clearly a marriage of convenience, I wonder when it will disintegrate. The uneasiness within the pan-Arab community about Saudi influence and its Wahabbi underpinnings should caution us about getting invoolved in another bloodfeud.
We would be advised to examine the troubled relationship between Shia Persia and Sunni Arabia - especially the sheikdoms of the peninsula even further. They are visceral disputes that go back along way and cut to the very essence of islam.
It will need some smart people to navigate this and an American people willing to sacrifice to rely less on these countries for capital and resources.

steve| 8.30.10 @ 11:12AM

"Does being Muslim make Iraq unsustainable"?

Yes. Try reading the Islamic texts and tell me anything different. Islam is at war with us and the followers of Muhammad, the beheading, rapist, enslaver are trying to destroy us, non believers, as he commands them to do.

Do your homework you dhimmi fools. Islam is a political ideology with a few religious aspects that make it even more evil. It commands its followers to destroy and enslave us, therefore it has no Constitutional protection.

We had our chance on 9/12 to halt all Muslim immigration. GWB lied and told us it was a "religion" of peace. Now they are here and invading us in increasing record numbers. Who needs terror when you have dhimmi fools.

We will never, ever again be safe unless we not only stop ALL Muslim immigration but also start deporting all those who support Muhammad's commands to wage eternal jihad upon us while imposing Sharia law.

Les Nesman| 8.30.10 @ 11:53AM

In the meantime we should probably round up all existing Muslims in the US & fit them with anklets so we can track them, so we know what they are up to.

Brian B| 8.30.10 @ 12:19PM

--Does being Muslim make Iraq unsustainable?--

Being muslim alone may or may not make it unsustainable. But being Arab and muslim, if history is any guide, does not bode well for Iraq sustaining a relatively free country underpinned by political choice.
In Germany we eradicated the idealogy that made political freedom impossible and it was replaced by a reemergance of the western, Judeo-Christian tradition which Germany had long profited from and which makes political freedom possible . In Iraq we eliminated an idealogy quite similar to Nazism and it's been replaced by the prevailing idealogy of the area which has proven quite inimical to political freedom in the past and Iraq and the surrounding area has essentially no competing, freedom-compatible idealogy nor any significant history of freedom to fall back on.

steve| 8.30.10 @ 7:18PM

"Being Muslim alone [Iraq] may or may not make it unsustainable".

Yes it does you fool. Read my last post and tell how the Islamic texts make it sustainable.

I'm sick and tired of fools like you making up Islamic teaching based upon your feelings.

Read what Muhammad commands his followers to do, its there in all its evil for the world to see.

The Big E| 8.30.10 @ 3:43PM

While your point is valid on its face, it doesn't take a lot of digging to find its fundamental weakness. Germany and Japan were reduced to rubble BEFORE we started what might loosely be called "nation building" there. We did not "declare" victory there, we forced them into unconditional surrender. Taiwan and South Korea, as well as Japan and Germany in later stages, wanted our help in staving off the evils of communism from the USSR and/or China. Iraq was nothing like any of these places. Rather than reduce them to rubble, we tried to minimize the collateral damage. Rather than force them into an unconditional surrender, we have simply declared "mission accomplished" and pretended like we had won. And the evil we are trying to protect them from is the evil of Islam - but they are already Islamic.

I'm not saying that we should not have gone into Iraq. But I am saying that we went in without clearly defined, achievable, military and political goals, and once in, we have conducted ourselves as if our goal was to prolong the war rather than bring it to a swift and sure conclusion. The war in Iraq will not be over when the last American soldier departs. It will just be entering a new phase.

GW| 8.30.10 @ 11:51PM

Yes, being Muslim makes Iraq unsustainable. The problem with Iraq is its throwback Muslim culture. The ideology is a cancer to free loving people everywhere.

Bush, despite his best intentions, mistakenly believed Iraq could and would turn into a functioning democracy. A peaceful dictatorship would be nice right now. However, Saddam had to go. He was an unstable dictator who would have sold WMDs to the highest bidder to the peril of the 1st world. We should have gone in, taken him and the military out, and gotten out.

John II| 8.31.10 @ 12:26AM

You have to be at least as old as me, Ken, and I'm old enough to recollect a VERY elderly (early 80's: he never retired) high school history teacher telling us, during the extensive aftermath of World War II, that it was a fool's errand to try to establish democracy in Japan and Germany--the assumption being that the Nips and the Huns just weren't suited culturally to that kind of political system.

That recollection continues to keep me in a state of suspended judgment regarding Iraq's chances for a responsible and democratic pluralism, but it does indeed look more and more like a long shot. The Muslim factor will always throw a monkey wrench into any western calculations, as Turkey is now demonstrating.

Daniel| 8.30.10 @ 7:39AM

fighting islamofascism requires (ugh) fighting (sometimes) and diplomacy (other times). Iraq was only partly about establishing a functioning democracy in teh middle east. neocons all held that out as a distant (but highly rewarding) prize. the first goal was to deliver a bloody nose to international terrorist groups and those that supported them. another goal was pure shock and awe. let the terrorists know that any attack on teh US would be met with a disproportionate response (effectively putting the lie to Al Queda propaganda that we were {"the weak horse"). another was to build a strategic alliance with Iran's neighbor (the Iranians were and are the largest potential threat to our regional interests). another, and I think the key, goal was to get the middle easterners themselves to change their ways. The pathologies of middle eastern cultural failures produce the breeding ground for terrorism against us. the problems are of the middle east's making and must be resolved by the revolution/reformation/what have you that must occur if the middle east is to modernize and liberalize. invading iraq effectively built a dam for us around the middle east. in that cauldron let the bile of cultural failure be exorcised. Iraq has been a remarkable success on every one of these fronts. This article's attempt at reductio ad absurdum ("Iraq is principally an exercise in democracy-building") amounts to a straw man, it is so narrow.

Grzmlyk| 8.30.10 @ 9:57AM

Shock and awe was an absolute side show - a feint that had nothing to do with the war that followed.

I do not think shock and awe convinced anybody that we are not the weak horse. And to the extent it did, those who were supposed to quake with fear view the subsequent insanity here in America, in which we are falling all over ourselves to ingratiate ourselves with Islam, and they conclude, correctly, that we are indeed the weak horse, a structure that has rotted from within, and they need only kick in the front door and the whole edifice will collapes. We have lost our minds, so I guess it's no big deal if we literally lose our heads; we are about to become a nation of Rachel Corries, only to happy to be beheaded for the sake of our own moral vanity.

The hyperbolic build-up to shock and awe that we were subjected to was scandalous, given how irrelevant it quickly became. What it proved was that generals always fight the last war.

As Iran has stated, a Muslim - whether Sunni or Shiite - doesn't care about the physical reality of an Islamic nation-state or the objects or people in it. Jihad is all about Allah, not territory. The West still doesn't understand what it's dealing with. In our endless narcissism, we insist upon viewing Islam as if they have a Western orientation after all.

I console myself with this: By the time we become so abjectly decadent that we happily Islamicize America in order to show them how nice we are (give it two years), there will be nothing left worth conquering.

Grzmlyk| 8.30.10 @ 10:11AM

Just to clarify, I know Rachel Corrie wasn't beheaded. She was bulldozed to death, a classic American Morality Tourist, presuming that her defiance of Israel would bring social justice to the "Palestinian" victims of evil Israel.

As if either side gave a rat's ass what Rachel Corrie, a political dilettante taking a break from her hum drum bourgeois existence in the Pacific Northwest, thought about ancient enmities.

Sheila| 8.30.10 @ 11:05AM

Another excellent comment with numerous important points. I replied to your earlier comment making many of the same points (great minds think alike) - that how we now wage war reflects our cultural decline as a nation.

Grzmlyk| 8.30.10 @ 12:24PM

Sad, but inescapable.

It's funny to hear so many on the left, shall we say, clinging bitterly to the fiction that Obama's a good president and not a foolish agent of destruction. Amazing to see them contort themselves into pretzels.

I, for one, think Frank Rich ought to commit Hara Kiri in the middle of Times Sqare as a gesture of apology for the entire left. Hey, it might boost MSNBC's ratings, however fleetingly.

But what's even more striking is to see so many conservative economists and pundits from the right who are still afraid to name what's happening.

Several bought into the rubric of the "recovery," and talked of "double dip" recession as if that were the worst that might happen. And even now, they sit on their panel shows on Fox News all cheery and rosy-cheeked and confident in the status quo, as if the tectonic rending of this country is a Monday Night Football, and they can turn the channel if they get bored.

Meanwhile, we're sliding off the face of the earth; or, more apt, perhaps, we are the Titanic just after it hit the iceberg: Some are still partying in their quarters, still listening to the orchestra, still oblivious.

But the damage is already done and the die is cast.

carnot| 8.30.10 @ 11:12PM

with all due respect...bull *hit.

apocalyptic drivel.

The Big E| 8.30.10 @ 3:53PM

What is shocking or awe inspiring about being unwilling to finish what you start because you don't have the stomach for it? That's the only message we sent to the terror masters in the middle east with "shock and awe," that as a nation we're gutless. We have a lot of high tech toys that go bang, but we don't have the collective spine to use them when it means things are gonna get messy.

JP| 8.30.10 @ 7:48AM

Of course nation building is dicey. The rare times it does work is when our foes are completely destroyed (Japan and Nazis Germany); or when allies are completely destroyed (South Korea). And 60 years later we are still in all 3 nations.

But, from a political perspective there was no way we would be allowed to go into a place like Afghanistan kill and root out the enemy and then leave. Ditto for Iraq. And our nation has very little skill or political continuity to conduct long term counter-insurrgencies in Iran and Iraq. For that would have been the most feasiable. It worked during the Cold War vis-a-vis the Warsaw Pact for the simple reason we devoted large sums of money to that end, and we benefitted from nations like the UK who knew how to conduct them.

I seriously doubt the bedwetters in Foggy Bottom or Langley have much stomach for things like political assasinations, high stakes espionage, etc... And once someone like Obama gets into office, he would close such ops down.

So, we are left with even worse policy options - do nothing (other than conduct religious love fests with the Imans), or full fledged invasions.

Curly Smith| 8.30.10 @ 7:55AM

We won the war but it's up to the Iraqi's to win the peace - and they're going to lose. It didn't have to be that way, we could have won the peace but the Democrats diligently provided aid and comfort to the enemies of freedom. What was needed was a drastic change in the power structure but that was thwarted when those we removed from power were encouraged to engage in acts of terrorism that the media then proclaimed to be an "insurgency". But what were those "insurgents" fighting for... freedom?, liberty?, economic opportunity?, self-determination?... no to all, they were, like Lisa Murkowski, simply fighting for power.

The media wanted to hang a defeat on George Bush and the United States, now they'll hand another victory to Barack Obama and won't print another word about Iraq except for the 99% turnout in Cuba-style "democratic" elections that implement Sharia Law and turn Iraq into a protectorate of Iran. At least we'll be spared a reprise of the fall of South Vietnam with an exodus of "camel people" since a Democrat is President. Congrats to the media and Democrats for the subjugation of more people and the advance of tyranny. May you reap your just rewards.

Jim O'Brien| 8.30.10 @ 8:02AM

50,000 American soldiers remain, and more will be killed. Meanwhile, we have allowed 20 million illegal immigrants to walk across the border with Mexico. How many thousands of them are terrorists? What easier way for the terrorists to infiltrate and prepare attacks against American citizens? Does anyone seriously think that all 20 million are honest, hard-working job-seekers?

Stuart Koehl| 8.30.10 @ 9:03AM

Iraq today is safer for American troops than walking the streets of Detroit or Chicago on any day of the week.

Also, the U.S. should be able to walk and chew gum at the same time, meaning we should be able to deal with disparate issues like the war in Iraq and illegal immigration. It's a matter of both/and, not either/or.

But it is always a good diversion to create false dichotomies.

Am I using too many big words, here?

Brian B| 8.30.10 @ 12:07PM

Yes. Anyone who disagrees with you is definitely too stupid to understand what you are saying. And anyone who disagrees with you obviously is ignorant of the facts because it is impossible to be in possession of the facts and come to a different conclusion.
Are you sure you're not a lefty?

Stuart Koehl| 8.30.10 @ 1:05PM

"Yes. Anyone who disagrees with you is definitely too stupid to understand what you are saying. And anyone who disagrees with you obviously is ignorant of the facts because it is impossible to be in possession of the facts and come to a different conclusion."

I couldn't agree more.

"Are you sure you're not a lefty?"

I've got a track record. You could look it up. But that's work, right?

William R| 8.30.10 @ 4:35PM

Stuart, you're a Wilsonian NeoCon so yes, I'd say you are a radical lefty

Stuart Koehl| 8.30.10 @ 5:26PM

Tossing labels is no substitute for reasoned discourse or profound cogitation.

Crooz8er| 8.30.10 @ 10:01PM

You know NOTHING of which you speak. My wife is IN IRAQ. It is NOT safer than walking around Detroit or Chicago. That is an utterly STUPID and IGNORANT comment to make.

carnot| 8.30.10 @ 11:14PM

matter of degree.

Stuart Koehl| 9.1.10 @ 5:38AM

I'd be more worried if my wife was in Detroit.

martin j smith| 8.30.10 @ 8:20AM

The War in Iraq--It was necessary--but at great Economic and political aswell as human costs. Why was it necessary. Sadam hussein defied the United Nations 17 times on arms inspections. At some point you must decide. If you are an Obama Pacifist type you let the United Nations do whatever and divorce yourself from the idea or, if the United Nations has any meaning ( which at this point for me it has NONE ) then you go for it.
My problem has to do with the Bush administrations apparent lack of aggressiveness in peruing the war and not until the surge did things seem to go very right. Russia of Putin, Socialist Germany and SocialistFrance were propping up the Hussein regime with the famous "oil for food " program--recall that BS ? The US military was quite passive thru about four years which seemed waisted to me. Then there is the domestic political scene-where every casualty was a drip,drip,drip of erosion of support thru the MSM. Of course now that BHO is president, you do not hear of such hostile anti-war propaganda anywhere near that against Bush.
What is needed are leaders with more courage, who are level headed and are ready to deal with both the military and political issues head on --and not run for cover and be silent. This would include a sober looking at the United Nations and its allignments--as opposed to our national interests. They are not the same.

Stuart Koehl| 8.30.10 @ 9:17AM

"The War in Iraq--It was necessary--but at great Economic and political aswell as human costs."

I wonder about your sense of proportion. We fought a war to secure a nation of 26 million for eight years, during which time we lost just over 4000 men from all causes. We did so while spending just about 1% of our GDP on both the war in Iraq and the war in Afghanistan.

In my book, that's war on the cheap, both in human and economic terms. Let's hope you never have to deal with a major war. There were days during World War II when we lost 4000 men in an afternoon. Heck, there were still days during the height of the Vietnam War when we lost 4000 men in a couple of weeks.

Redstateboy| 8.30.10 @ 11:20AM

thank you....! I've been re-watching the Time-Life series World at War - unbelievable - the Death and Destruction. If we ever have to fight a War like the scale of WWII - I believe the pansi-fication of America will lead to a lot of death that was needless.

Doctor Right| 8.30.10 @ 8:25AM

Lost in all the lies and drivel emanating from the left-wing press and the Democrats in the run-up to the war in Iraq, and during the hottest days of combat, was the absolute strategic brilliance of the entire plan.

Yes, the war in Iraq was strategically brilliant.

Why? Simple. It created a front in a war that the "experts" always told us had no front.

The US presence in the heart of the Arab/Muslim world brought thousands and thousands of Islamic loonies into Iraq where we systematically eliminated them.

It also created a Democratic, quasi-allied Government in a very un-Democratic part of the world. The new Democracy provides the opportunity to secure a semi-permanent US presence in this strategically important region. And...better still...a democratic Iraq scares the crap out of regional potentates like Iran and Syria.

But of course, all of this planning will go to waste if the traitorous Democrats have their way. They will complete their withdrawal, allow the enemy to re-organize, and chaos will inevitably ensue.

Along with that chaos will come the inevitable "It's all Bush's fault" refrains from the Left and their willing accomplices in the media.

A good plan always goes awry when touched by incompetency.

Stuart Koehl| 8.30.10 @ 9:14AM

Not half bad. Needs some expansion and could use something on how, from an operational standpoint, how quickly the U.S. learned from its mistakes and implemented a new doctrine that effectively re-wrote the book on counterinsurgency. No longer will "pundits" write that "the insurgents always win" (not that this was true before Iraq, mind you). Consider that in the past a successful counterinsurgency campaign required between five and seven year to win. We did it in two, from the opening of the surge to the end of effective insurgent operations. And we did it with a very, very small combat force indeed.

U.S. COIN operations in Iraq will be studied by soldiers and historians alike for generations. And one thing that will come out of that is the realization that the U.S. military of the first decade of the 21st century was probably the most professional, best trained and most proficient force the modern world had ever seen.

The Big E| 8.30.10 @ 5:33PM

From 1991 onward, Iraq has been the perfect PC war - a constant striving not to offend, resulting in the complete emasculation of the so-called victor.

While I agree that the Democrats will likely allow and even encourage the reorganization and restrengthening of our enemies, I think it is quite short sighted to sing the praises of President Bush's handling of the war. Remember, we've been in Iraq before. How pearly did that outcome appear in oh, say 1993? And yet, only a few years later, we had to go back in - arguably because we didn't finish the job the first time. Why didn't we finish the job the first time? Because we wanted to achieve as minimal a victory as possible so as not to offend the Iraqis, or the Arabs, or the Muslim world in general. Now we're doing the same thing - striving for a minimal victory so as to not to offend. Once again, we are leaving the war unfinished, and a war unfinished is a war that will be fought again.

Also, describing our strategy as brilliant? Really, brilliant? With brilliance like that, who needs incompetence?

Will| 8.30.10 @ 5:50PM

What a load of old shit.

The invasion killed hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians. Beyond that, it has greatly emboldened Iran- the unstable Shia government will be easily bullied and manipulated by Iran, Iran's tentacles stretch throughout Iraqi civil society. Iraq is barely even semi-democratic now, so imagine what it will be like when our troops leave! And stop blaming the democrats- it was a republican president, with a republican congress, who invaded, and the key mistakes which allowed Iraq to descend into civil war were made in the run up to, and in the year after, the invasion.

Will| 8.30.10 @ 5:55PM

An interesting (and tragically true) anecdote. In the run up to the invasion, guess which organ of the US government knew the most about US invasion plans. The Pentagon? The State Department? No, it was the British military. Rumsfeld and Powell refused to speak for months as a the invasion progressed, so they had to send messages to each other via the Chief of the Defence Staff (British equivalent of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs), Admiral Sir Michael Boyce.
Does that go some way to showing you how useless the men who took us into Iraq were?

Stuart Koehl| 8.30.10 @ 6:52PM

"The invasion killed hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians. "

I'm sure you can provide their names and addresses.

Will| 9.1.10 @ 1:55PM

What on earth does that mean? Thats like saying, "soo, 6 million people died in the holocaust, did they? How do you know, since you can't provide their names and addresses?"

davelnaf| 8.30.10 @ 8:42AM

It appears that the war in Iraq was a mistake. Bush’s reasons for going into Iraq probably had as much to do with personal reasons as with those relating to the war on terror. The idea that an Iraqi democracy might be too weak to defend itself against the usual bad actors in the Middle East or against sectarian violence or against Al Qaeda never occurred to the Bush administration. Too bad it did not.

It is another example of the ineptitude of the entire US political class. The Democrats and their operatives hilariously maintain the fiction that Obama is an improvement over Bush, but we understand only too well by now the desperation behind this façade.

Americans need better leadership in Washington and if we do not get it in the next few election cycles we will be thinking regime change along the lines of ousting a dictator or cutting out a deep cancer. The hacks and scammers in Washington will only have themselves to blame when that happens, but that is not who they will be blaming.

Stuart Koehl| 8.30.10 @ 9:04AM

Moronic drivel--psychobabble posing as strategic analysis.

davelnaf| 8.30.10 @ 10:43AM

Mr. Koehl,
Were you in Iraq and Afghanistan? I was. You need perspective.

Stuart Koehl| 8.30.10 @ 1:09PM

Nope. But I know enough not to be misled by the grunt's eye view of things--it's like trying to read a road map through a drinking straw. Now, I have worked very closely with people who have not only been in both countries, but also for multiple deployments. One of my friends has been to Iraq twice and Afghanistan no less than six times (he's a high demand/low density asset), so I am quite well informed, thanks.

Doctor Right| 8.30.10 @ 10:46AM

Rubbish.

The war was won. Democracy, and a US ally, were created. Lots of terrorists were killed.

The idea that Bush went to war in Iraq "for personal reasons" is the kind of infantile crapola one usually reads on DailyKOS.

Will| 8.30.10 @ 5:58PM

Rubbish.

We are cutting an running, leaving behind a broken society dominated by Iranian-backed militias and political parties. In five years Iraq will not be a functioning US ally, and it is not even a democracy now.
Lots of terrorists were killed. Far more civilians were killed. Even more terrorists, and potential terrorists, were created as the invasion turned the entire Muslim world against the USA.

You are right that Bush did not do it for personal reasons. He did it because he was an idiot.

Cpm| 8.30.10 @ 10:40PM

I get really tired of the specious argument that we've somehow created more terrorists and potential terrorists, as if the events of 9/11 and the subsequent WOT hasn't created millions of real and potential volunteers for our armed forces as well as tens of millions of patriots who support them. These things don't happen in a vacuum. And in that fight I like our chances.

Will| 9.1.10 @ 1:57PM

Well, Iraq had almost no jihadis before the invasion. Now look at the place.

Louis Jenkins| 8.30.10 @ 8:42AM

"We shall listen closely tomorrow night for any sign that Obama understands that obligation. "

There is no understanding on the Pretender n Chief's part. Our service men and women will continue to be killed or injured in that cesspool. Al Quada will continue to infiltrate around the edges, and we will be fed a bunch of cock and bull stories about how we are winning. Eventually we will be out of there, and the American public will breathe a sigh of relief. What will be accomplished? Not much.

William R| 8.30.10 @ 9:06AM

If Bush had only listened to an old warrior like Colin Powell instead of Cheney. What a disastrous blunder.

Teflon93| 8.30.10 @ 9:07AM

What nonsense!

It was Colin Powell who sought and got the end of combat operations in 1991 before the Republican Guard was destroyed. "Cut it off and kill it" my butt.

Perhaps his racquetball buddy Prince Bandar got nervous and jerked his chain.

William R| 8.30.10 @ 9:27AM

Yeah right. If we had only gone to Baghdad in 1991 things would have been different. Now that's nonsense.

Schwarzkopf/Gates: Why we DIDN'T invade Baghdad in '91

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CfQG0I9eTWk

Powell told Bush in 2002 if he goes to Baghdad he'll own the country. We've been stuck ever since. The NeoCons need to be read out of polite society. Kristol, Kagan, Abrahms. Pearle etc etc. Cheney needs to go back to Wyoming and vanish from the scene.

Stuart Koehl| 8.30.10 @ 9:30AM

So, you belong to the "Butcher and Bolt" school of low intensity conflict? That's worked so well in the past, hasn't it.

Strategic, operational and tactical illiterates just feel they have something to contribute to this discussion.

William R| 8.30.10 @ 9:38AM

Koehl you're clueless. Iraq is a quagmire. Just as Norman Schwarzkopf and Robert Gates foresaw.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CfQG0I9eTWk

The ultimate responsibility is with George W Bush, but Cheney turned the screws.

Stuart Koehl| 8.30.10 @ 1:10PM

Quagmire, a term which in this context means a place whose political system is not quite as corrupt as that of Chicago or Jersey City.

Capt G| 8.30.10 @ 6:12PM

Democracies often resemble nothing so much as quagmires. To get something done quickly you must pine, ala Tom Friedman, for a dictatorship such as China's.

Powell's words, "you break it, you bought it" have a certain resonance. But the debate is not, nor should be, over the reasoning for invading Iraq. The question remains as to what should be done now.

Keeping a military force within Iraq makes no less sense than keeping one in Japan or Europe. That should serve as a guarantor of relative peace as well as a deterrent to outside threats while the Iraqi's get about the messy business of democracy.

Manning Fortress Europe was a strategic necessity. While I remain opposed to the ideology that views nation-building as a worthy rationale for invasion, we have invaded Iraq and it is firmly within a region of immense strategic interest to the US. Abandoning our accomplishments there is not an option.

Ironically, our focus is on Afghanistan which is neither a strategic interest nor a reasonable candidate for nation-building. That benighted land is where we should be withdrawing from.

Stuart Koehl| 8.30.10 @ 8:20PM

"Democracies often resemble nothing so much as quagmires."

Hence you find closet totalitarians like Thomas Friedman and Wesley Clark expressing their open admiration for China because, when their government wants to do something, dammit, it just does it--none of this consensus building crap, none of this voting or passing a law BS. No wonder the idea makes them cream in their jeans--they really would like to have that sort of power. Good thing, then, that they don't.

Cpm| 8.30.10 @ 10:45PM

Who was it, who, commenting on all the wonderousness of the Beijing Olympics, said, "It's amazing what you can accomplish with a billion people and the threat of a bullet."?

Stuart Koehl| 8.31.10 @ 5:55AM

Eric Cartman?

Stuart Koehl| 8.30.10 @ 9:26AM

Colin Powell is a grade-A weasel who always put his own career ahead of anything else. Even during the run-up to Desert Storm, he was hedging his bets and leaking to the press like a bloody colander, so that if things went south, he at least could say, "It's not my fault!"

It also helps to note that Powell was wrong, repeatedly. Wrong to halt combat operations after just four days during Desert Storm, wrong to endorse the cease fire negotiated by Schwartzkopf, and wrong on the level of effort needed to pacify Iraq.

So, on the one hand to use a Civil War analogy, the personal integrity of Dan Sickles, and on the other the military acumen of George McClellan. Not a bad mix.

In his favor, he's not Wesley Clark.

William R| 8.30.10 @ 9:28AM

Koehl, you are clueless son.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CfQG0I9eTWk

Stuart Koehl| 8.30.10 @ 9:31AM

Bill, I'm the only SOB here who has bothered to do any real work in this area. In fact, I've got thirty years of experience looking at this stuff, and, pardon me, I forget more before breakfast than you will ever know.

William R| 8.30.10 @ 9:39AM

Yeah, that's right.

Stuart Koehl| 8.30.10 @ 1:10PM

Your concession was gracious, and I thank you for it.

William R| 8.30.10 @ 2:18PM

Yeah right. Time to throw you and your fellow NeoCons under the bus. You destroyed the Bush Presidency and came close to destroying the Republican party. Obama is President today because of the Iraq quagmire.

Stuart Koehl| 8.30.10 @ 3:38PM

Nothing "neo" about me--I pretty much hold the same opinions and principles I have held since I turned old enough to drink--which, in my day, was eighteen. I've been at my business for more than thirty years, and I have faith in my own knowledge and judgment validated over that time.

What's your basis for venting gas, then?

William R| 8.30.10 @ 4:39PM

Well I've been a registered Republican since 1971. Worked for the Reagan campaign in 1976 and was a Delegate at the GOP convention in Dallas 1984. And you sir are no conservative. Conservatives don't believe in preemptive war. Nation building. After reading your crap at the Weekly Standard I'd say you are a radical. Certainly no conservative.

Stuart Koehl| 8.30.10 @ 5:28PM

"And you sir are no conservative. "

With all that ratuitous "sirring", one might mistake you for a bloviating hysteric on MSNBC.

Daniel| 8.30.10 @ 9:45AM

right you are. not even necessary in gulf 1 to have "gone all the way to baghdad." merely forcing hussein to publicly yield to the coalition would have doomed him. as it was, his generals accepted the terms. in all, a victory terribly botched by powell et al.

William R| 8.30.10 @ 10:17AM

No, as Norman Schwarzkopf and Robert Gates said"we'd still be stuck there today. It would be a quagmire." How right they were. Stormin Norman and CIA Director Robert Gates.

The Republican party needs to run Bill Kristol out of polite society. He is a cancer.

Stuart Koehl| 8.30.10 @ 1:56PM

Actually, only three things need have been done to convert the tactical victory of Desert Storm into an operational and strategic one:

First, continue driving north to Basrah, cutting off remaining Iraqi forces in Kuwait.

Second, allow Iraqi troops to repatriate, but only after leaving their weapons behind...

Third, prohibit Iraq from using helicopters for any reason. If they needed to move around, we could provide them with air taxi service.

Saddam's regime would have collapsed in a week. and though the subsequent situation would have been chaotic, in the end, some equilibrium would have emerged of its own accord.

William R| 8.30.10 @ 2:15PM

There is no reason to believe that Saddam's regime would have collapsed. And if by chance it had what would it have been replaced by. The truth of the matter is by Middle Eastern standards Iraq under Saddam was a liberal country. He was a Secular Dictator. Christians were the entrepreneurial class and protected by the government. Women in Baghdad freely wore western clothes if they chose to do so.

Now the Christians have fled to Syria or being slowly killed. Women are back in their Burkas.

Stuart Koehl| 8.30.10 @ 3:40PM

"Now the Christians have fled to Syria or being slowly killed. Women are back in their Burkas."

I belong to a Middle Eastern Church (Melkite Greek Catholic). I know many other Middle Eastern Christians, including members of the Assyrian Church of the East, the indigenous Christian Church of Iraq. Let's be charitable and say that you are pulling opinions out of your nether fundament.

William R| 8.30.10 @ 4:45PM

You're blowing smoke Stuart. Before we invaded there were 1.4 million Christians in Iraq. That number has been cut in half.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/w.....ians_N.htm

Stuart Koehl| 8.30.10 @ 5:30PM

And they were leaving in large numbers even before we invaded. That's true of the entire Middle East, and not just of Iraq. Fact is, Middle Eastern Christians are educated, industrious and have connections to an extensive diaspora in both Western Europe and the United States. So it was natural for them to seek out a better life elsewhere.

Saddam did not exactly leave Christians alone. Rather, he elevated one particular group--the Chaldean Catholics--over all the other ones, thereby making the Chaldeans entirely dependent upon and loyal to Saddam, while oppressing all the others. It's noteworthy that the Chaldean hierarchy went on record as opposing the invasion, while the Assyrians applauded it.

William R| 8.30.10 @ 8:50PM

Christians for Saddam?

http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles/ChancyIraq.php

Anthony| 8.30.10 @ 11:02AM

Any bets that Colin, the (let's let Scooter Libby hang out to dry") Obama suck up, will be praising Obama's retreat speech?

Doctor Right| 8.30.10 @ 10:52AM

Colin Powell???

The one who extended Sadam Hussein's reign in Iraq by 12 years after REFUSING to allow Schwartzkopf to finish the job in 1991?

The same Colin Powell who disloyally leaked information to the liberal press during the early months of the Iraq War, and whose assistant at State (Richard Armitage) leaked the information about Valerie Plame? And who let Scooter Libby take the fall?

The same Colin Powell who liked being a media super-star for the left-wing press as opposed to a loyal, dutiful Sec. of State?

The same Colin Powell who ENDORSED Barack Obama for President?? Simply 'cuz he was black, like Powell?? (It couldn't have been for Obama's vast military experience, could it??)

THAT Colin Powell??

Hate to tell ya' but that Colin Powell is a Grade-A clown. He's a bureacrat-soldier, not a warrior, and this country doesn't anymore bureacrat soldiers.

Colin Powell flushed whatever honor and integrity he may have had straight down the toilet when he endorsed Obama...And you can bet he regrets it, now.

Powell is an ass.

Sheila| 8.30.10 @ 11:07AM

Dr. Right - Hear, hear!!! Well said, Sir.

Stuart Koehl| 8.30.10 @ 1:58PM

No, as I said, Powell is a weasel. You aren't being fair to asses, which are sturdy, loyal beasts of burden. Why, an ass was good enough to bear Jesus Christ in triumph into Jerusalem. Why associate such a noble animal with Colin Powell?

William R| 8.30.10 @ 2:07PM

The only weasels are you and your fellow NeoCons over at the Weekly Standard. Colin Powell faithfully served 3 Republican Presidents and spent 35 years in the Military.

Stuart Koehl| 8.30.10 @ 3:41PM

Just what does "NeoCon" mean in your book?

William R| 8.30.10 @ 4:46PM

A militaristic foreign policy for one.

Stuart Koehl| 8.30.10 @ 5:31PM

I'll give you some time to think this through. You're obviously overwrought.

William R| 8.30.10 @ 2:10PM

Doctor Wrong, you've got to be one of the bigger buffoons here.

Schwarzkopf/Gates: Why we DIDN'T invade Baghdad in '91

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CfQG0I9eTWk

Stuart Koehl| 8.30.10 @ 3:43PM

The excuse wasn't convincing in '91, and its even less persuasive today. Besides, there was no need to invade Baghdad in order to effect regime change in Iraq (a goal later established in United States law by act of Congress, by the way).

William R| 8.30.10 @ 4:47PM

They were proven right and history has shown you to be a blithering idiot.

Stuart Koehl| 8.30.10 @ 5:32PM

In the words of Chou En Lai (in re the French Revolution), "It is too early to tell".

Teflon93| 8.30.10 @ 9:06AM

The threat ended by the Iraq War was that of Saddam Hussein, who had invaded a sovereign nation to seek control of its oil, repeatedly violated terms of the 1991 ceasefire, actively supported terrorist attacks upon the United States and her allies, attempted to procure and manufacture various weapons of mass destruction for this purpose, and attempted to assassinate a former president of the United States.

Ned the Red| 8.30.10 @ 9:10AM

"Was it worth the sacrifice in blood and treasure?"

This is a question I'll refuse to answer once one drop of America's military blood is shed in war.
Once we are so committed we should never look back and question our motives. The men, who fight, who we send to fight, deserve at least that from us. Just like they cannot wash the memories of brutality from their minds we should not attempt to wash our hands of the role we played.
Strategies and tactics should be analyzed and improved on. We should learn from mistakes, but we should never take cause and victory from the folks who fight the war. They need and deserve these for sustenance in their future lives.
I am for decisive victories that leave no doubt that the victor is, but also realize the war is shaped by the type of enemy we fight. The war in Iraq requires us to win in many ways and it will take many years. I have no problem leaving permanent bases there and I think this talk of leaving is fool hardy and premature.
Sooner or later we will fight Iran and its proxies. That war will finds us. Perhaps then we see how important victory in Iraq is to our future.

Stuart Koehl| 8.30.10 @ 9:33AM

"I am for decisive victories that leave no doubt that the victor is, but also realize the war is shaped by the type of enemy we fight. The war in Iraq requires us to win in many ways and it will take many years. I have no problem leaving permanent bases there and I think this talk of leaving is fool hardy and premature."

In most conflicts, you don't get that kind of victory, because most wars are fought with limited resources for limited objectives.

A good potential roadmap for future U.S. strategy can be found in Edward N. Luttwak's "Grand Strategy of the Byzantine Empire", which I reviewed at the Weekly Standard blog some months back.

Ned the Red| 8.30.10 @ 9:39AM

"In most conflicts, you don't get that kind of victory, because most wars are fought with limited resources for limited objectives."

The victor is the one who writes the history.

Stuart Koehl| 8.30.10 @ 1:11PM

Well, I'm an historian, so that would be me.

Ned| 8.30.10 @ 9:29PM

And since we are in a country where you can write it and we can read it, that makes us all the winners.

Stuart Koehl| 8.31.10 @ 5:57AM

Yea, us!

Ken (Old Texican)| 8.30.10 @ 12:14PM

Ned the Red,
Doctor Right,

Thank you both. I sit here and read some of these idiotic chair-warmers and want to puke.

Obviously they have never been on the sharp end of the stick.
...probably never stuck even a toe out of the good ole' USA....or walked a dark street in Detroit.

Maybe W was wrong...or partly wrong...or mistaken. History will decide.

Sheila,

Please do me a favor. You write some good points...then you always conclude with "decline and fall".
Texas ain't gonna' decline and fall. We are going to do our best to say ..."Lookee' here! This is how you manage your States."

Am I frightened for our country? You bet. Mainly I am frightened...about folks like you screaming "GIVE UP..ACCEPT THE INEVITABLE."

NOPE!

Sheila| 8.30.10 @ 12:37PM

Ken (Old Texican) - I will try once more to clarify for you my intent with that phrase (and by the way, I am also a Texan by marriage and residency). I do not intend to give up my values or principles. I speak out (and offend people's sense of propriety - often at this and other movement conservative websites) against political correctness and our population replacement loudly and often. I am raising my children in a traditional family structure with a strong emphasis on faith and patriotism, unpalatable truths and second amendment rights. I will not go quietly into the coming night . . . BUT neither do I expect enough others, in sufficient time, to join me to make a real difference in our already-set trajectory. I say "Decline and fall" not in anticipatory prediction but in sorrowful recognition - as in the decline and fall of the Romans. You may do your best - as I intend to do mine - but reality is better faced and prepared for than denied.

old white guy| 8.30.10 @ 9:15AM

bring all the troops home from everywhere. u.s. security can be secured by warships , missles , the air force and nukes from u.s. areas . use them to eliminate the ability for illegal aliens to cross the borders round up the fifth column islamics within the borders and in general help sort out the commies in the countries.

Stuart Koehl| 8.30.10 @ 9:28AM

"bring all the troops home from everywhere. u.s. security can be secured by warships , missles , the air force and nukes from u.s. areas ."

Another armchair Clausewitz puts his oar in. Perhaps you would try to flesh out your assertions with a bit of strategic and military analysis?

Ned the Red| 8.30.10 @ 9:43AM

If we had followed your course of action, more than likely we wouldn't exist now. Nuclear war would be the only answer in any conflict. Sooner or later it would be on our doorstep.

Dan Hirsch| 8.30.10 @ 10:00AM

Ned, you rosey fool!

Would you rather be speaking German or Japanese now?

Surrender is always the easiest answer, besides then they'll feed you...until they take you out in a field and brain you with a shovel!

I presume that when you walk through bad neighborhoods yo always try to look meek and powerless, right? Try it, you'll learn a lot, real fast...

Ned the Red| 8.30.10 @ 11:40AM

Dan, I have no idea what you or your insults mean, or even what caused you to form them. Write something understandable and if I am bored I might respond.

Dan Hirsch| 8.30.10 @ 9:26PM

Ned,

I'll go very slowly for you. Naah, I won't. Never mind. Your ignorance of history insures your confusion and concord with those who intend to dominate you and your country with the aim of ending the freedoms found here and nowhere else on the planet.

If you cannot understand what I wrote, it is your ignorance that is the obstacle and it well may be a stubborn, unrepentant ignorance that you enjoy.

I suggest a personal philosophy for you, maybe you've already adopted it: "Don't worry, be happy."

Good luck, foolish one, should they overcome us and our freedom, you will be one of the most deeply disappointed - they'll laugh at you and your complacency and your compliant nature and reward it with a shovel to the brain. Lotsa luck, pal.

Ned the Red| 8.31.10 @ 9:28AM

Dan, I posted,
“If we had followed your course of action, more than likely we wouldn't exist now. Nuclear war would be the only answer in any conflict. Sooner or later it would be on our doorstep.”
The post was a response to “old white guy” who posted,
“bring all the troops home from everywhere. u.s. security can be secured by warships, missles, the air force and nukes from u.s. areas . use them to eliminate the ability for illegal aliens to cross the borders round up the fifth column islamics within the borders and in general help sort out the commies in the countries.”
My post meant that we cannot pull our troops home from everywhere (big place) avoid all foreign ground fighting and maintain our security with the use of “warships, missiles, the air force and nukes from u.s. areas.”
This is foolish, and if anything assures that rather than deal with threats when the can be handled conventionally we ignore them (I guess, hoping they will go away) until they are enough of a threat to require nuclear weapons. Our own President hinted that this was a feasible strategy when he mentioned once in regard to Hugo’s little country that it wasn’t a threat to us since our total strength was many times more than his.
I think many of the so called peace folks believe this to be a valid strategy also. In reality it causes more death and destruction, since rather than nip problems in the bud they are allowed to grow until devastating response is required.
I enjoyed the insults, (rosey fool, meek and powerless) I walk my bad (more like Mr. Rodger’s) neighborhood with my little Pomeranians and four year old daughter, I guess that is meek and powerless. However I did read once that Bismarck, in his younger days liked to walk a small dog dressed in feminine attire hoping to attract insults that would lead to duels. I haven’t managed to find any duels, but some pretty mean dogs have been chased away with the big stick I carry.

Ned the Red| 8.31.10 @ 9:41AM

Correction: thats four year old granddaughter, not daughter, and she wreaks hell on ant piles, red ants that is.

Cpm| 8.30.10 @ 10:58PM

"Festung Amerika"? We can all hide under our blankies while the storm gathers outside and moves closer to home. No thanks.

Stuart Koehl| 8.30.10 @ 9:28AM

"bring all the troops home from everywhere. u.s. security can be secured by warships , missles , the air force and nukes from u.s. areas ."

Another armchair Clausewitz puts his oar in. Perhaps you would try to flesh out your assertions with a bit of strategic and military analysis?

Dan Hirsch| 8.30.10 @ 9:56AM

Stuart, Dude!

Watching you is like watching Jackie Chan. I'm getting worn out, just reading all your posts.

I am with you - but you might just let the mice go by, save the big stuff for the big 'uns. But I do understand what a couple of mice will do.

Might I add, Semper Fi' to you, sir.

Hawker | 8.30.10 @ 10:20AM

I believe all of you are full of BS . I doubt any of you have ever served a day in our armed forces .
your arm chair so called wisdom makes me sick . Sit back in your secure area while others provide your protection . COWARDS

Stuart Koehl| 8.30.10 @ 1:15PM

" I doubt any of you have ever served a day in our armed forces ."

Neither did Abe Lincoln or Franklin Roosevelt. On the other hand, Jefferson Davis was a graduate of West Point, a veteran of the Mexican War who led the Mississippi Rifles in battle, and was a former Secretary of War, while Adolph Hitler was a decorated veteran of the trenches on the Western Front.

I guess that puts an end to discussions about whether active service makes for better strategic insights.

Crooz8er| 8.30.10 @ 10:10PM

Prolly explains Abe's strategy of attacking and killing unarmed Southern women and children. Oh and those slaves he loved so much. Yeah, waging total war on civilians is real hard "strategy." Sheesh.

Stuart Koehl| 8.31.10 @ 5:58AM

More things "everybody knows" that just aren't true.

russ in nc| 8.30.10 @ 9:58AM

According to the US Constitution every state gets to put together a militia (well regulated of course) consisting of state residents and citizens who keep and bear arms. Anything else is not authorized. Therefore the US Army must be disbanded. I like the US Navy but without an amendment to the Constitution it too must be put into mothballs.

Dan Hirsch| 8.30.10 @ 10:02AM

russ, you rosey fool!

Would you rather be speaking German or Japanese now?

Surrender is always the easiest answer, besides then they'll feed you...until they take you out in a field and brain you with a shovel!

I presume that when you walk through bad neighborhoods yo always try to look meek and powerless, right? Try it, you'll learn a lot, real fast...

HEY! Wait a minute, "russ" you aren't really "ned the red," are you?

RCV| 8.31.10 @ 12:01AM

Russ, a Constitutional scholar you are not. Article II, Section 2 explicitly states, "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States...". Article I, Section 8 gives Congress the power to "To raise and support Armies, ... To provide and maintain a Navy; "
Can't get much more explicit authorization than that.

Stuart Koehl| 8.31.10 @ 6:01AM

Indeed, the only open question is whether Congress will authorize and fund and army and a navy (I hope that Russ is not such a strict constructionist as to advocate the abolition of the Air Force because it is not specifically mentioned in the Constitution). In actuality, the U.S. does not have a standing military. It is authorized from year to year by act of Congress. Every year, at midnight on 30 September, the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps are disbanded; and at 12:00:01 they are raised anew--which is why passing a Defense Authorization Bill every year is such a big deal.

David Bligh| 8.30.10 @ 10:19AM

"Saddam was apparently not involved in the 9-11 attacks..." but he was most definitely involved in the Alfred P. Murrow building bombing!

martin j smith| 8.30.10 @ 10:34AM

Second Post on the Iraq War.
This war brought out divisions between us the ourso calloed Western European Socialist allies France and Germany in addition to our non-Ally Russia of Putin repute. Recall oil for food program. This was boodogle that we interrupted and so from their point of view awe spoiled their looting of probably our own money. tehn the "CowBoy Bush" hated in Europe and by the Democrat Left became the whipping boy for all. On top of the political morass at home with constant anti-war media hype we have Iran with the help of Russia again, and China building up their military. The appeasers in Europe did nothing to help in dealing with iran and Bush caught in a political bind here at home on top of his foolish need to be quiet towards his critics led us into another problem which meant that we did the equivlent of moving the dirt from one end opf the rug to another. Saddam gone,Achmadinadjad is our new foe. So we now face a nuclear Iran Bush was unable to deal with them and Obama could not care less. The one commo0n thread is that Western Eureope,Russia and Democrat Socialists want us to be hit by terrorists in my oppinion. So, did Iraq work out well. In isolation of the big p[icture--better than without the surge, biut from my view point espeically considering
the Obama "lack of leadership" and indifference to our national security- nope it did not solve the problem of islamic terrorism or any any other kind din this region. Socialists hate this country--and have joined with China and Russia against us. But, the only hope is regime change here at home. We must look towards our national interests and not care so much what others think.
This does not mean "ridem cowboy adventurism--it means preparedness,and it means being ready to defend ourselves and our allies under threat of attack thru diplomacy as well a show of force when needed. Speak reasonably but carry a big stick ( a very big stick )

Thinker Right| 8.30.10 @ 11:02AM

It's worse than any of you recognize. Ask yourselves the question: "who benefited from this war on Iraq".

A moment's reflection reveals that the only real beneficiary is Iran. At our own expense we removed their major adversary.

And now we have a worse problem than Iraq ever presented.

Why did the Bush administration commit this colossol geopolitical blunder? Maybe someone here can answer that question, I can't.

Stuart Koehl| 8.30.10 @ 1:18PM

This is a variation on the Pat Buchanan take on World War II. It's as fatuous here as in Pat's book. Remember what the Byzantines already knew: the end of one enemy simply means the rise of another one. There is no end to war and international conflict, and those who think there is or can be this side of the second coming are delusional.

William R| 8.30.10 @ 1:58PM

Koehl, 49 years ago President Eisenhower warned the nation about people like you!

Stuart Koehl| 8.30.10 @ 3:45PM

Just how many defense companies are numbered among the top ten U.S. corporations? How many in the top fifty? What percentage of U.S. GDP is dedicated to defense today? What percentage was dedicated to defense when Ike left office in 1960?

So much for the myth of the Military Industrial Complex.

Stuart Koehl| 8.30.10 @ 3:56PM

So, which is larger: The U.S. Defense Budget, or Walmart's revenues?

Answer: The DoD Budget, but not by much. Walmart had revenues of more than $400 billion last year, and the Defense Budget was $663 billion, of which $133 billion was the wartime supplemental. Military procurement--money spent to purchase equipment--was $107 billion, or just about a quarter of WalMart's sales. If we add in some $79 billion in RDT&E, the combined "investment" budget was only $186 billion, or less than half of what WalMart made. So, if we add another $186 million to cover Operations & Maintenance (O&M) costs--money for training, fuel, spare parts and repairs--we're still slightly below WalMart's revenues. Only when we add in Military Personnel (MILPERS) costs of $136 billion that the Defense budget finally exceeds WalMart recenues. That ought to give some perspective on the "military-industrial complex".

I haven't done the math, but I am pretty certain that, over the past eight years, the United States has spent more on beer and snack foods than it has fighting the war on terror.

Good value for money, our military. Wish the rest of government was as efficient.

William R| 8.30.10 @ 4:55PM

Walmart serves the general public. Defense contractors serve governments. Simple economics. But the United States spends close to one trillion a year on defense related mattes.

Stuart Koehl| 8.30.10 @ 5:33PM

Well, if you want to do the math, I'm ready to demolish it.

Au Contraire| 8.30.10 @ 3:45PM

This Stuart Koehl guy should enlist. He sounds like prime cannon fodder.

Stuart Koehl| 8.30.10 @ 4:00PM

Apres toi, fromage mangeant singe de cession.

Crooz8er| 8.30.10 @ 10:12PM

Figures you would be writing in French. Frigging armchair pussy.

Looz8er| 8.30.10 @ 11:08PM

I frigging hate pussies that have arms on their chairs. Must be French.

Crooz8er| 8.30.10 @ 11:43PM

You hate pussy? Fag.

Looz8er| 8.31.10 @ 1:44AM

Jeez, you just ooze southern charm...no, you just ooze. Must be French.

Patrick| 8.30.10 @ 11:13AM

In time all that was seemingly accomplished will be undone.

You cannot stop believers in Islam from behaving as is mandated by Islam, without first subduing Islam itself. The West does not have such resolve, nor will the West even allow itself to recognize this truth.

Redstateboy| 8.30.10 @ 11:26AM

odd.. I've read no comment on the Hypocrisy of Hussien the Muslim (irritates the hell out of his syncophants) - claiming Credit! for "Victory" in Iraq when he was one of the loudest mouths against the very act (the Surge) that brought the "Victory" he now claims.

ton| 8.30.10 @ 11:27AM

Nations are traditionally based upon ethnic and/or religious homogeneity. "Iraq" was a creation of the West, the post-enlightenment, de-natured, pseudo-rationalist West that had just slaughtered millions of its "best and brightest"
in a futile bloodbath caused by colonialist/nationalism run amok.
A democratic "Iraq" is a pipe dream of arm chair theorists who ignore the influence of ethnicity and religion because they have denied their own heritage and abandoned the faith of their fathers.

No wonder these neocons nothing about Islam. A man who would stone his daughter for marrying outside his faith is unlikely to be impressed by MacDonalds and the latest porn from Hollywood.

Stuart Koehl| 8.30.10 @ 4:01PM

"Nations are traditionally based upon ethnic and/or religious homogeneity. "

Like the United States, for instance?

ton| 8.30.10 @ 5:58PM

The exception does not disprove the rule.
And our diversity is NOT our strength, but our weakness, as we are finding out daily during our ever more rapid descent into balkanization, cultural infantilism, demographic decline, and mindless consumerism.
(No wonder they don't want our brand of nationalism.)

Stuart Koehl| 8.30.10 @ 6:57PM

Like Switzerland, then?
How about Canada?
Australia?
India?
Israel?

ton| 8.30.10 @ 9:43PM

Switzerland? irrelevant - bankers to the uber-rich predators of the world - from the Nazis to the Arabs.
Canada? the British in the cities are committing demographic suicide; the French want their own country; my point exactly.
Australia? almost exclusively British (enriched by the lower criminal classes and thus less feckless than the home country).
India? are you kidding? resurgent Hinduism targeting Christian minority (the Muslims were partitioned away in 47).
Israel? Zionism (a rather exceptional case); secular messianic zeal under cover of religion.

How many functioning democracies have been established in a Muslim country by an military power representing a non-Muslim state, and thus a state inherently antithetical to the most basic beliefs and morays of the occupied country?

Crooz8er| 8.30.10 @ 11:41PM

Is this a trick question?

Stuart Koehl| 8.31.10 @ 6:03AM

How many functioning democracies have been created in Asia by a military power representing a non-Asian state?

Capt G| 8.30.10 @ 6:28PM

I'm always amazed at the comments made by people that would have obviated the effort to even try the American experiment.

The effort of achieving self governance is ancient. We, the beneficiaries of history and the most remarkable experiment in self governance, have no reason to doubt that the Founder's principles and faith in the individual are as relevant to all men as they are to Americans. After all, they said so.

Our attitude should not be one of despair nor condemnation but one of optimism leavened with the knowledge that; Yeah, we went through that as well.

H. Evers| 8.30.10 @ 11:38AM

Continuing a discussion Mr. Babbin and I have had since prior to the Afghanistan invasion but focused on the Iraq part of our war against terrorism and terrorist states. Now I am sure that everyone is aware that Mr. Babbin was an advocate of the invasion of Iraq.
“In our history, we have never struck preemptively, but we must do so in Iraq and against any other terrorist target we identify. The terrorist is an enemy whose principal strategy is the targeting of civilians and non-military assets. We have not only the right but the obligation to defend ourselves by preempting threats such as those posed by Saddam and his ilk. If the president intends to stick with his decision to remove Saddam -- and because of the threat, he must -- he needs to end the internal squabbles and tell his team to get on with business.” “Dancing at the Naysayers' Ball” By Jed Babbin on 8.2.02 @ 12:02AM
Unfortunately after advocating the invasion Mr. Babbin also advocated Mr. Rumsfeld’s misguided strategy for the military in general and the war against terrorism in particular.
“Last week, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld ordered theater commanders and commanders-in-chief to revise their war plans to provide for greater speed in deployment and action. This decision is a tremendous defeat for the Tommy Franks crowd that refused to move beyond World War II in strategy and doctrine. Mr. Rumsfeld realizes that the focused intensity of our forces, if applied with great speed, can defeat Iraq and any enemy like it without surrendering tactical surprise. This is very good news, because speed of our forces is vastly more important than their size in the coming Iraq campaign.” “Speed Saves” By Jed Babbin on 10.15.02 @ 12:04AM
Now Mr. Babbin and many others who helped create the problem are not happy with the inevitable result of their strategy. They fear that we have spent our fortune and the lives of our best accomplishing nothing.
“That is the principal problem with our war in Iraq. What has been accomplished is impermanent, so much so that the question "was it worth the sacrifice" has to be answered in the negative.”… “Any war -- from the Romans' first war against Carthage to World War I to our war in Iraq -- is aimed either at conquest or at ending a threat. Either way, the goal is to establish a durable peace. And wars that result in only a brief respite from conflict cannot be characterized as won.” “What Mission Was Accomplished?” By Jed Babbin on 8.30.10 @ 6:08AM
The Chief of Staff testified to Congress on February 25, 2003, a month before the March 20 start of the war. In response to a question posed to him at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on how many troops would be needed in Iraq, General Shinseki replied, “Something on the order of several hundred thousand soldiers are probably...a figure that would be required.” General Shinseki and the Army Staff’s estimate was more than twice the size of the actual ground force of 145,000 that led the Iraq invasion, and his testimony should have set off alarm bells in Congress when he went on to point out, “It takes a significant ground force presence to maintain a safe and secure environment to ensure that people are fed [and] that water is distributed, all the normal responsibilities that go along with administering a situation like this.”
I would also like to point out that our occupation of Germany and Japan after WWII required over 3 years of preparation. We are now paying for the lack of preparation for what would come after victory in Afghanistan and Iraq and Mr. Babbin who advocated the policy of “lite attack” and painful “Nation Building” now wants out.
“The neocons are now proclaiming that the troop surge in Iraq "won" the war and that we now have to "win the peace" in Iraq. Which amounts to a re-commitment to their nation-building strategy and would require that which we will not -- and should not -- do: remain in Iraq indefinitely.” “What Mission Was Accomplished?” By Jed Babbin on 8.30.10 @ 6:08AM
Now as back in 2001/02 I would like to suggest to Mr. Babbin that while “Lite and Quick” may be able to produce the quick win it is no replacement for being able to achieve real Victory as demonstrated in both Iraq and Afghanistan. We need a significant ground force supported by globally capable air, sea, and special operation arms. As for Iraq and Afghanistan we must finish the mission or face a worst challenge in the near future.

H. Evers
USA retired

martin j smith| 8.30.10 @ 11:39AM

What we need in this country is leadership. We have had none to not enough since Reagan and even he did not involved in the middle-east confining at lot of his focus on the Cold War which made sense at the time. I think the majorty by far of American People have shown by their oppostion to the Ground Zero Mosque that they have their limits too. We are not Europe . The problem is not only Radical Islam, it is Russia and China plus their client states of iran ann North Korea. among others. I have a sense that we cannot count on anyone for support. And the American people will have to be given a very rude awakening that the idealism of a United nations or a friendly NATO or whatever cannot be counted on. We will pick and chose
allies with whom we have the basic freedoms of West that Europe and even Canada have apparenly disregarded We live in a hostile world that is not the fault of the Iraq war or GWB. That is our new reality I believe. It could mean that Muslim's in America will have to chose what kind of life they want: If they want the traditional ways under Sharia Law I sincerely hope that American Political leadership will politely tell those individuals and groups that they are welcome to leave if they do not like it here. The opposition to the GZ Mosque shows that the American people believe the building of this Mosque is indeed a thumb in the eye of the American people and might be a good start in showing pushback. This attitude should be encouraged thru education about what radical islam and Sharai Law are really about.

Thomas| 8.30.10 @ 11:40AM

It is always a good thing to evaluate the results of actions and ask questions as to their effectiveness. The Iraq campaign is no exception. But Iraq has to be put into perspective, it does not stand alone.

First, the U.S. invasion of Iraq was not a war unto itself. It was only one campaign in the war against global terrorists who threatened the security of the people of the United States and her allies.
Afghanistan was one such campaign, as was the tracking down and killing Al Qaeda operatives and other terrorist leaders worldwide.

The invasion of Afghanistan was a direct strike against the organization that had directly attacked the United States mainland on 9/11, Al Qaeda, and its supporters, the Talaban. Other than being the base for the leadership of Al Qaeda, Afghanistan has absolutely no strategic worth to the U.S. Iraq is a different story.

The invasion of Iraq immediately accomplished two things for the U.S. It eliminated the constant drain on our military resources that were required to enforce the cease fire from the 1991 Gulf War. It also allowed the U.S. to establish a large military presence right next door to our avowed enemy, Iran. The plan was to remove Hussein, stabilize the country and withdraw, leaving 50,000 to 80,000 troops in-country to help stabilize the region. And unexpected result was the attraction of virtually every non-Palestinian terrorist in the world to Iraq, where it was possible for the United States to isolate and destroy them.

Now, the question of what was accomplished, is it over and was it worth the cost.

The answer to the first question is that the U.S. delayed Iranian expansion in the region, gained large troop bases in a country that is relatively stable and which needs the continued presence of the U.S. to survive, and has acquired a large pool of experienced combat veterans for future use. The popular mantra that the Iraq invasion was to protect the U.S population from WMDs, free the Iraqi people from a brutal dictator and win a friend was not the overriding reason for the campaign. No more so than the popular fiction that the Civil War was a war to free the slaves in the South. In both cases, the reasons had to do with the long term survival of the United States of America. Freedom was simply a welcome by-product.

Is it over? The Iraqi campaign is largely over. But, the larger war against global terrorism and its sponsors, most notably Iran, is not. That is why there are still 50,000 American troops in Iraq. There also other plans and operations ongoing to eventually win the chess game now in progress. Iraq is simply one piece on the board.

Was it worth the cost? That is impossible to tell from this point in history. It will be impossible answer that question for years or even decades. And, there are other factors, such as the leadership of the U.S. and her allies, that could well negate all that was accomplished in the last eight years. The jury is still out on the worth of the Iraq campaign and will be for some time.

Capt G| 8.30.10 @ 6:32PM

Well said, Thomas.

Ken (Old Texican)| 8.30.10 @ 7:59PM

Thomas,
Thank you. You saved me some typing. Thank God we still grow these young men who go to the walls against the barbarians.

The piss-ants here are annoying though aren't they?

Mr. Koehl

Thank you for injecting some adult perspective above.
Highest regards to you both

Cpm| 8.30.10 @ 11:13PM

And let's not forget that it put those who opposed us on notice and actually convinced Khadaffi to totally dismantle his nuclear program and turn it over to us.

Jim O'Brien| 8.30.10 @ 11:45AM

We have been successful in Iraq and Afghanistan, insofar as the brutal Saddam Hussein and the Taliban are no longer in control. But I have complete confidence that Obama will screw up both situations, allowing the enemy to regain strength. And while we have made significant progress in those two countries, we have sat on our hands watching while Iran acquires a nuclear weapon. And we have allowed an unknown but certainly large number of terrorists to walk across the Mexican border. Obama, H. Clinton, Napolitano, Holder, and their comrades in Congress are totally incompetent to serve. In fact, they are giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

RightWinger1973| 8.30.10 @ 11:51AM

I detest Monday quarterbacking. I think it is crucial to look at the war against Saddam Hussein in the context of the days following 9-11-01 and what intelligence (ours and that of other nations) was telling is. Was it perfect? Absolutely not. Was Hussein a threat regarding his WMD ambition and support of terrorism? Absolutely. It's very easy to look back and ridicule and label the war as meaningless and ask "what was the point?". Unfortunately on 9-12-01 we did not have that luxury.

Thinker Right| 8.30.10 @ 11:59AM

RightWinger1973 - Your comments won't wash. I was saying from day one that the invasion of Iraq would be a catastrophe for the USA. Not that anybody listened to me! And I was not the only one.

There was plenty of reason not to invade Iraq, and only the flimsiest of reasons, much of it fabricated, to do so.

loulou| 8.30.10 @ 12:25PM

Iraq was a catastrophe for the USA because we went in like timid girls, afraid to use our firepower. You can't win a war when you're afraid of leftist media and are trying to "win hearts and minds".

Our military should NEVER be used a social workers.

Clinton started the feminization of the military. Bush continued it and Obama is going in for the final castration.

Stuart Koehl| 8.30.10 @ 5:35PM

Another strategic illiterate pipes up. Maybe you should read the Marine Corps Small Wars Handbook--it was first issued in the 1920s, and is still a model of how to fight limited wars, even to this day. Most of it is devoted to what you might call "social work".

Stuart Koehl| 8.30.10 @ 6:58PM

"I was saying from day one that the invasion of Iraq would be a catastrophe for the USA."

How good that you were wrong, then!

Pete| 8.30.10 @ 12:03PM

As long as our soldiers have to get a signed & notarized statement from the enemy that the enemy intends to kill them within 24 hours before they can engage with deadly force, I am not sure any war is worth fighting because it can't be won that way. Decide, commit, win, come home.

Stuart Koehl| 8.30.10 @ 6:59PM

The way you win is by implementing the counter-insurgency doctrine. You operate under the strategic proposition that, when your only tool is a hammer, every job looks like a nail.

Ken (Old Texican)| 8.30.10 @ 12:28PM

WARNING!
COPY PASTE HERE FROM ABOVE!

Ken (Old Texican)| 8.30.10 @ 12:14PM
Ned the Red,
Doctor Right,

Thank you both. I sit here and read some of these idiotic chair-warmers and want to puke.

Obviously they have never been on the sharp end of the stick.
...probably never stuck even a toe out of the good ole' USA....or walked a dark street in Detroit.

Maybe W was wrong...or partly wrong...or mistaken. History will decide.

Sheila,

Please do me a favor. You write some good points...then you always conclude with "decline and fall".
Texas ain't gonna' decline and fall. We are going to do our best to say ..."Lookee' here! This is how you manage your States."

Am I frightened for our country? You bet. Mainly I am frightened...about folks like you screaming "GIVE UP..ACCEPT THE INEVITABLE."

NOPE!

Ken (Old Texican)| 8.30.10 @ 12:31PM

I still wake each morning out of a nightmare.

Watch for it; its coming along. "The Nays of Texas"

Chris Crowley| 8.30.10 @ 12:53PM

Saddam is gone. He was a danger to the US, the area, and after 9/11 he actively sougth to ally and support Al Queda. He actively supported other terrorist groups before 9/11, with both money and sanctuary. He said in his own words that he was planning on waiting until after the sanctions were lifted to re-start his WMD program. He still has the infrastructure to create new WMDs. It was worth just kicking him out. We should have done the same thing in Cuba 50 years ago, many more lives would have been saved in the long run. We should have defeated North Korea and struck a peace deal with the Chinese, but Truman would have none of that. It was worth invading Iraq, even if it is a big political mess.

Louis Jenkins| 8.30.10 @ 3:51PM

Saddam said that the Iraqi people would follow along, you just have to kill about a third of them.

Stuart Koehl| 8.31.10 @ 6:06AM

Gee, Saddam was wrong again! What a surprise.

George S| 8.30.10 @ 2:49PM

I don't understand the position of the anti-war crowd. What is the objection... our taking preemptive action; the combat deaths; or the perception that it was a "lie" and therefore the deaths are that much more repugnant?

As for preemptive action being morally wrong, the next time you are pulled over for a traffic violation, just jump out of the car, run towards the cop and ignore the warnings to stop and show your hands. You will go down as a righteous shooting statistic. That was the equivalent action of Saddam (we repeatedly told him to drop his gun, remember?)

Combat deaths? They are a part of every war. Even Clinton's Bosnia war had one combat death. Can anyone dare justify why that person died? Why did he die for his country? What was the ultimate point of his death? How is our national interest preserved and we safer with that one death? Why is one death is no outrage, but 4,000 is?

Now, about that 4,000... how many people have died because of the high mileage requirements of cars. Are they being sacrificed to Gaia, and therefore suffering a more honorable death? What about the future hundreds of thousands who will die sooner than their allotted time because of ObamaCare? Sacrificed to insure those "48 million without health insurance"? Now that number was an outright lie, unlike the purported lie that Saddam has nukes. As an aside, how many of those 48 million are now unemployed by Obama's actions, making them worse off than the Bush years?

But of course, we were lied to. But exactly what was the lie, I don't know, no one can say... they just mechanically spew out those words. Where, in any New York Times or Washington Post article prior to combat operations in 2003 were there stories about how Bush was lying to us? There weren't any; not even from foreign intelligence sources. The lying narrative started after we got into the Iraq deep country (hey, where are those nukes? Surely they didn't have time to move them in the months leading up to the war). That's not a lie, that's like the cop in the above example searching your body and not finding a weapon -- it does nothing to change the justification. Was it worth it? Yes, because he went home after his shift. And we were assured that this time, no weapons will fall into Al-Qaeda hands.

But soon we'll be able to test the theory that not going to war will make us all safer. We should have taken action against Iran, but you leftists made that impossible. The word "Traitor" doesn't do justice. Now we'll see if nuclear weapons in the hands of fanatics can be "contained" or suppressed with diplomacy.

Supreme Galooti| 8.30.10 @ 4:26PM

When George Bush declared, "You are with us, or you are with the terrorists," the Irish Republican Army believed him and quickly renounced violence. Unfortunately, Bush quietly backed away from that statement. Additionally he badly mishandled not only the Iraq war, but also the presidential administration. His administration gave us many, many negative things and only two (very) positive things - Roberts and Scalia.

One doesn't pussyfoot into war with hundreds of lawyers, hundreds of leftist journalists embedded, hundreds of wimpy generals, and expect to win it. My father - or even my mother, for that matter - would have WON that war in two months and IMPOSED a MacArthur-style military government. His comment would have been something like, "Grab them by the balls and their hearts and minds will follow." In the process of being successful in Iraq, certain neighboring States would have been very severely spanked. Like Gulliver, America has been rendered impotent by effeminate liberal Lilliputians.

Will| 8.30.10 @ 6:13PM

You genuinly believe that the IRA renounced violence because of George Bush? What was he going to do? Send the Marines into Belfast?

I've said it before, I'll say it again: what a load of old shit.

Stuart Koehl| 8.30.10 @ 7:02PM

The IRA never did renounce violence, but the people of Northern Ireland renounced the IRA. They did so for a very simple reason: by the early 1990s, the Republic of Ireland was much more prosperous than Northern Ireland, which eliminated the threat of millions of paddies from the south stealing jobs in Belfast. Instead, both Catholics and Protestants in Belfast wanted a piece of the Irish Tiger Economy. It's no coincidence that, with the Irish economy in the doldrums, the IRA is making a comeback.

But, who are we kidding? It was really George Mitchell's skills as a diplomat that did the trick, right?

GW| 8.31.10 @ 12:05AM

It was Alito, not Scalia.

Tim*| 8.30.10 @ 4:52PM

Apparently , Field Marshall and President For Life Obama will attempt to take credit for any Iraq accomplishments and BLAME BUUUUUUUSSSHHHH for the rest .

The Liberal Media Agendists will attempt to
help Obama orchestrate his revisionist history .

Obama is not really a leader , he just plays one on TV.

WilliamR@Noway.net| 8.30.10 @ 5:13PM

Stuart Koehl wants to start proxy wars against the Russians. In other words restart the cold war. Rest assured this clown is no conservative. A dangerous radical is more like it.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/.....asp?page=2

Stuart Koehl| 8.30.10 @ 5:39PM

You would much rather prefer the Russians get away with unprovoked aggression against small countries with democratically elected governments?

What was it that Neville Chamberlain said about the Czechs? Oh , yes!

"The are a peculiar people living far away, about whom we know little".

Which, of course, justifies selling them down the river.

I have frequently observed that, while being an enemy of the United States can be very painful, being an ally of the United States can often be fatal.

William R| 8.30.10 @ 6:03PM

BS!! As Arnaud de Borchgrave wrote about the incident, "In a secret agreement between Israel and Georgia, two military airfields in southern Georgia had been earmarked for the use of Israeli fighter-bombers in the event of pre-emptive attacks against Iranian nuclear installations. This would sharply reduce the distance Israeli fighter-bombers would have to fly to hit targets in Iran. And to reach Georgian airstrips, the Israeli air force would fly over Turkey.

"The attack ordered by Saakashvili against South Ossetia the night of Aug. 7 provided the Russians the pretext for Moscow to order Special Forces to raid these Israeli facilities where some Israeli drones were reported captured."

Georgia was the aggressor.

Stuart Koehl| 8.30.10 @ 7:02PM

Arnaud has been losing it for some time now.

Cpm| 8.30.10 @ 11:20PM

I vaguely remember Arnaud de Borchgrave being something of a minor TV personality during the Carter Administration. Hadn't heard of him since.

Will| 8.30.10 @ 5:32PM

It is quite incredible that, seven long years after the invasion of Iraq, conservatives like all of you still believe that Iraq had anything to do with foreign terrorism.
You mention Abu Nidal. Nidal founded Fatah, the most secular and moderate political party in Palestine (though that is hardly difficult). He lived in Iraq for a time, but was not supported by them, and the Iraqi secret service was strongly implicated in his assassination in 2002. Zarquari was resident in Iraq before the invasion in the same way that Al Qaeda terrorists are (almost certainly) currently resident in the US, Britian and Europe- he was there despite the regime, not because of it.
In 2002 the State Department published a report claiming that Al Qaeda had been active in 45 countries. This list included the USA, Britain and Saudi Arabia. It excluded Iraq. Iraq was one of very few Middle Eastern countries where radical Islam had never taken hold, which is why we backed Saddam in his murderous war of aggression against Iran in the 80s, and turned a blind eye to his many acts of evil towards the Kurds until the First Gulf War No investigation by anybody has found any evidence of any real link between Saddam and Al Qaeda, including the CIA in the run up to the war. The truth is that the secular, socialist Hussein hated the ultra-religious, ultra-right wing Islamist movement, and the feeling was entirely mutual. In 1990, when Iraq invaded Kuwait, Bin Laden himself offered to send jihadis from Afghanistan to fight against Hussein if he invaded Saudi Arabia.
Despite the complete lack of evidence for a link between Al Qaeda and Saddam's evil regime, the administration, led by Dick Cheney, launched a media campaign designed to implant in the minds of the American people the idea that there was, without ever saying it in exact language. And you suckers bought it hook, line and sinker.

Stuart Koehl| 8.30.10 @ 7:04PM

Actually, the relationship between al Qaeda and the Baathist regime in Iraq was considerably closer and more operationalized than that between Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. But, by your lights, that relationship would not exist, either.

Will| 9.1.10 @ 2:02PM

Bullshit. Nazi Germany and Japan, with Italy, signed the tripartite pact in September 1940. Hitler declared war on us because we were at war with his ally. How much more concrete a relationship do you want?

Michele San Pietro| 8.30.10 @ 5:35PM

I thought from the very start it was right to intervene in Afghanistan, but I had some doubts it was also right to intervene in Iraq. After seeing how heinous Iraqi extremists are, now I'm sure the intervention in Iraq was also justified. Of course, it could have been done better, but that's a different kettle of fish.

Stuart Koehl| 8.30.10 @ 5:40PM

No war goes according to plan. If you compare World War II and the Iraq War, it's really remarkable how few errors we made, and how quickly we corrected them.

Tim*| 8.30.10 @ 7:08PM

United States National Interests and The Constitution are not necessarily served by recklessly carrying out a neoconservative faction's agenda to force feed democracy around the globe using Our Brave United States Warriors as cannon fodder .
While Afghanistan and Iraq can be debated , any further actions need to be examined .

Ken (Old Texican)| 8.30.10 @ 8:11PM

Tim*
"any further actions....."

I'm afraid the only actions we are going to see from this president will be against us.

...in purely geopolitical terms...Israel is our "land based aircraft carrier" in the mid east, much as England was in WWII.
...just a thought.

ABNCP| 8.30.10 @ 11:06PM

It's always interesting when the covert lefty's shed tears over American troops casualty rates and the monetary costs to sustain our armed forces. In the last couple of decades most of them were
screaming about the weapons systems that are required and costs involved for them. They were doing their best to cancel all the new weapons that we put on line and did their best to curtail the number of troops required to make our military strong. The truth is that this war in Iraq has cost us over 4,000 KIA in about 9 years. All good brave American men and women. I wish we had them all back with us and their familys. However, let's take a look at some past history. Bloody Omaha beach. Over 2,400 dead in the 29th Infantry Division in the first 24 hours. The Second Marine Division took over 3.000 killed and wounded in the first 36 hours at Tarawa. The mighty 8th Air Force would launch a 1,000 plane raid over Germany. B-17s and B-24s.
each aircraft with a 10 man crew. Casualty rates of 15% were taken before the P-51's escorted them. 15% of 1,000 equals 150 aircraft times a 10 man crew is 1,500 good men gone in one raid.
And they were all good brave Americans as well. The truth is Freedom is NEVER free. According to the CBO it turns out that the Obama stimulus that has mostly gone to waste actualy cost this country more than the Iraq war and our Government keeps telling us how great the stimulus is. So I guess We the People need to decide where the hell we want this country to go. Please stop this bloviating about the Iraq war, who was right, who was wrong, who is smarter and the look how smart I am B.S. We always have lived in a very dangerous world at least since I have been around. We are still living in that sorry world. If we can't unite as a country and start getting ready to fight this Islamist challenge as one people on every level they will destroy us.

FeralCat| 8.31.10 @ 3:16PM

There has never been a protracted war from which a country has benefited.
- Sun Tzu

No protracted war can fail to endanger the freedom of a democratic country.
- Alexis de Tocqueville

Stuart Koehl| 9.1.10 @ 5:44AM

If you must invent quotes, then try to imitate the style of the purported author.

FeralCat| 8.31.10 @ 5:37PM

Here is perhaps the most insidious thing about all this “Iraq is a success!” and it is something that most do not even seem to realize.

Islam, an aggressive Totalitarian System, with a religious component, is a growing threat to Western Civilization. It is a more totalitarian system than even Nazism was and has it’s eyes on ruling the whole world – Shariah – just read the Koran, Hadith, Surah. The fact that so many in America are still largely blind to this, in spite of overwhelming evidence, certainly does not help the situation and may end up proving fatal.

Why are so many Americans still largely blind to Islam? How can so many Americans be so blind and for so long? There are a number of reasons for this and one of the main ones, probably the main one, is the contention by many that Muslims, except for some “extremists”, want freedom and liberty – just like us – and that most Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan are our allies, friends, compatriots and will even be our pen pals and facebook buddies. If people believe this, that most Muslims are really our allies for freedom and liberty, well obviously, they are not going to see Islam as much of a threat. If I believed this, I wouldn’t. Why would they?

CalMark| 8.31.10 @ 7:09PM

Sure are a lot of leftie trolls here. Don't you people have a life?

Someone made the point that had Hitler been stopped in the 1930s WWII wouldn't have happened. That is doubtless true.

As for the other arguments, it's enough that everyone thought that he had WMD. It's easy to be wise after the fact.

And Jud Babbin is starting to sound more than a little unbalanced. He is certainly obsessed: his only interest these days seems to be ranting against the Iraq war.

GregA| 9.2.10 @ 2:40PM

Was our effort in Iraq worth it? All I know is that since 9/11, the US hasn't experienced another terrorist attack. That the crazies all seemed to be attracted to Iraq because of our presence, rather than target American soil, seems to be worth it. It will be interesting to see now that we've declared "victory" and have left, whether terrorists will again focus on the US.

Louis Vttion handbags| 12.9.10 @ 1:43AM

Hmm communism another delicate issue that causes dispute even between people that share the same opinion.
Loved the article and do agree with George's interpretation of it.
I come from a communist country so I guess my opinion is a bit blurred, but to be honest I believe that every social system has problems whereby the people suffer

Christian Louboutin| 6.23.11 @ 4:07AM

It is unneccessary to await historians' judgment a century from now to conclude that in Iraq we have not even achieved a brief respite. The war the terror-sponsoring nations wage against us is unabated, the terror sponsors unharmed by the war in Iraq. As I have written here many times, whether we stay in Iraq -- or in Afghanstan -- for another year or another century, we cannot win the war because we are fighting only the enemy's proxies.