LAT: Pentagon ready to double down in Iraq; Update: Or are they?
posted at 11:17 am on December 13, 2006 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
As President Bush weighs new policy options for Iraq, strong support has coalesced in the Pentagon behind a military plan to “double down” in the country with a substantial buildup in American troops, an increase in industrial aid and a major combat offensive against Muqtada Sadr, the radical Shiite leader impeding development of the Iraqi government.
The Joint Chiefs of Staff will present their assessment and recommendations to Bush at the Pentagon today. Military officials, including some advising the chiefs, have argued that an intensified effort may be the only way to get the counterinsurgency strategy right and provide a chance for victory…
[I]nside the Pentagon, the [Iraq Study Group's] overall proposals are widely seen as a withdrawal plan — and a recipe for massive ethnic cleansing in Iraq.
They want as many as 40,000 more troops and, to make sure no one’s going to call off the dogs once they’re unleashed, a shuffle within the Iraqi government, which is almost certainly what Bush’s meeting with Iraq’s Sunni vice president was about yesterday. Some experts are knocking the plan on grounds that you can’t kill your way to victory here. You can’t not kill your way to victory either, though — we tried that by turning al-Sadr onto politics and look where it got us. Gen. Chiarelli wants to split the difference by introducing an aggressive jobs program alongside the military maneuvers to give would-be jihadists an alternative to fighting.
This is surely weighing in the brass’s mind, too, as they come around to a build up:
Saudi Arabia has told the Bush administration that it might provide financial backing to Iraqi Sunnis in any war against Iraq’s Shiites if the United States pulls its troops out of Iraq, according to American and Arab diplomats.
King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia conveyed that message to Vice President Dick Cheney two weeks ago during Mr. Cheney’s whirlwind visit to Riyadh, the officials said. During the visit, King Abdullah also expressed strong opposition to diplomatic talks between the United States and Iran, and pushed for Washington to encourage the resumption of peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians, senior Bush administration officials said.
Tony Snow denies that the Saudis said that. I’m sure Israel denies this report, too.
Update: Er, someone had better check with the Iraqis first.
Iraq has presented the United States with a plan that calls for Iraqi troops to assume primary responsibility for security in Baghdad early next year. American troops would be shifted to the periphery of the capital.
Mowaffak al-Rubaie, Iraq’s national security adviser, said in an interview that the plan was presented during the meeting in Amman, Jordan, on Nov. 30 between President Bush and Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki.
“I think it is extremely important they reduce their visibility and they reduce their presence,” Mr. Rubaie said of the American troops in Baghdad. “They should be in the suburbs within greater Baghdad.”
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
So it looks like it won’t be “Springtime for Sadr and Terrorists” after all?
This is good.
bbz123 on December 13, 2006 at 11:27 AM
If the press keeps insisting it’s a civil war over there, it’d be hard to fault us for picking a side (though I’ve a sneaking suspicion that wouldn’t stop them).
Blacklake on December 13, 2006 at 11:37 AM
The New Deal for Iran. Get these young men building dams and infrastructure for their country. One way to stability in that country is the establishment and nurturing of a middle class. Once people feel they have a little “piece of something,” they are more likely to want to defend it.
Mallard T. Drake on December 13, 2006 at 11:37 AM
Whack Mookie now!
JammieWearingFool on December 13, 2006 at 11:40 AM
I’m getting sick of all the gambling terms.
Is Blackjack and Texas Hold ‘Em that frikken popular?
Mortis on December 13, 2006 at 11:52 AM
Suck the Faudis!!!
Wait…
Editor on December 13, 2006 at 11:54 AM
Outstanding! God bless the U.S. military.
Bugler on December 13, 2006 at 11:55 AM
Never happen! Don’t look for it! Forgetaboutit!
If even if Bush does pull a Lincoln, and he’s shown no stones in that regard as of yet, the DEMOS will cut off funding in a heartbeat!
Dread Pirate Roberts VI on December 13, 2006 at 11:55 AM
I want to believe this will work.
honora on December 13, 2006 at 11:56 AM
What took so long? Wait, it has not happened yet. Wonder what odds Las Vegas will give of this happening?
Wade on December 13, 2006 at 11:58 AM
Seal the borders…
And then start in freindly territory in the North, and move south… disarming militias as you go…
It would force those in the South to either disarm, or do what we really want, and stand and fight…
and anyone who thinks that is you can’t win a war by killing the enemy??? Needs to read a bit of history.
Romeo13 on December 13, 2006 at 12:00 PM
I think we might actually be willing to get tough. Strategically we need to grow some balls. If we unleash the troops and allow them to take the country apart if need be then we can win. Ultimately the goal of a combatant commander is to reduce resistance to small and manageable pockets of resistance. Adding troops and executing aggressive combat operations against the militias while trying to create jobs for the almost 70% unemployment rate can be an effective two prong strategy. Bottomline is if you can’t Co-opt them then you MUST kill them.
Trooper on December 13, 2006 at 12:07 PM
I hope this is true, as well as the quoted portion of the LAT story above. It needs to be done.
I’d throw in a curfew or even martial law for good measure.
It’s a war. Fight it like one.
thirteen28 on December 13, 2006 at 12:15 PM
Well obviously. But think this ignores the issue of who is the enemy? If Sunni militias are targeting Shiite militias and visa versa, they are both our enemies? Think about that for a minute. Given that Shiite outnumber Sunni 4 to 1, what is the logical outcome?
Interesting stat: 1.6 million Iraqis have fled the country since the end of the war (i.e. Saddam’s fall). In a country of 26 million. Wow.
honora on December 13, 2006 at 12:18 PM
Yes, but you’re talking about the same sort of people who falsely claim that no democracy was ever created through bloodshed. I give you modern Germany, modern Japan as just the two most recent examples, and say categorically that no democracy has ever been created apart from a war.
Those same two examples countries also answer the critics who claim that America cannot create allies through war.
Freelancer on December 13, 2006 at 12:23 PM
And why wouldn’t they?
Pablo on December 13, 2006 at 12:31 PM
they proably had a seance and General Patton returned with a warning to kill some bad guys… he then continued to roll over, and over, and over in his grave mubling,, you morons really f### this up,,,
retired on December 13, 2006 at 12:33 PM
Not quite. The militias are targeting civilians, not the opposing militias.
That depends on who decides to wise up and when.
Millions of Afghans left home too. They’re mostly back now.
Pablo on December 13, 2006 at 12:33 PM
Both Germany and Japan had a history of democracy. And I believe the original democracy, Greece, was not a product of war. Ditto Rome. See also Canada, Brazil, the Scandanavian countries.
honora on December 13, 2006 at 12:44 PM
Japan had a history of democracy? That’s funny; up until Gen. MacArthur imposed it upon them, the Japanese never had a democracy. Rather, they had an emperor that was deemed a “living god”.
As for Germany, the only democracy they had before we imposed it upon West Germany was the short-lived Weimar Republic, a product of war that, unfortunately, didn’t quite take the way everybody hoped.
steveegg on December 13, 2006 at 12:56 PM
Germany and Japan each had very little experience with democracy in the early 20th century before reverting to their totalitarian ways, and it came on the heels of centuries of authoritarian rule.
Ancient Greek democracy was founded in the wake of the violent overthrow of the Pisistratids.
The Roman Republic was founded in the wake of a violent overthrow of the Etruscans.
Canada’s democracy was in part a result of the Rebellions of 1837.
Brazil has violently switched between dictatorship and democracy on more than one occasion.
thirteen28 on December 13, 2006 at 1:01 PM
1. Rome was a republic not a democracy.
2. I beleive that Rome’s government was born from ousting (Bloodily) the Etruscan kings see Lucius Tarquinius Superbus last Etruscan King, 510-509 BC.
3. Greece was not a unified democracy but a series of warring and very violent city states that developed rule through consensus that laid the foundation for our western government.
4. The process of founding and developing democracy/republics has benn anything but bloodless.
I would really take a look at history and it’s relation to warfare and democracy/ republics before outfitting our m16s muzzles with flowers.
Just sayin’…
Trooper on December 13, 2006 at 1:01 PM
by the way I’m a terrible typist. Sorry for the poor spelling etc.
Trooper on December 13, 2006 at 1:02 PM
If the report is true (about the military wanting to take out al Sadr’s private militia), then late is better than never.
One of the things that has contributed mightily to the internal instability and political volatility in Iraq has been that we’ve been trying to rush things. By comparison, after WWII we didn’t give the Japanese and (West) Germans their independence back until the 1950s, yet we gave Iraq they got their first full-scale election within three years after toppling the old regime.
A serious consequence of compressing the independence schedule in this way is that we have attempted to establish the layer of civil government before we clearly established law and order. The result is comparable to erecting the frame of a house on top of a concrete foundation that hasn’t dried yet.
To expand on the comparison, imagine how West Germany would’ve turned out if we gave them it full independence in 1948, while groups of Nazi party and SS die-hards were still roaming around killing our troops and wreaking havoc, and communist agitators from Soviet East Germany were freely infiltrating across the border to foment their own brand of chaos and instability.
That’s pretty much what we’ve got in Iraq today: a tottering government struggling to maintain itself while Saddam-loyalists and other Baathist die-hards still roam about, and while Iran and Syria infiltrate money, people and supplies to assorted anti-government agitators.
Better late than never … but the decision to “fast-track” Iraqi independence to avoid charges of “neo-colonialism” or in the (false) hope of keeping our own casualties down has put us in the situation today not of reinforcing success but of redeeming failure. And the latter of those two options is always messier and more costly than the former.
Spurius Ligustinus on December 13, 2006 at 1:05 PM
I should have said Athenian democracy, not Greek, but they are almost one in the same since that’s where it originated.
thirteen28 on December 13, 2006 at 1:05 PM
thirteen28 on December 13, 2006 at 1:05 PM
I don’t think anyone misunderstood your post. I think it was clear that you showed how bloody and painful the birth of Democracy can be. I also think it clearly shows that Honora has no idea what she is talking about.
Trooper on December 13, 2006 at 1:09 PM
Rome was not a product of war? That’s intriguing. From the best that we know, the city was founded on an act of murder, the Republic on an armed revolt, and the Empire on a civil war (the latter being particularly well documented, albeit not particularly democratic).
To refer to ancient Greece as being democratic (rather than, say, ancient Athens) is a bit telling, also. Ancient Greece was a geographic region harboring many independent city states, and not a nation at all. Or perhaps next we’re in for a lecture on the virtues of Sparta’s rich democratic tradition.
Blacklake on December 13, 2006 at 1:13 PM
Bush has to eliminate Sadr before the dem’s get control of the budget and defund the war. If things actually start to move in the right direction – neutralize/eliminate Sadr, with or without Maliki – then perhaps the citizenry won’t stand by silently and allow dem’s to cut off funds when they start voting on budgets.
JustTruth101 on December 13, 2006 at 1:13 PM
Thanks trooper (appropriately named).
Between this demonstrated lack of historical knowledge and the recent lack of knowledge by Silvestre Reyes on his intel quiz, you have two examples that illustrate why I don’t listen to liberals on matters of foreign policy and war (and two examples of why we shouldn’t).
thirteen28 on December 13, 2006 at 1:16 PM
thirteen28,
You’re welcome.
Trooper on December 13, 2006 at 1:27 PM
Rome was not a product of war? That’s intriguing. From the best that we know, the city was founded on an act of murder, the Republic on an armed revolt, and the Empire on a civil war (the latter being particularly well documented, albeit not particularly democratic).
To refer to ancient Greece as being democratic (rather than, say, ancient Athens) is a bit telling, also. Ancient Greece was a geographic region harboring many independent city states, and not a nation at all. Or perhaps next we’re in for a lecture on the virtues of Sparta’s rich democratic tradition.
Blacklake on December 13, 2006 at 1:13 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_democracy
Of course I meant Athens. The attached gives a short history of Athens and Rome. Democracy in the sense of voting (direct or the consul/Senate as in Rome) emerged relatively peacefully, the interesting thing is the sense of evolution. Same thing in the UK–lots of war but the seeds of Runnymede slowly blossom over time.
honora on December 13, 2006 at 1:32 PM
No they didn’t. Both of them emerged as a direct consequency of a violent overthrow of tyrants. If you are going to use wikipedia, dig deeper:
As for the ideas of the Magna Carta, they would have remained just that – ideas – without a significant of bloodshed that turned them into actual practice. To say or suggest otherwise is simple denial.
thirteen28 on December 13, 2006 at 1:40 PM
Please don’t cite Wikipedia. It is a lazy source and prone to corruption by revisionists etc. As through the above passage. Realatively peaceful indeed.
Trooper on December 13, 2006 at 1:43 PM
Well Germany wasn’t even a country until the latter part of the 19th century. The Weimar Republic lasted about 20 years post Versailles, so everything is relative. Japan had a brief fling with democracy about the same time with the Taisho movement.
I’m confused about the “on the heels of centuries of authoritarian rule”. How did this make them different from the most of world at that time?
honora on December 13, 2006 at 1:43 PM
Dang, beaten to the punch by thirteen28 yet again.
Trooper on December 13, 2006 at 1:44 PM
To which time frame are you refering? The 19th century? The 20th century? Both?
Trooper on December 13, 2006 at 1:47 PM
And none of the regions that eventually coelesced into Germany had any experience with democracy before then either. The German culture was very authoritarian for centuries prior to their forced imposition of democracy in the wake of WWII.
It didn’t make them any different from most of the world at the time, which further undermines the hypothesis that democracy cannot result from war in cultures that have little-to-no previous experience with it.
thirteen28 on December 13, 2006 at 1:48 PM
Trooper on December 13, 2006 at 1:43 PM
http://www.nature.com/news/2005/051212/full/438900a.html
How about citing Nature? This is an article about a head to head comparison of Wiki and Brittanica.
honora on December 13, 2006 at 1:50 PM
The Dems are not going to defund the war. I don’t know why anyone thinks they are that stupid. Leahy is going to get aggressive in aiding Al-Qaeda by undermining our intel programs, but the Dems have been in the wilderness on defense for a generation. They are not going to throw the last election away by stopping the President from even trying to salvage Iraq after it took so long for the public to set aside all their reservations on Dem weakness on security and defense. No one is that dumb. Plus, if there is a faction that is that stupid, the Blue Dog Democrats and the New Democrats, two important factions in the Democratic Party will vote with the Republicans to stop the quitters. Google “Blue Dog Democrats” to see what I mean.
Honora, the militias are targeting civilians on both sides in order to cleanse their neighborhoods of sectarian opposition. Sunnis in a Shia community are the natural ally of Shia who don’t like Mahdi Army or Badr Brigades. And vice versa. A homogeneous community is easier to control through terror than a mixed one. Witness Germany and Japan versus Iraq and Afghanistan. Mixed communities make constantly shifting alliances much easier. Why do you think Hitler and the Soviets cleaned out minorities? Witness the Balkans. Etc. etc.
The Apologist on December 13, 2006 at 1:50 PM
How about citing Nature? This is an article about a head to head comparison of Wiki and Brittanica.
Good on ya. Glad you still like Wiki. It is still lazy and I can’t link to the internet my source because it is a BOOK. Furthermore, it cites Livy. Do you know who that is? A roman historian (died circa 17 AD). By the way he wrote a little volume called The History of Rome. I’ll trust him over Wiki anyday.
Source:
Translated from the original in Jean Bayet, ed., Tite-Live: Histoire Romaine, Tome I, livre I. Paris: Societé d’Édition “les belles-lettres,” 1954, pp. 92-95.
Trooper on December 13, 2006 at 1:55 PM
Be still my pounding heart. If only I could (once again) believe that Bush has the Malkins to double down!
No, they won’t, Dread Pirate. This would be like the beginning, all over again. The military would get pumped up, the right would get pumped up, and all the people in the middle that say their biggest complaint is that we are “half-assing” this war would have nowhere to hide.
O.M.G.
Jaibones on December 13, 2006 at 1:56 PM
Hell yea!
Seal the borders and disarm all of Iraq. A spit wad should be the only major weapon that fighters can count on there.
Take AK47s away from the Kindergartners if we have too.
Make the Country so safe that even Olmert could go for a walk there.
If any want to fight give them all they want, and a little more!
Speakup on December 13, 2006 at 1:56 PM
Whose hypothesis is that? Someone claimed that democracy (I believe the word categorically was used) is only ever achieved via war. I guess the awkwardly worded hypothesis refers to Iraq?
honora on December 13, 2006 at 1:57 PM
How about citing Nature? This is an article about a head to head comparison of Wiki and Brittanica.
Good on ya. Glad you still like Wiki. It is still lazy and I can’t link to the internet my source because it is a BOOK. Furthermore, it cites Livy. Do you know who that is? A roman historian (died circa 17 AD). By the way he wrote a little volume called The History of Rome. I’ll trust him over Wiki anyday.
Source:
Translated from the original in Jean Bayet, ed., Tite-Live: Histoire Romaine, Tome I, livre I. Paris: Societé d’Édition “les belles-lettres,” 1954, pp. 92-95.
Trooper on December 13, 2006 at 1:55 PM
http://etext.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=Liv1His.sgm&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=all
Welcome to the 21st century. I am familiar with Livy. I read parts of this years ago. In Latin.
honora on December 13, 2006 at 2:01 PM
Honora, you are correct in that we are using the word “democracy” categorically. I would also think we are using the term war interchangeabley to mean violence as well. Framing the arguement in those terms I think it is reasonable to argue that “democracies” generally are born through war/violence. The violence is driven by the classic struggle of power. ie. we have but won’t give it up without a fight.
Trooper on December 13, 2006 at 2:02 PM
I’m not sure what your point is. I think we are all aware of this, the issue it seems to me is: can our military affect “peace” given these circumstances?
honora on December 13, 2006 at 2:04 PM
It seemed to be yours with your suggestion that the Roman Republic and democracy in Athens were established “relatively peacefully”, when the truth is that their respective origins were anything but.
I don’t know if I could say “categorically” as the other poster did, but regardless, in almost every instance democracy has only been established in the wake of violence, and I’d be willing to be that if there are any exceptions to that rule, it’s only becuase those countries saw history clearly and allowed democracy to take root to avoid the potential for violence.
thirteen28 on December 13, 2006 at 2:05 PM
Good on ya again.
Which takes me to the next question. Your original statement was The Roman Republic was not born from war/violence.(
Livy says otherwise. You ready to dispute Livy?
Trooper on December 13, 2006 at 2:05 PM
Yes – if politicians allow them the leeway to do so.
thirteen28 on December 13, 2006 at 2:07 PM
You are right. There is a big difference between categorically and generally however, which was my point. (Actually now that I think about it, the best example of peaceful emergence of democracy would be some American Indian tribes, Iroquois etc. No matter).
The less how many angels can dance on the head of a pin question would be: if democracy is born from violence, does violence necessarily beget democracy?
My theory is that Iraqis do not identify themselves as Iraqis first and foremost; they identify themselves as Sunni, Shiite etc. (And given the history there, why would this not be the case). If democracy means submitting to the other, in ways real or perceived, well it seems like a hard sell.
We shall see.
honora on December 13, 2006 at 2:11 PM
Honora – I agree with you that it’s a problem that many Iraqis (at least from the reports that are available to the general public) appear to identify with their tribe more than they identify as Iraqis.
That’s a problem that (to my admittedly limited knowledge) did not exist in Japan and Germany where people identified with the country.
It is, perhaps, similar to the early US where (even up to WWII, but, especially during the Civil War) people identified much more as Virginians, Georgians, New Yorkers, etc than they did as Americans. Of course, that comparison is not entirely helpful as those ‘tribal’ affiliations had existed for a fraction of the time that the Sunni/Shiite tribal affiliations have existed for. Furthermore, there was nothing inherent in the beliefs of a Virginian that said that New Yorkers were evil and needed to be killed.
Will they ever have American style representative Democracy? Perhaps not. However, I don’t think that would be necessarily a failure. Perhaps there are other solutions. Some politicians have suggested dividing Iraq into cantons like Switzerland. Of course, as others have pointed out, you would still have the problem of some cantons absolutely hating the others (not to mention, the Sunni fear of being left without any oil wealth).
Personally, I think everyone in Iraq would benefit from less dependence on their oil wealth. Israel has no oil and yet still manages to be a wealthy country. If the Sunnis had an economy developed as Israel’s is, they would not have to fear that they lack oil reserves in their area.
All of this aside, militarily, I believe victory is achieved when the region is stabilized enough for our soldiers to leave (and to leave an area that will no longer be supporting terrorism – whether monetarily or by offering safe harbor/weapons).
Politically, victory involves achieving this without having to instill another dictator (whether friendly to the US or not).
All I can say is that I’m glad smarter people than are dealing with this problem…..at least, I hope smarter people are dealing with this problem. If they’re all on my level, we’re doomed.
JadeNYU on December 13, 2006 at 2:42 PM
That last sentence should read “…smarter people than I are dealing with this….”
JadeNYU on December 13, 2006 at 2:44 PM
In the preface to the histories, Livy writes:
“Events before Rome was born, or thought of have come to us in old tales with more of the charm of poetry than of a sound historical record, and such traditions I propose neither to affirm nor refute. There is no reason, I feel, to object when antiquity draws no hard line between the human and the supernatural : it add dignity to the past, and, if any nation deserves the privilege of claiming divine ancestry, that nation is our own.”
honora on December 13, 2006 at 2:46 PM
I can’t imagine why this is your theory. I’ve seen so many examples of the exact opposite being the case in direct quotations from Iraqis that I wonder where you see data suggesting your theory. Inter-marriage between Shiite and Sunni is more prevalent in Iraq than anywhere else in the Arab world as I understand it. It’s why ALL Iraqi pols, including Kurdish leaders, say breaking the country up into three states is impossible. And democracy isn’t submitting to the “other”, it’s submitting to the law. That ain’t a hard sell in a region so familiar with submission to religious law. It will take time to disentangle the two concepts, but there’s no reason it can’t work.
“If Sunni militias are targeting Shiite militias and visa versa, they are both our enemies?…Given that Shiite outnumber Sunni 4 to 1, what is the logical outcome?
”
That was the error of yours I was adressing in my previous comment, Honora. And the logical outcome is dependent not on gross demographic numbers but on the numbers of willing combatants and the quality of those fighters and their armaments. As Saddam proved over and over again. Also, the numbers who’ve fled are actually a little higher than 1.6 mil, closer to 2.1 million from what I hear, and the great majority are tribes and clans that were most loyal to Saddam, who’ve since fled to Jordan and Syria. Only to send their young back across the border to join the insurgency.
As far as this goes:
“The less how many angels can dance on the head of a pin question would be: if democracy is born from violence, does violence necessarily beget democracy?”
This question is actually an attempt to change the subject in an argument you’ve clearly lost. And further, an attempt to put an argument into the mouths of the victors that they weren’t making. Pathetic.
The Apologist on December 13, 2006 at 2:50 PM
Well you’re one of the smarter people on this blog for what that’s worth!!! Your US Civil War analogy is interesting, but again, if the North are the Shiite and the South are the Sunni, who the hell are our troops?
I also despair of my own poor ability to find any way out of this. Let’s hope there are better minds at work.
honora on December 13, 2006 at 2:51 PM
AP said:
“They want as many as 40,000 more troops and, to make sure no one’s going to call off the dogs once they’re unleashed, a shuffle within the Iraqi government, which is almost certainly what Bush’s meeting with Iraq’s Sunni vice president was about yesterday.”
I was stationed at Barksdale AFB in Louisiana on 9/11. Once Pres Bush made his comments and prepared to board AF 1 to leave the 8AF Commanding General told him something along the lines of “Sir we are ready and at your disposal – just give us the word”
That is still the case with the military – give the green light and it will happen.
As for cutting budgets I don’t think the Dems would go down that road until late next year, which would mean things have not gotten better. Personal opinion is that none of the candidates really want Iraq to be major issue in 08 primaries – much easier to offer a chicken in every pot and to fill in every pothole than to commit to an Iraq solution they would have to defend four years later.
Good that Saudi and Jordan are speaking out – they need to acknowledge their stake in the outcome.
Bradky on December 13, 2006 at 3:03 PM
I was engaged in a dialogue with someone else. Why bother with someone as pathetic as me?
honora on December 13, 2006 at 3:10 PM
I wish the hell GWB had the stones to go for an all-out military victory – What’s he got to lose now? However:
We cannot do what is necessary to win a war with EMBEDDED ENEMY REPORTERS on the ground with our troops, actively undermining and demonizing our efforts. (CNN, REUTERS, AP, BBC, et al) Even if this strategy does commence as a “new direction,” the democrat traitors assuming power now will do everything they can to prevent a US military victory of any kind. It’s in their DNA.
The only thing the 14th-century mindset understands is violence and overwhelming force. It’s also the only thing they respect. This is why the only real “solution” is an overwhelming military victory, where the enemy fears to tread on the rights of free peoples.
Benthoven on December 13, 2006 at 3:38 PM
Comment pages: