So yes, Rudy does need to be more hawkish than Bush and not be afraid to criticize the way Iraq’s been handled. I do think that’ll make him more popular.

That’s what I want to believe anyway…

“I said it a long time ago … America is too consumed with Iraq,” he said. “We’ve got to be patient and committed (in Iraq), but we’ve got to multitask.

I think what he’s saying here is Americans still don’t see Iraq as vitally important to the WOT and that we need to view the conflict in much grander terms. It’s a risky message because the truth will scare the living hell out of most of our misinformed and uneducated.

if he’s seriously proposing that we keep troop levels where they are in Iraq and get more aggressive in Pakistan (uberhawk) and Iran (uber-uberhawk), then he’s dead on arrival.

No way. It’s the right move and the right message and that’s why he might just win it provided he commits to a gradual troop drawdown in Iraq based upon Iraqi security advances and the success of the surge. At the same time, political reform and reconciliation will need to be de-emphasized in the political debate by the Right.

It’s sad to see our military men and women being left on the sidelines of a purely political debate that completely ignores their sacrifices and successes. Really sad and it’s one of the reasons I generally loathe politicians.

But honestly, we should take our collective minds off Iraq and let our armed forces do their job no matter how long it takes. If this GWOT, including the battle in Iraq, takes 10, 20 or 30 years before radical Islam is dead then so be it.

So yes, Rudy does need to be more hawkish than Bush and not be afraid to criticize the way Iraq’s been handled. I do think that’ll make him more popular.

Rudy just threw away the nomination.

Mark my words

conservnut on July 20, 2007 at 4:09 PM

Rudy made a great Major.

That’s all.

The ability of being a great Major is not the same as being a great Governor, as some former Presidents have transitioned.

He is not going to be our next President.
Mark my words.

Some of Giuliani’s comments echoed critics of the war in Iraq who argue that the invasion drew attention and resources away from the battle against the home base of al-Qaeda, which carried out the 9/11 attacks. Giuliani, however, called the Iraq war “enormously important,” but he said other challenges from Islamic terrorism also demanded attention.

“I said it a long time ago … America is too consumed with Iraq,” he said. “We’ve got to be patient and committed (in Iraq), but we’ve got to multitask. We’ve got to have conversations beyond Iraq. We’ve got to talk about Iran — Iran is more dangerous than Iraq — and we have to get the job done in Afghanistan and in Pakistan.”

OK, you guys are insane.

Rudy is basically taking up the lib talking points here.

conservnut on July 20, 2007 at 4:22 PM

War is the last place on earth where double talk and wishful thinking will solve all our problems. Of course if Giuliani MEANT that he intended to “withdraw” the troops into Iran, then he would have SAID that.

But he didn’t.

Instead he’s repeating the same line the moonbats and liberaltarians have been spinning since the begininning: We should have troops in pretty much every country in the world except Iraq. And now that Giuliani’s saying the same thing, what, all of a sudden it means the exact opposite?

At this point, there’s about a hair’s width of difference between Giuliani’s position and Hillary Clinton’s position. Is there any reason to suspect he’s going to get “tougher” between now and next November? It doesn’t work that way.

I agree the spark will come on the Israel/Lebanon front. Israel cannot afford another war that makes them look weak. Knowing that they will hit back hard very probably rolling thunder type smash, move, withdraw truce, Syria & Bekaa valley hard. Iran will be forced to support their ally and any response by Iran on Israel will go over top Iraq or US air space. Causi Belli

Everyone in the US even the Dems short the KOSkids support Israel and don’t think throwing 5million or so 50+yr allies should be thrown on some Islamist sacrificial alter.

Nope.

His azimuth is within 3 mils.

Fire for effect.

I agree and doubt Bush would have the balls or political capitol to initiate a war on Iran however I don’t doubt for a minute he would retaliate with a war on Iran.

Iran’s radical alliance is pushing hard and borderline overreaching on many fronts from Hezbollah/Lebanon, Hamas/Fatah/Israel, Syria/Israel, Iraq/Iran and of course UN.US.EU.NATO/Iran.nukes. The Radical Alliance growing moving on the offensive in front of US would not be the first enemy to overreach expecting a weak looking US to act weak but get a awoken Giant.

And I also agree that the source of all of our problems in Afganistan lie in Pakistan. So, would you invade Pakistan?

Not unless I wanted to see WWIII. And I don’t.

Sometimes events play out without us being the catalyst. I see a couple things that are going to happen. First, I think the Pakistani gov’t is going to fall. People talk a lot about the caliphate but they always seem to forget that means toppling “moderate” Muslim gov’ts. They’ve tried in Jordan. Fortunately for Jordan, they weren’t so inegrated into the society and gov’t that they couldn’t be largely marginalized, killed or driven out. Same with Saudi Arabia which only seemed to wake up to the sword over their head after 9/11.

Pakistan has no such luxuries. As Brian’s graphic up top showed, the jihadi mindset is a significant part or the Pakistani society. They have infiltrated the military and, of course, just about own the ISI. If you were the jihadis who would you rather fight, the US military in Afghanistan or the Pakistani military, much of which is on your side? In any case, the jihad has already begun, it did with the Red Mosque. Zawahiri’s speech after the fall of the mosque, the one that concluded with

Have I not conveyed? O Allah, be my witness.

Call to jihad in Pakistan. Once the war starts there in earnest, I wouldn’t be a bit surprised to see Musharaf invite us to come over the border. Then, I would suggest we go into Pakistan.

The other thing that I think is going to happen soon is Israel is going to get dragged into war. I don’t think Hamas is stupid enough to attack Israel head on, but I do think Hezbollah and Syria will. That will allow Hamas to strike Israel as part of a larger war.

If that happens, all bets are off. We could be in for a full regional war, maybe larger.

However, with regards to invading and/or bombing Pakistan… WHAT THE HELL WAS HE THINKING??? To make this suggestion publicly has serious potential to complicate our relationship with Pakistan, problem though it might be. Musharref is walking a tight rope, and Rudy’s irresponsible suggestion sure as hell isn’t helping his or our cause.

You don’t win wars in Defensive positions. And Wars sure as hell don’t just end because you retreat or abandon the field.

C-Low on July 20, 2007 at 6:41 PM

Yep, you are right. But I don’t think that we have the political capital right now to do what needs to be done. Part of the blame for that goes to Bush, but the lions share goes to the libs.

The biggest problem so far is that the President has been unable to explain what we are into here. On 9-12 we basically were forced into a war with 20% of a population that stretched from N Africa to the Philippines and numbers north of a billion yet no one short those that frequent the rightosphere have a clue. We cannot just stand in a holding pattern forever with the Radicals in a attrition type war.

Nearly all the violence in Afghanistan is now coming from across the border in Warizistan. A huge portion of the violence in Iraq is coming from or being sponsored from Syria/Iran. Both of those current holding actions would subside with heavy action into the other regions turning them into the holding actions or just hammering them into the stone age and buying a window of time.

You don’t win wars in Defensive positions. And Wars sure as hell don’t just end because you retreat or abandon the field.

When Bush said after 9/11 that we are in for a long war, a war that may take a generation, he was right.

JackStraw on July 20, 2007 at 5:22 PM

You are right, and so ws he (on that point anyway)

And I also agree that the source of all of our problems in Afganistan lie in Pakistan. So, would you invade Pakistan? I don’t believe that we are currently over extended but that would do it.

I think we should concentrate on the biggist threat right now. I also believe that Iran is it. We also would be overextended if we invaded there. But we can conduct the “slow bleed” in reverse and drain their ablitiy to fund and support terrorists all over the place.

One could argue that Afganistan is the bigger threat because they have nukes and we wouldn’t want the Taliban to take over. I would submit that we already have islamo-nazi’s in control in Iran on the verge of obtaining nukes.

You want a surgeon to cut out a tumor with expert speed and efficiency, not hack and hew at it slowly and clumsily.

The tumors are the war dogmas (suras 9:5 & 9:29030, etc.) of the Koran and their promoters, spreaders, apologists and enablers in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Iran, primarily.

The slower we respond to this malignancy, the more toxic and tenacious they become.

The weaker we cut at them, the more emboldened they grow.

Timidity in wartime is a crime.

Or are Fredheads looking into this statement hoping to see a glimmer of weakness in Rudy to bolster their confidence in their abortion lobbying, CFR loving, word parsing non-candidate?

tommylotto on July 20, 2007 at 6:13 PM

I suspect that’s part of it.

We’ve got to be patient and committed (in Iraq), but we’ve got to multitask. We’ve got to have conversations beyond Iraq. We’ve got to talk about Iran — Iran is more dangerous than Iraq — and we have to get the job done in Afghanistan and in Pakistan.

Exactly where in that statement is “retreat”?
Is the word “retreat” hiding somewhere between “patient” and “committed”?

You commenters are accepting just one possible spin senario offered by AP. Relax and look at what Rudy said. Iraq’s important, we need to win there, but that is not the only front in the GWOT. We also need to address Iran and the tribal areas in Pakistan. This is a very touchy subject — one already has nukes and the other is on the way — but is there anyone who really disagrees with this general statement?

Or are Fredheads looking into this statement hoping to see a glimmer of weakness in Rudy to bolster their confidence in their abortion lobbying, CFR loving, word parsing non-candidate?

“Retreat, hell! We’re just advancing in the opposite direction!” Oliver Prince Smith

This article almost sounds like the above quote except we are retreating.

It is truly sad when the only option is surrendering after achieving a military victory. Sadly the American attention span is just too short nowdays. Iraq is no longer a war, it is a reconstruction of a country not a war. Time is needed establish a new government and way of life for the Iraqi people which will enhance the security of the US. We still have forces in Germany and Japan, why are we not withdrawing those forces?

BTW, war weary? Are they frakkin kidding me? What sacrifice has the avg American made? Rationing? Shortages? Please. The only ones who should be war weary are our troops and their families. War weary….that aggravates me to no end! More like weary of the Mud Stream Media and losers like Reid & Pelosi.

People die in the USA every day from gang bangers and crooks but the Mud Stream Media doesn’t cover this because it isn’t as spectacular as a IED. Where’s the outrage? I would be willing to bet the number of gang related deaths in those 3 areas far exceed the US deaths in Iraq & Afg. Anyone got the numbers on gang related murders in say LA, NY & MIA for the last 4 years? (I’m not picking on those area but….)

I’m tired of hearing the Iraqi gov’t hasn’t met certain benchmarks. Our own gov’t doesn’t meet benchmarks. Border fence anyone? Our own government is corrupt and contemptuous to each other so why should the Iraqi gov’t be any different?

conservnut on July 20, 2007 at 5:02 PM

We are losing ground.

The Taliban is a creation of the Pakistani ISI. They recruited Pashtun tribesman right out of the madrassas in Pakistan and gave them money and training. They set them on Afghanistan and helped them topple the gov’t.

It was the ISI, mind you which is chock full of jihadis. The Pakistani gov’t maintains they officially had nothing to do with them. When we crushed them after 9/11, those that survived fled back to Pakistan and the protection of the Pakistani gov’t. What’s key to remember is that there are Pashtun tribes in both eastern Afghanistan and the NW territories of Pakistan. Their allegiance is to their tribe and Allah, not any country.

Since 9//11, they have been getting stronger and stronger under the protection of the Pakistani gov’t. Musharaf made the deal to leave them alone as long as they left him alone. A brilliant strategy that has always worked.

Now, Pakistan is reaping what they sowed starting with the Red Mosque and is gaining steam. Again, don’t worry so much about the names. Taliban, al Qaeda, Hamas, etc., etc., they are all of the same seed and have the same goals and tactics.

When Bush said after 9/11 that we are in for a long war, a war that may take a generation, he was right.

I don’t believe we are losing ground there.

You know, car bombs and kidnappings are happening in a lot of places right now.

conservnut on July 20, 2007 at 5:02 PM

In a case like this, simply holding one’s ground is a recipe for disaster. Witness Iraq, 2004-2006.

conservnut on July 20, 2007 at 5:13 PM

Right. I agree. And I think that’s why Rudy said:

“I said it a long time ago … America is too consumed with Iraq,” he said. “We’ve got to be patient and committed (in Iraq), but we’ve got to multitask. We’ve got to have conversations beyond Iraq. We’ve got to talk about Iran — Iran is more dangerous than Iraq — and we have to get the job done in Afghanistan and in Pakistan.”

That Iran is the most dangerous, but we also have to get the job done in Afghanistan and Pakistan. If we concentrate specifically on Iraq, we’ll have problems elsewhere, like Iran getting nukes, or Jihadis getting ahold of Paki’s nukes, or the Afghanistan government falling or becoming a safe-haven for the Taliban…again.