Provocative suggestions from H. W. Crocker III in The American Spectator:
All right, let's skip all the introductory remarks and get to the point. Is victory still possible in Iraq? Yes, though the Bush administration keeps doing its level best to kick that prize away from our troops.We can tally up the mistakes later (I'll mention two of the worst ones at the end) but the first step to winning in Iraq is to define victory -- and not to define it in such a way, as the Bush administration has done, that leaves us hostages to the Iraqi government. That is a strategic error of the first magnitude.
Even after the president's recent address, announcing that America's patience with the Iraqi government is not limitless, and promising a -- by my lights, not very dramatic -- surge of troops, not enough has changed. The Bush administration's rhetoric of why we fight has shifted from the politically cynical -- and deeply stupid and insensate -- mantra of "stay the course (because you can't trust the cut-'n'-run Democrats)," which the American people rightly recognized as no course at all, to an equally pitiful emphasis that American defeat in Iraq would be a disaster.
No one ever won a war by fighting for "not defeat." You win a war by smashing up the enemy, by so overwhelming him but that he has no choice but to surrender or die. Instead we have "stayed the course" (where is the urgency in that?) and we have whined that losing would be a bad thing.
Yes, losing would be a bad thing -- and the Bush administration should know, given that it has managed to lose both houses of Congress, alienate its own supporters, and convince the American people by a whopping majority that we cannot "win" in Iraq. Well done, Mr. President!
A PRESIDENT WITH SO LITTLE understanding of his own electorate can hardly, in fairness, be held to account for failing to understand the political realities in a country far away and of which he knows little -- though this is scant consolation for those of us who not only think the war was the right and necessary thing to do but who share Mark Steyn's conviction that "if Iraq's lost, the Dems and the media will have a whole new quagmire template for the next 40 years."
But whatever the failures of the administration, it is always a bad idea to bet against the American military.
Indeed, on the military front, things are not so dire as you might think.
Read it all.
No one ever won a war by fighting for "not defeat." You win a war by smashing up the enemy, by so overwhelming him but that he has no choice but to surrender or die
This is what I've been saying since day 1.
We need to accept that Iraq will never be a country in our own image. Assassination, whether through roadside bombs, decapitation (by hanging or knife), a random spray of bullets, militia street battles, or government hit-men, is a traditional form of Middle Eastern greeting that we are not going to eliminate.
This is the way it is in a 7th century culture that proves it's manhood by slaughter.
All this talk about losing in Iraq is getting ridiculous. The US originally went into Iraq to get rid of Saddam Hussein, capture weapons of mass destruction and killing jihadists on their own turf rather than having them kill us on ours. Well, Saddam is dead and lots of jihadists are too and even though those WMD's were not found (they probably were moved to Syria or even Iran) Iraq is no longer capable of using such weapons. This looks like a victory for the most part.
Now this nation building, "bringing democracy to Iraq" foolishness is a whole other story. If this was indeed Bush's thinking in 2003 it was about a utopian an idea as the jihadist dream of creating
an Islamic paradise in Somalia. Still, even here there's a good chance at a victory of sorts-when the US finally pulls out of Iraq all those crazies can continue to destroy one another unhindered, leaving infidels alone for a while. With luck, maybe even those miserable Iranians and Saudis will get involved too. Yes, a lot of civilians will end up being victims but that is preferrable to having Illah's minions unite against the West and replicating 9/11 all over the world. Now if all those murderous Muslims can be left alone so that Islam's nature can take its course the US will indeed have a victory in Iraq, even if all that violence is painted as a defeat by the Islamaniac loving media.
i agree that we have succeeded in our initial goals for the invasion. get saddam, eliminate wmds and their programs (i agree we missed the shipments to syria before the invasion) and to fight the terrorists "over there". iraq is no longer a threat to the world and as such we can claim victory.
the whole idea of bringing democracy to the ME is an experiment that i think was worth trying because success would have proved to be the biggest weapon against islamic fascism. of course, that experiment failed and it failed because the iraqis themselves failed. yes they "voted" but they did not have the courage to defend the young democracy and turn against the insurgency and terrorists. their failure to fight for democracy was the conclusion of the experiment.
we should, however, not pull our troops out because we currently have iran surrounded. if the iraqi sunnis and shia wish to kill each other, then ok but do not sacrifice more of our troops trying to stop sectarian strife. only the iraqi government and people can do that. prepare our troops for taking on iran as we have started to do in the past few weeks.
"You win a war by smashing up the enemy,"
So simple a plan......
viahj-
Agreed-giving the democracy project a shot was a nice idea. And you're right-the Iraqis have only themselves to blame for the mess their country is currently in. The US freed those people from tyranny and expected rational thinking from them as a result. It appears the US expected too much on that count. Too bad the media doesn't see that and is gleefully calling Iraq another Vietnam even though it's the Iraqis who are the ones losing in Iraq-in more ways than one.
Actually, this was largely a weak piece, surprised that it was posted at all. While getting a few things right, he gets plenty wrong as well. Well, guess you can't expect too much from Confederate apologists.
"Robert E. Lee on Leadership"
Ha!
"whole idea of bringing democracy to the ME is an experiment that i think was worth trying because success would have proved to be the biggest weapon against islamic fascism"
Two wrong things in this statement.
1. As anyone who did not sleep during High School US goverment class knows that Democracy in our understanding is NOT EQUAL free elections only. It requires civil society, independent judiciary, rule of law, etc, etc.
None of these existed in Iraq, to expect democracy in Iraq is not an experiment, it is jumping from 20th story window and expecting to fly.
Just because Jorge Bush has never heard about these fundamentals, does not mean that one should mouth White House illeterate propaganda.
2. Even if a some kind of "democracy" can be established in Iraq, why that fact will be weapon against jihadis? Turkey has something we could call democracy, albeit rapidly sliding back into Sharia. How Turkey influenced AraB Jihadis?
Iran regularly has some kind of elections, has opposition in its parlament. How that helped in the war?
It is time to bury ahistorical, deluded neo-conmen fantasies.
"1. As anyone who did not sleep during High School US goverment class knows that Democracy in our understanding is NOT EQUAL free elections only. It requires civil society, independent judiciary, rule of law, etc, etc."
three years is enough time for them to create these institutions and a civil society (just as i talked about in my post), they have not. it's their failure. if they really wanted it, they could have fought for it, they did not. just because they didn't have all the foundations prior, doesn't mean that democracy could not evolve.
i'm not defending the neo-cons at all because i personaly believe that they don't want democracy because of their theological tendencies. democracy and islam is not compatitable and i've reached this conclusion AFTER the iraq failure. i still hold to my statement that it was worth a try.
"2. Even if a some kind of "democracy" can be established in Iraq, why that fact will be weapon against jihadis?"
if there is a democractic election (just as the paleos elected hamas) then the people can now be held accountable for their government's actions. if the people are held hostage by a dictator, it is harder to justify sanctions and carpet bombing against a people who are crushed by an internal dictator.
in my view, if the people elect terrorists, then we can bomb them without pause. all we would need is one example of this sort of policy and we would see the effects reverberate.
also, you say "jihadis" but your tone and words really reflects the term "muslims". it's nothing to be PC about. speak the truth, we have proven to the entire world that muslims can not operate in a free democracy. that is the value of the iraq experiment.
Want to win in iraq? Want to make the country stable? Well, mathematically speaking, there is no number more stable than the number 0... take it for what it's worth. They've earned it. Piss on islam and its prophet.
You can only win a war by overwhelming force. Anything less than that is pretend war. It never ends. Jusk ask Olmert.