This year’s must read by everyone who follows or makes a living in politics will be Michael Yon’s new book Moment of Truth in Iraq: How a New ‘Greatest Generation’ of American Soldiers is Turning Defeat and Disaster into Victory…

As Michael reminds us, we can argue over 2002-3 all we want, but it doesn’t have anything to do with 2008. We are in Iraq, and al-Qaeda is arrayed against our troops. In fact, this is the best possible situation if we want to fight terrorists — to have them on a battlefield in straight-up fights against our military. It’s exactly what terrorists don’t want. If they wanted to fight our military, they wouldn’t use bomb commuter trains and fly civilian airplanes into their targets.

This is indeed the core of the issue. We’ve had a bad habit of abandoning our allies, from the Hungarians revolting against the Soviets, to abandoning Lebanon to Syria, to cutting off the South Vietnamese after promising to support them, to the Shah of Iran, to urging Iraqis to revolt against Saddam at the end of the first Gulf War, then standing by while Saddam waded through blood to put down the revolt.

Both Republican and Democratic administrations have been responsible for some of this, but the Democrats do excel at giving everything away to their enemies while stabbing their allies in the back. Obama continues the tradition, promising to negotiate with Iran and North Korea, but suggesting he would run roughshod over Pakistan if needed.

If we turn our backs on Iraq, we lose all credibility as an ally. Every nation in the world will have to know they’re best off to ally themselves with our enemies, because they can’t trust us to be loyal to them.

c) Containment was working.

d) It was clear that if the US had waited another 2-3 months before invading, Saddam would have been overthrown by a coalition formed by one of his sons that was in the final planning stages.
….
bayam on April 14, 2008 at 4:11 PM

I was reading your post in all seriousness until I got to these two points. You seem to have deluded yourself into thinking it would all just work out without any effort on our parts.
Containment was definitely not working. Saddam had already managed to turn Oil-for-Food into a cash cow, corrupting virtually the entire UN. (Insert joke here) The longer the sanctions lasted against Iraq, the more money Saddam made.

And while I’m quite sure there were plans to overthrow Saddam, it requires a great deal of gullibility to be certain his overthrow was just around the corner. Iraq was always full of plots to overthrow Saddam. But Saddam was a great survivor.

Your particular delusion is exactly why we stopped short during the first Gulf War. We hoped Saddam would be overthrown without us having to do any work. In our defense, it seemed plausible at that time. But nearly a dozen years later, to make the same mistake again would have been inexcusable. Basically, if we didn’t want Saddam to be in power in Iraq, it was up to us to get rid of him.

Which we did, for better or worse.

Iraqis aren’t stupid — and they’re watching us
posted at 7:25 am on April 14, 2008 by Ed Morrissey

OK eddy..!
If they aren’t stupid — and they’re watching us …question is…?

Has Newt Gingrich, professor extradinore of history had a sit down with Maliki?

Explaining our past history of politicians that don’t have providence to “hoe their own rows”?
We loose a little and they loose everything!
Eventually “a little” becomes “a lot”… pass my extraordinary mistakes on…!

President George W. Bush, President of the United States of America.

“…I figured this one out years ago. We have a recent history of abandoning our allies;”

Right on…!

“…We abandoned Lebanon to Syria, the Shah of Iran to the radical Islamists, and twice stabbed the Kurds in the back. Why the Kurds like us so much is beyond my understanding

.

Right on…!

“…In 1991 we encouraged the Iraqi’s to rise up and when they did in the southern portion of Iraq we stood by and watched Saddam slaughter them. But, hey, we did the same thing to the Hungarians in 1956…”

Right on…!

amr on April 14, 2008 at 8:55 PM
Holy J…M…& J…!

amr… How about the “slit trench” we dug in Vietnam and Laos?

YOUR’RE SPOT ON..!

Oss…!

We are fortunate that anyone supports us in Iraq. President Bush has more political courage than President Ford had in 1975, but he will be gone from the scene in 9 months. To abandon Iraq will make al Qaeda the winner by default and we will just have to fight them elsewhere on their terms with probably worse casualties. With both Democratic candidates advocating leaving Iraq, regardless of the situation on the ground, that alone is sufficient for me to vote Republican.

Gentlemen, the General appreciates all your thoughts.
He especially will consider those that run contrary to his own!
For in diversity may be found victory..?

“News Flash… After 53,000 plus American and two million plus Vietnamese dead; we got run out of Ho Chi Minh City in the last departing “Huey”!
J_Gocht on April 14, 2008 at 8:39 AM

”
Hot Air Moderator…Dear Madam or Sir,

When I initially posted the above comments and they didn’t appear almost instantaneously in the general “thread of the post” I assumed …
They “[You] can’t stand the truth!”

It would now appear that my initial “lack of faith” has been reconsidered and as only a lonely “bird in the wilderness” my faith in the wisdom and the truth and the American Way has been reestablished!

Drive on!
Thank you…

bayam on April 14, 2008 at 4:11 PM

Thanks for the laugh.

Like I said: Honestly I don’t understand how any intelligent person can now look back at the situation with Saddam pre-invasion and not grasp the necessity for removing him

Someone forgot to tell George W. Bush as he sure thinks that it is Iraq.

Saddam provided the US with a unique opportunity to establish a significantly belligerent,forward deployed military presence on the Iranian doorstep with the “blessing” of the world community visa via the UN. GW’s failure to use this gift and prosecute an overtly hostile policy against the Iranian military and nuclear facilities is unforgivable! Why Bush screwed the pooch on this is still a mystery.

Are there more or less terrorists in the world as a result of the war in Iraq? America has lost credibility and stature. The inability of the US to convincingly win in Iraq has given terrorist recruits a believable cause to support.

Total BS, in no time in history has the terrorist really had to consider the afterlife. They are being slaughtered while wearing out there welcome using the indiginous people of the lands they wish to conquer as a murderous political statement.

If we pull out and let these animals off the hook, no bigger recruiting tool would be required.

Everyone knows that the focus is Iran.

Someone forgot to tell George W. Bush as he sure thinks that it is Iraq.

Everyone knows that the focus is Iran.

Agreed and to those that fail to grasp this reality and offer no alternative to confronting the spread of Islamic totalitarianism, what ya gonna do when they come for you?

Surely an isolationist policy derived on a calculus based on ignorance of intent, a denial of observable actions and a deliberate choice to disregard the historically record sounds appealing. All Hail the Messiah!

Honestly I don’t understand how any intelligent person can now look back at the situation with Saddam pre-invasion and not grasp the necessity for removing him

Do you know much about the Middle East?

a) US efforts to transform the Middle East ended up elevating Iran to the position of prominent power. Prior to the invasion, the US and its allies were prominent- a far better scenario.

b) Transforming Iraq from a secular state (alcohol, sexual freedoms, no beards) into a Islamic ‘democracy’ under Shiite law will lead to much warmer relations with Iran. Iraq is no longer able to maintain any balance of power against traditional US enemies.

c) Containment was working.

d) It was clear that if the US had waited another 2-3 months before invading, Saddam would have been overthrown by a coalition formed by one of his sons that was in the final planning stages.

e) Most conservative estimates place the effect of the war on oil prices at $15 – $20 per barrel. Most experts now agree that OPEC can no longer control the price of oil.

f) According to the WSJ, Bush’s most powerful legacy may be the redistribution of worldwide wealth to the Middle East; the amount of wealth flowing into the region now and over the next 20 years is staggering.

g) Most Iranian experts agree that Ahmadinejad would have been forced out of power by now if not for hitting the oil jackpot. His ruinous economic policies would have otherwise caused extreme pain to the Iranian people and widespread unrest.

h) Are there more or less terrorists in the world as a result of the war in Iraq? America has lost credibility and stature. The inability of the US to convincingly win in Iraq has given terrorist recruits a believable cause to support.

i) In addition to lives, a massive amount of treasure has been committed to Iraq and politicians continue to hide its true cost and fail to finance it with taxes. The soaring budget deficit, combined with trade deficits, have been key drivers of the dollar losing about 40% of its value. Americans have lost a significant amount of purchasing power. If this trend continues, the dollar will lose its status as the world’s primary currency. And if the Euro replaces the dollar, Wall Sreet will most likely lose its primacy in the world’s financial markets. This will result in a serious loss of economic power for the United States as a whole.

Who said the theatre of conflict needs to be in Iraq? This is a very hollow argument.

bayam on April 14, 2008 at 3:47 PM

You know how a lot of folks used to believe that the earth was the center of the universe, well now some folks believe that it is Iraq.

It is called the Church of the Iraqi-Centric. It has many similarities to the Church of Global Warming although niether congregations would ever admit it.

As Michael reminds us, we can argue over 2002-3 all we want, but it doesn’t have anything to do with 2008

I agree.

We are in Iraq, and al-Qaeda is arrayed against our troops. In fact, this is the best possible situation if we want to fight terrorists — to have them on a battlefield in straight-up fights against our military. It’s exactly what terrorists don’t want.

This ‘strategic advantage’ argument emerged once the nation’s original goals in Iraq started to drift out of reach. After 9-11, no one in the military seriously said that in order to protect the US, the best strategy was to invade Iraq to engage foreign fighters in a war abroad. In fact, many military leaders reminded us in the aftermath of 9-11 that the war against terror would not be won through traditional conventional warfare- a fact that this nation still needs to accept.

Anyway, if the US did eventually leave Iraq once its own security forces are strong enough to defend the country, wouldn’t we continue to engage foreign fighters in Afghanistan? Who said the theatre of conflict needs to be in Iraq? This is a very hollow argument.

most of them are not going to commit to America unless they are assured that America is committed to them.

…and I wish I could truthfully tell them that we are committed (the politicians anyway, I know troops are), but with Obomba on the horizon…

Ed Morrissey, in a piece headined “Iraqis Aren’t Stupid—And They’re Watching Us”: We can argue over 2002-3 all we want, but it doesn’t have anything to do with 2008. We are in Iraq, and al-Qaeda is arrayed against our troops…….

Hooray for Democratic Islam!

BL@KBIRD on April 14, 2008 at 1:26 PM

And hooray for #uckin for chastity!

I was on the ground in Iraq for 16 months, and in that time I talked to hundreds of Iraqis. Some didn’t like us; some wanted us to leave, but most did not.

After five years, what have we won?

Anything?

Listening to Gen. David Petraeus low-ball the much-vaunted surge’s effect — “I wouldn’t ever use the word success or victory or anything like that,” he recently told Voice of America — and express frustration at the pace of Iraqi “reconciliation” to The Washington Post, it’s hard to say yes. And especially not after sifting through the more disturbing findings of a recent BBC poll of Iraqi opinion. For selective optimists, the poll does indeed reflect an increasing Iraqi optimism, which has cheered conservatives as happy anniversary news. What has gone more or less overlooked (or dismissed) are the survey results indicating a shocking Iraqi hostility to America’s efforts on Iraq’s behalf.

For example, 79 percent of Iraqis have not much or no confidence in U.S. forces; 70 percent think U.S. forces have done a bad or very bad job; and, most appalling, 42 percent think attacks on U.S. forces are acceptable. Acceptable! This last figure is down 15 points from six months ago, so I suppose we should applaud the “progress.” But just imagine if, after D-Day in 1944, 42 percent of the French believed attacking Americans was “acceptable”; or if after the Battle of Chosin Reservoir in 1950, 42 percent of South Koreans did, too; or if 42 percent of Grenadians after being liberated by Ronald Reagan in 1983 were of the same violently anti-American mind.
- Diana West (JWR)