House vote on Iraq – a lethal mistake

[nevadamedic]

The politicians in Washington are dating impending doom. The vote yesterday by the House of Representatives in surrendering to the jihadists in Iraq spells T-R-A-V-E-S-T-Y in just about any dictionary.

Our stolidly sturdy troops in Iraq are beginning to get the idea that we, as a nation, are giving up on them, and it's time to let these honorable men and women in uniform know that the public won't allow the politicians to bail on them.

The people of this nation cannot give up on our troops – no matter how tempted the politicians become to do just that. We must not allow the scene of American helicopters evacuating U.S. personnel from the rooftop of a besieged embassy to be repeated in Baghdad.

Let's put on the table some of the generally accepted consequences of a withdrawal from Iraq without victory:


Retreat would embolden Islamic jihadists who would rightfully claim that they defeated the greatest power in the free world.

The Iraqi government would likely collapse altogether, allowing it to revert to its former position as a state sponsor of terrorism.

America would lose any credibility as the world's lone "superpower" and would have little ability to rally other nations in actions to stop Islamic jihadists.

Iran will become more emboldened to not only wipe "Israel off the map," but also to use nuclear weapons against the United States, Israel and European targets.

Iraq itself would likely collapse into a pit of bloody violence as sects engaged in genocide and mass killings to gain the upper hand.
These are only a few of the likely consequences to which responsible figures in Washington and across the nation can agree. Lurking in the gray area are unforeseen troubles.

Given the consequences of failure, it is obvious that we must find the resolve, determination and grit to win this critical fight for the future of the free world.

I am perplexed by critics of Operation Iraqi Freedom and their claims that Iraq was not part of the frontline on the war against Islamic jihadism until Coalition forces launched the military campaign to topple Saddam Hussein's brutal regime.

These critics ignore the indisputable fact that Iraq was already one of the world's leading sponsors of Islamic terrorism. Can they truly believe that jihadists only flocked to the kite-flying fields of Iraq after the war began? To give any credence to their argument, one would have to then assume that, had the U.S. invaded France, then jihadists would have flocked there by the tens of thousands because that's where U.S. troops were.

The reasons jihadists are loath to allow Iraqis to live in a secular, democratic nation is the same reason they despise Israel and disdain the Kurds of northern Iraq. The jihadists consider the entire Middle East as the centerpiece for their Islamic caliphate that they wish to spread across the globe just as surely as Adolf Hitler intended to spread the reach of the Third Reich.

Al-Qaida could have only dreamed that, shortly after they used airplanes as missiles to take down the towers of the World Trade Center, prominent American politicians, journalists and bloggers would be arguing that American surrender was the best path to victory. And it only took six years for the white flags to wave.

Those who speak out against the mission of our troops in Iraq say that it is legitimate for Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid to politically attack the mission in Iraq, noting that President Bush turned the issue on his political opponents in the 2004 election.

That's a ludicrous contention because it suggests moral equivalency between rooting for our troops and their missions, and rooting against them.

The next few weeks will bring waves of news about how bad things are in Iraq, and the sad thing is this isn't propaganda from America's enemies. Instead, it is propaganda from America's domestic enemies.

"Domestic enemies" – that's one of those phrases that causes great distress for many in the media and politics. To them, labeling people as such conjures up images of "McCarthyism" and blacklisting Americans as traitors.

With no apologies to the political and media elite in this country, I believe that those who understand the consequences of failure in Iraq, but who nonetheless relentlessly criticize Operation Iraqi Freedom, are domestic enemies.

A universe of people understand what will happen if we surrender in Iraq, but these people nonetheless argue for such a policy out of shameless political expediency.

Sens. Dick Lugar and George Voinovich, for example, are fully aware of the fact al-Qaida considers Iraq the frontlines in the war on terrorism. So if we are intent on destroying the al-Qaida terrorist network, winning in Iraq would be a good place to start, don't you think? Apparently, the same men who surrendered to the anti-military left over John Bolton's nomination to the United Nations are also prepared to surrender to Islamic jihadists in Iraq.

How can we win a war against Islamic jihadism when the terrorists have people who believe in bringing down the Western powers so fervently that they will blow themselves up, and we have on our side politicians acting as Sens. Lugar and Voinovich have?

I don't care what political party you call home. We are in a war against Islamic jihadism, a cancer that wants to cut our throats and rule the West.

President Bush has made many mistakes in the execution of the war against Islamic jihadists in Iraq. However, undermining the military's mission because of a personal dislike of Commander in Chief George W. Bush, or because he's not prosecuting the war the way some might prefer, is inexcusable and a lethal mistake we can ill afford to make.

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56657

I couldn't agree more with Melanie. I think the Democrats should put aside their feelings for President Bush and realize that she is right on the money and will be a disaster if we pull out of Iraq.

[Gaffer]

Good article. I agree completely.

There are those that are just to stupid to understand the ramifications if we just pull out of iraq. And there are those that fully understand, and those are the traitors to the country.

Another major attack on this country might see a re emergence of Mccarthyism.

[nevadamedic]

Good article. I agree completely.

There are those that are just to stupid to understand the ramifications if we just pull out of iraq. And there are those that fully understand, and those are the traitors to the country.

Another major attack on this country might see a re emergence of Mccarthyism.

If you like Melanie's article, here is her website www.moveamericaforward.org they are an awesome group. The have been fighting that wack job Pelosi, Reid and that Cindy lady.

[nevadamedic]

Oh yea, also sign this petition www.wewintheylose.com and get anyone that you can to sign it. It is demanding that Senator Reid and Speaker Pelosi stop their campaign to end the war.

[nevadamedic]

Here is what is on the petition page.

When it came to defeating the Soviets, Ronald Reagan made it simple: "We win, they lose." Now more than ever, the defeatists in Congress must hear that same message. America will never surrender.

To: Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House
Harry Reid, U.S. Senate Democrat Leader

Congress has passed and President Bush has vetoed H.R. 1591, the Iraq Surrender Act of 2007.

This legislation, which you worked to pass, sets a timetable for surrender. It pulls the rug out from under our troops. That is shameful and wrong.

Your actions have already emboldened the enemy. Violent jihadists now know that the elected leadership of Congress would undermine the troops by holding their funding hostage to demands for surrender.

This Congress would bring us back to the dark days of the 1970s, when the world doubted our staying power. Except only much worse. Withdraw in April 2008, and on May 1, Iraq becomes an unchecked den of terrorism at the heart of the Middle East -- a new base for the same people that struck our homeland on September 11th.

I stand with our troops. I stand for victory. I support the President's veto and will urge my representatives to vote to sustain it.

There can be one and only one outcome in Iraq: We win, they lose.

Rob Bluey
Bluey Media Lorie Byrd
WizBang! Victoria Coates
Red State
Ben Domenech
Red State Erick Erickson
Red State Jim Hoft
Gateway Pundit
Bryan Preston
Hot Air Glenn Reynolds
Instapundit.com Patrick Ruffini
PatrickRuffini.com
Sen. Bill Frist, M.D.
VolPAC John Hawkins
Right Wing News

[goober]

How are we going to win?

When the public turns against a war, they don't turn back, unless there are major victories, and lots of them.

Lincoln couldn't even get the Republican nomination in 1864, the party dumped him because he and the war were so unpopular.
But an almost uninterrupted string of Union victories followed the convention, and Lincoln won, on the National Union ticket.

Where are the victories in Iraq, or rather, where will they come from?
Because without major victories, and soon, the war is lost, if current public opinion holds up, and absent major good news, it will become even more anti-war, then after the 2008 elections there will be two kinds of congressmen, those who are against the war now, and the new ones.

I can't even imagine how you would define a major victory in Iraq. But it certainly isn't a victory to say that of the 18 benchmarks, there were 8 that we didn't miss as badly as the other 10.

[LiberalNation]

Just thought I'd point out the fact that all of the benchmarks were missed is pretty embarassing. The anti-war sentiment is so strong and things so messed up in Iraq it's just a matter of time before we leave.

[LiberalNation]

I think the Democrats should put aside their feelings for President Bush and realize that she is right on the money and will be a disaster if we pull out of Iraq.

Dude, it isn't just the dems anymore. The repubs fear another huge election loss and are quickly turning against this war and Bush's leadership of it.

[Gaffer]

How are we going to win?

When the public turns against a war, they don't turn back, unless there are major victories, and lots of them.

Lincoln couldn't even get the Republican nomination in 1864, the party dumped him because he and the war were so unpopular.
But an almost uninterrupted string of Union victories followed the convention, and Lincoln won, on the National Union ticket.

Where are the victories in Iraq, or rather, where will they come from?
Because without major victories, and soon, the war is lost, if current public opinion holds up, and absent major good news, it will become even more anti-war, then after the 2008 elections there will be two kinds of congressmen, those who are against the war now, and the new ones.

I can't even imagine how you would define a major victory in Iraq. But it certainly isn't a victory to say that of the 18 benchmarks, there were 8 that we didn't miss as badly as the other 10.

There are victories ongoing. They are not reported by the media. The first report on the success or failure of the surge will come in September. But congress is already declaring it a defeat and the media is trumpeting that. The public opinion can only be swayed when the media starts reporting the real facts and successes in iraq. They have not done that and I don't expect they will. Most of this would be over now if the media was on our side. By only reporting the negative they encourage the enmy to keep going.

A victory would be us leaving and iraq able to take care of its own internal problems.

The benchmarks mentioned were those set by the iraqi government for itself. It didn't do well and they are going to have to revamp things a bit.

[Gaffer]

If you like Melanie's article, here is her website www.moveamericaforward.org they are an awesome group. The have been fighting that wack job Pelosi, Reid and that Cindy lady.

cool thanks, put it in my favorites.

[nevadamedic]

How are we going to win?

When the public turns against a war, they don't turn back, unless there are major victories, and lots of them.

Lincoln couldn't even get the Republican nomination in 1864, the party dumped him because he and the war were so unpopular.
But an almost uninterrupted string of Union victories followed the convention, and Lincoln won, on the National Union ticket.

Where are the victories in Iraq, or rather, where will they come from?
Because without major victories, and soon, the war is lost, if current public opinion holds up, and absent major good news, it will become even more anti-war, then after the 2008 elections there will be two kinds of congressmen, those who are against the war now, and the new ones.

I can't even imagine how you would define a major victory in Iraq. But it certainly isn't a victory to say that of the 18 benchmarks, there were 8 that we didn't miss as badly as the other 10.

What kind of drugs are you on?

[nevadamedic]

cool thanks, put it in my favorites.

Did you sign the Petition as well? You should get Trinity and Krisy sign it as well if you can.

[nevadamedic]

Just thought I'd point out the fact that all of the benchmarks were missed is pretty embarassing. The anti-war sentiment is so strong and things so messed up in Iraq it's just a matter of time before we leave.

Name all of them that were missed.........

[nevadamedic]

There are victories ongoing. They are not reported by the media. The first report on the success or failure of the surge will come in September. But congress is already declaring it a defeat and the media is trumpeting that. The public opinion can only be swayed when the media starts reporting the real facts and successes in iraq. They have not done that and I don't expect they will. Most of this would be over now if the media was on our side. By only reporting the negative they encourage the enmy to keep going.

A victory would be us leaving and iraq able to take care of its own internal problems.

The benchmarks mentioned were those set by the iraqi government for itself. It didn't do well and they are going to have to revamp things a bit.

:salute::clap::clap::clap::clap::salute:

[nevadamedic]

Dude, it isn't just the dems anymore. The repubs fear another huge election loss and are quickly turning against this war and Bush's leadership of it.

Only two or three have.

[LiberalNation]

What kind of drugs are you on?
That's your only responce to a very logical post. What kinda drugs are you on.

[goober]

There are victories ongoing. They are not reported by the media. The first report on the success or failure of the surge will come in September. But congress is already declaring it a defeat and the media is trumpeting that. The public opinion can only be swayed when the media starts reporting the real facts and successes in iraq. They have not done that and I don't expect they will. Most of this would be over now if the media was on our side. By only reporting the negative they encourage the enmy to keep going.

A victory would be us leaving and iraq able to take care of its own internal problems.

The benchmarks mentioned were those set by the iraqi government for itself. It didn't do well and they are going to have to revamp things a bit.

Well, an unreported victory is not going to turn public opinion around.
I don't think we have the ability to produce a major victory, it's not that kind of war. And the propaganda machine has already desensitized the public to all the "good news" about how many schools got rebuilt, and how many tractors were repaired.
Get oil production up to 5 million barrels a day, and drop the world price of oil to $30/barrel, and that would be a victory, but I don't think that's possible.

[nevadamedic]

That's your only responce to a very logical post. What kinda drugs are you on.

It wasn't logical. Not that it's any of your business but I am on Percocet, MS Contin, Dilaudid and Zanaflex.

[LiberalNation]

It was logical. Peoples support for this war is waning and the only thing that will stop it are great victories to prove we are winning. Americans don't like fighting on in what they feel is a loosing war that is not necessery.

[nevadamedic]

It was logical. Peoples support for this war is waning and the only thing that will stop it are great victories to prove we are winning. Americans don't like fighting on in what they feel is a loosing war that is not necessery.

We are having victories. People of Iraq are fighting with us, not against us and that is something we were trying to accomplish.

[LiberalNation]

Umm, I guess you missed this story. We are training and arming people who are just turning around and using those arms and training against us.

U.S. Troops Battle Iraqi Police
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/14/world/middleeast/14iraq.html

[nevadamedic]

Umm, I guess you missed this story. We are training and arming people who are just turning around and using those arms and training against us.

U.S. Troops Battle Iraqi Police
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/14/world/middleeast/14iraq.html

That may or may not happen, more then likely not. We saved those people from a horrid Dictattorship where people got killed just for the amusemnt of Saddam and his two sons. They never want to go back to that and they know if they turn on us we will not be there to help them in the future and they don't want that.

[Gaffer]

LN was quoting from the nyt, the most liberal anti-American paper in the country. If there was a battle between the iraq police and our troops we would hear a lot more about it. The times gets their news from ap sources who get it from anonymous sources and made up characters.

Go to sites of people who are actually there, like Micheal Yon. You will not get any factual or truthful news from the times...ever.

Anbar province being pacified is a major victory. It's not being reported because it makes Bush look good. If iraq oil production improved and gas prices were reduced it would be reported as Bush was stealing iraqi oil.

[goober]

We are having victories. People of Iraq are fighting with us, not against us and that is something we were trying to accomplish.

Then who are we fighting?

[goober]

That may or may not happen, more then likely not. We saved those people from a horrid Dictattorship where people got killed just for the amusemnt of Saddam and his two sons. They never want to go back to that and they know if they turn on us we will not be there to help them in the future and they don't want that.

According to Amnesty International, in the years leading up to the invasion of Iraq, there were between 100 and 200 extrajudicial deaths a year in Iraq.
So we've already killed over a hundred thousand people to prevent at the most 800 deaths.
Most Iraqis want the US out, most Iraqis believe killing Americans is justified to get the US out. Most Iraqis believe things will get better if the US leaves. So what exactly are we there for?

[Kathianne]

Then who are we fighting?

Some are Iraqis, then there are the Syrians, Jordanians, Saudis, Iranians. Remember those that attacked on 9/11, while NOT connected with Iraq, were Saudis and Egyptians. So there are plenty that were CREATED before we entered Iraq.

It's not a country we are fighting, rather a hodgepodge of Islamicists that orthodox/literal in their reading of the Koran.

[goober]

Some are Iraqis, then there are the Syrians, Jordanians, Saudis, Iranians. Remember those that attacked on 9/11, while NOT connected with Iraq, were Saudis and Egyptians. So there are plenty that were CREATED before we entered Iraq.

It's not a country we are fighting, rather a hodgepodge of Islamicists that orthodox/literal in their reading of the Koran.

We are fighting people who are mostly Iraqis, with a very small amount who are from outside Iraq, and the vast majority of them are arabs.

The main driver for recruiting and supplying people to the insurgency is national liberation, or rather tribal self determination. The Sunni - Shiite thing is an easy label to put on the conflict, but even a cursory review of the situation shows Shia on Shia violence and Sunni on Sunni violence, the underlying state of affairs is far more complicated than Sunni v Shiite.

The majority of the tribes are trying to get a better deal from the new Iraq than they did from the Old Iraq, they may align themselves with the Iraqi government one day, Al-Sadr the next, Al Qaeda the next, and be with the coalition at the end of the week, but even when they are with the coalition, they want the coalition out, they are merely seeking some temporary advantage over a competing tribal entity.

These various factions come close to being unified by the desire for national liberation, because most of them feel they can get a better deal in an Iraq not dominated by a large foreign presence, remove the coalition, there will be all kinds of realignments and in relatively short order, a stable configuration will emerge, only the foreign jihadis wish to die, and the Iraqis will have no problem granting their wish. As difficult as it is for an American soldier to tell an Iraqi from a Jordanian or a Syrian, it's easy as all heck for an Iraqi to spot the foreign accent, once those people have served their purpose, they will die or flee in short order.

As far as "the War against Terror" goes, look at the actual data, Robert Pape put together a database of 462 suicide attacks for his book "Dying to Win".
What's the common denominator? Religion? no, there are Christian, Hindu, even atheist suicide bombers.
But 98% of the suicide bombers attacked a democracy that had uniformed military forces occupying the homeland of the attacker.

Eliminate the occupations, and you eliminate 98% of the problem.

[Kathianne]

We are fighting people who are mostly Iraqis, with a very small amount who are from outside Iraq, and the vast majority of them are arabs.

The main driver for recruiting and supplying people to the insurgency is national liberation, or rather tribal self determination. The Sunni - Shiite thing is an easy label to put on the conflict, but even a cursory review of the situation shows Shia on Shia violence and Sunni on Sunni violence, the underlying state of affairs is far more complicated than Sunni v Shiite.

The majority of the tribes are trying to get a better deal from the new Iraq than they did from the Old Iraq, they may align themselves with the Iraqi government one day, Al-Sadr the next, Al Qaeda the next, and be with the coalition at the end of the week, but even when they are with the coalition, they want the coalition out, they are merely seeking some temporary advantage over a competing tribal entity.

These various factions come close to being unified by the desire for national liberation, because most of them feel they can get a better deal in an Iraq not dominated by a large foreign presence, remove the coalition, there will be all kinds of realignments and in relatively short order, a stable configuration will emerge, only the foreign jihadis wish to die, and the Iraqis will have no problem granting their wish. As difficult as it is for an American soldier to tell an Iraqi from a Jordanian or a Syrian, it's easy as all heck for an Iraqi to spot the foreign accent, once those people have served their purpose, they will die or flee in short order.

As far as "the War against Terror" goes, look at the actual data, Robert Pape put together a database of 462 suicide attacks for his book "Dying to Win".
What's the common denominator? Religion? no, there are Christian, Hindu, even atheist suicide bombers.
But 98% of the suicide bombers attacked a democracy that had uniformed military forces occupying the homeland of the attacker.

Eliminate the occupations, and you eliminate 98% of the problem.

Funny, when I read Pape's work, I got the idea that the US needed to secure the borders. Terrorism is a tactic, nothing else. Running away will not get rid of it. As for the 98%, that in and of itself shows that suicide bombers are using the weapon of opportunity.

As for the 'mostly Iraqi' that's no longer true.

[Kathianne]

about the 'foreign fighters':

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-saudi15jul15,0,16497,print.story?coll=la-home-center


THE CONFLICT IN IRAQ: SAUDI ROLE IN INSURGENCY
Saudis' role in Iraq insurgency outlined
Sunni extremists from Saudi Arabia make up half the foreign fighters in Iraq, many suicide bombers, a U.S. official says.
By Ned Parker
Times Staff Writer

July 15, 2007

BAGHDAD — Although Bush administration officials have frequently lashed out at Syria and Iran, accusing it of helping insurgents and militias here, the largest number of foreign fighters and suicide bombers in Iraq come from a third neighbor, Saudi Arabia, according to a senior U.S. military officer and Iraqi lawmakers.

About 45% of all foreign militants targeting U.S. troops and Iraqi civilians and security forces are from Saudi Arabia; 15% are from Syria and Lebanon; and 10% are from North Africa, according to official U.S. military figures made available to The Times by the senior officer. Nearly half of the 135 foreigners in U.S. detention facilities in Iraq are Saudis, he said.

Fighters from Saudi Arabia are thought to have carried out more suicide bombings than those of any other nationality, said the senior U.S. officer, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the subject's sensitivity. It is apparently the first time a U.S. official has given such a breakdown on the role played by Saudi nationals in Iraq's Sunni Arab insurgency.

He said 50% of all Saudi fighters in Iraq come here as suicide bombers. In the last six months, such bombings have killed or injured 4,000 Iraqis.

The situation has left the U.S. military in the awkward position of battling an enemy whose top source of foreign fighters is a key ally that at best has not been able to prevent its citizens from undertaking bloody attacks in Iraq, and at worst shares complicity in sending extremists to commit attacks against U.S. forces, Iraqi civilians and the Shiite-led government in Baghdad.

The problem casts a spotlight on the tangled web of alliances and enmities that underlie the political relations between Muslim nations and the U.S.
...

Deep suspicions

Others contend that Saudi Arabia is allowing fighters sympathetic to Al Qaeda to go to Iraq so they won't create havoc at home.

Iraqi Shiite lawmaker Sami Askari, an advisor to Prime Minister Nouri Maliki, accused Saudi officials of a deliberate policy to sow chaos in Baghdad.

"The fact of the matter is that Saudi Arabia has strong intelligence resources, and it would be hard to think that they are not aware of what is going on," he said.

Askari also alleged that imams at Saudi mosques call for jihad, or holy war, against Iraq's Shiites and that the government had funded groups causing unrest in Iraq's largely Shiite south. Sunni extremists regard Shiites as unbelievers.

Other Iraqi officials said that though they believed Saudi Arabia, a Sunni fundamentalist regime, had no interest in helping Shiite-ruled Iraq, it was not helping militants either. But some Iraqi Shiite leaders say the Saudi royal family sees the Baghdad government as a proxy for its regional rival, Shiite-ruled Iran, and wants to unseat it.

With its own border with Iraq largely closed, Saudi fighters take what is now an established route by bus or plane to Syria, where they meet handlers who help them cross into Iraq's western deserts, the senior U.S. military officer said.

He suggested it was here that Saudi Arabia could do more, by implementing rigorous travel screenings for young Saudi males. Iraqi officials agreed.

"Are the Saudis using all means possible? Of course not…. And we think they need to do more, as does Syria, as does Iran, as does Jordan," the senior officer said. An estimated 60 to 80 foreign fighters cross into Iraq each month, according to the U.S. military....

[nevadamedic]

Some are Iraqis, then there are the Syrians, Jordanians, Saudis, Iranians. Remember those that attacked on 9/11, while NOT connected with Iraq, were Saudis and Egyptians. So there are plenty that were CREATED before we entered Iraq.

It's not a country we are fighting, rather a hodgepodge of Islamicists that orthodox/literal in their reading of the Koran.

Excellent point.