September 12, 2006
Running Away Toward Genocide
Via Fox News:
Democrats are blasting President Bush for giving what they call a political prime-time speech on the fifth anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks.In his address Monday from the Oval Office, Bush tied the anniversary to the War on Terror and the need to continue the war in Iraq.
"Whatever mistakes have been made in Iraq, the worst mistake would be to think that if we pulled out, the terrorists would leave us alone," Bush said. "They will not leave us alone. They will follow us. The safety of America depends on the outcome of the battle in the streets of Baghdad.
Democrats were quick to fire off statements declaring Bush's words partisan.
"The president should be ashamed of using a national day of mourning to commandeer the airwaves to give a speech that was designed not to unite the country and commemorate the fallen but to seek support for a war in Iraq that he has admitted had nothing to do with 9/11," Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., said in a statement. "There will be time to debate this president's policies in Iraq. September 11th is not that time."
While Bush's speech itself was poorly delivered according to those who watched it, the quoted section of his speech above is absolutely accurate.
There have been many mistakes made in Iraq, just as there have been major mistakes made in nearly every war the United States has ever fought, from the Revolutionary War until today. But to give up in Iraq, where the United States has never lost a major engagement, would be seen by the Arab world as a victory for Islamic terrorism.
Abruptly pulling out of Iraq would:
- increase the power and prestige of terrorist groups within the Arab world
- inspire despots to expand funding and military support for terrorist groups as an extension of their foreign policy
- lead to greater sectarian violence
- increase the likelihood of a Balkanized state where a full-scale civil war and mass genocide is more possible
- increase the possibility of a regional war, with Turkey and Iran both striking to crush the Kurdish north of the country
The current sectarian violence in Iraq is bloody enough without us relinquishing the country to be feasted upon by its neighbors and internal factions. If you think the "neo-con" war is expensive in terms of lives and treasure, explore the possibilities of the Democratic "peace."
Thousands are currently dying in Iraq each month in sectarian violence. The al Anbar province is in dire straits. Many voices, particularly those on the left, are calling for the United States to retreat. The one thing these voices utterly refuse to acknowledge is the cost of the unconditional surrender they'd effect.
If we withdraw precipitously before Iraq is stabilized, we run the risk of twin genocides in concurrent civil and regional wars.
Sunni vs Shia
Led for decades by bloody Sunni Baathist regimes, the minority Sunnis have been the core of the insurgency, and still retain strong support among some Sunni civilians, particularly in the al Anbar province where they share some ideological roots and goals with al Qaeda in Iraq. The new Iraqi Army, like the old, is primarily composed of Shia soldiers, and if the United States pulls out before the country can be stabilized, there is much concern that the Shia may overrun their former tormentors, setting the scene for potential genocide.
Kurdistan Regional War
Even within the existing Iraqi government the Kurdish north of Iraq have been pushing strongly for a nearly autonomous region under their specific control. They have long dreamed of an independent Kurdistan, encompassing northern Iraq, as well as significant territory in Turkey, Iran, and Syria (see map). Kurds were promised an independent nation-state in the 1920 Treaty of Sèvres, but later wars and treaties kept that from ever coming to pass. Turkey and Iran, who are already engaged in sporadic cross-border conflicts with Kurdish forces today, would likely not hesitate to invade Kurdish Iraq if they feel their own sovereignty may be threatened. The Kurds, known for thousands of years to be ferocious fighters (the word "Kurd" means "warrior" in Kurdish), would likely be able to turn the mountainous areas of Kurdistan to their advantage, with the distinct possibility of making Kurdish and Iranian invasions resemble the bloody Russian invasion of Afghanistan in the 1980s. The blood the Kurds would draw from the Iranians in the mountains would almost certainly be translated to massive civilian casualties in Kurdish cities dwarfing anything we've seen in the Iraq War so far.
Based upon these scenarios, the precipitous withdrawal called for in the liberal "peace plan" in Iraq has the potential for casualties ranging from the hundreds of thousands to well over a million. If the Leftist "victory" in Southeast Asia (1.7 million), and the abortive Russian efforts in Afghanistan (900,000) provides us with any sort of a useful yardstick to measure the potential cost of failure, the casualties to Iraq could range into the millions, with millions of more civilians being displaced.
And so we seem to have a choice:
We can commit to finding out precisely what we need to do to make Iraq a self-sustaining country with functioning economic, political, and security systems;
-OR-
We can cut and run—"redeploying" to other parts of the world as leading Democrats are calling for—and wash our hands of the country we created as it falls into internal and region wars that will kill or displace millions.
If we do the latter, history will not look upon our nation kindly... nor should it.
where the United States has never lost a major engagement,
Gosh that sounds familiar... where the heck did America win every single battle yet still lost the war? I know it was against an enemy that posed no threat to the U.S., it was a divided land, practically a civil war… the politicians kept on lying to the public about lights at the end of the tunnel, corners being turned… they made some really cool movies out of it… ring any bells?
And mistakes were made that sounds oddly familiar as well.
Huh.
But here's the point that you can't quite seem to understand; the mistakes were predicted by people the Bush Administration and folks like you ignored.
Or screamed “Saddam Lover!” at.
So what do you call that? When someone tells you you’re about to make a mistake and you go and make it anyway? Do you think that people like that should remain in power?
Posted by: salvage at September 12, 2006 02:21 PMOnly a fool ignores history, and by reading the comments, there is no shortage of fools who forget history. Viet Nam was lost because the U.S. under the brilliant leadership of LBJ chose to fight the war in the south. Had three Corps of U.S. Army and a Corps of Marines started at the DMZ and moved north, Viet Nam would have a capital named Saigon. Centuries ago a Chinese General wrote a book about the art of war. It is not about making nice with those who would kill you. What fools on the left fail to understand, if this is not just BDS, this enemy will fight us where ever we are. It is far better to destroy them in Iraq and Afghanistan than in the streets of Lorado. Read the Iraq Freedom resolution passed by the congress and signed by Clinton in 1998. Bush has done what Clinton said needed to be done. Does that make it all better now, salvage?
Posted by: Zelsdorf Ragshaft III at September 12, 2006 04:41 PMWell Zelsdorf, why didn't Nixon correct those mistakes? Surely 3 Corps and a Corp of Marines were available to him after Johnson? As a matter of fact, I remember Nixon telling us voters before the 72 elections that he had a secret plan to win the war. How'd that come out, do you remember?
Posted by: NM at September 12, 2006 07:14 PMVietnam fell because the congress fecklessly decided to stop funding the south after the pullout. The VC/NVA were broken as of 1972.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at September 12, 2006 07:44 PMOf course that millions were subsequently murdered in the region by the communists is conveniently ignored by the left.
It must have felt good to have their hands drenched in the blood of millions since they replay the same strategy and use all the same rhetoric today.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at September 12, 2006 07:47 PMThe politicians also overrode the Generals on the ground telling them how to win the war, THAT was a big help. (Redeploy to our bases somewhere else? Yea, that'll help us win).
Posted by: Retired Navy at September 13, 2006 04:56 AMWhat is happening here today is the same as Vietnam, the left whines and cries about the poor Arabs the poor Iraqis being tortured, or our soldiers are murderers. Just like the 60's... Oh wait! Reed, Pelosi, Kerry, Feingold, they are products of the 60's.. Well NM why Nixon didn't correct it was because it was to late. Public opinion, not about the war but, what was happening here in the States, the protests, riots, and other events. And a democratic held congress. People were just tired of hearing about all the B.S. that was happening every day. Now we are here, the only difference is LBJ is not President. GW is!! And we were attacked!!!! You on the KOOK fringe always seem to forget that. A democrat got us in Vietnam then failed to support the troops. They politicized it then they abandoned it... Bush knows that, he's going to stick it out, he's not going to abandon the Iraqis nor our troops. Even though the weak minded moonbats want to. Our troops want to WIN and come home.... Nobody wants to be a loser and if we lose this with the help of our fellow American lefties it will be open season on anything RED, White and Blue.
Posted by: Faithful Patriot at September 13, 2006 07:45 AMI'm waiting till someone can define what a "stabalized" Iraq is. No car bombings for a month? Electricity on 24/7? Walk around Bagdad without armor and a death wish?
Setting a date seem premature without a plan for why any date makes sense. However, it does appear that the Republicans are unwilling to engage in what the plan to stabalize Iraq is. maybe that's because the answer would be very damaging politically (I'm guessing at least 10 years). Stay the course seems to be more about putting off that debate and trying to maintain status quo as opposed to improving the situation and getting our troops out of there.
Posted by: matt a at September 13, 2006 09:11 AMGosh there's some much wrong here but I'll just hit the obvious:
>And we were attacked!!!! You on the KOOK fringe always seem to forget that.
But not by Iraq!!!! You on the KOOK fringe always seem to forget that.
>A democrat got us in Vietnam then failed to support the troops.
Eisenhower was a Democrat?
Posted by: salvage at September 13, 2006 10:00 AMmatt a, are you willing to let the military bomb Iran? That is the only way to stop the violence in Iraq. When you have a dominate Shia south that is supported by radical Iranian elements. You have a wildly radical shiite muhlla Alsadr that is anti-west, anti-Sunni, anti-Kurd. Alsadr needs to be removed. The radical antagonistic elements in the hierarchy of the Iranian leadership needs to be removed. Then it will be safe for you to go visit.
Posted by: Faithful Patriot at September 13, 2006 10:04 AMVietnam was lost because the Vietnamese saw the US as another round of Colonialists. The North Vietnamese were going to die before giving up the ground, and had the U.S pressed on there may have been occupation but it would have been a perpertual struggle to maintain law and order. The same holds true for Iraq. There are some thugs and Baathists in the insurgency to be sure, but the main reason that the struggle is hopeless is that we haven't won the hearts and minds of the Arabs, and really won't as long as we pronounce their names wrong and refer to their religion as a religion of violence. Couple that with the U.S. support of Israel, and you have a population that basically hates the U.S. government. Add in the fact that we kept Saddam in power for much of his reign, and that when we toppled his regime the lights when out and still aren't turned on in many places, and the economy is worse now than during the sanctions, and how could you blame the average Iraqi from turning a blind aye (was originally 'eye' but post wouldn't be allowed) to the insurgency.
So do we withdraw. There is no way we could leave that country in the state that it is in. It will take a lot more troops, deaths, money and time before we can leave that nation.
Posted by: Andrew at September 13, 2006 10:45 AMPatriot - Its not about visiting Iraq, its about stablizing Iraq, and how you hear "can't leave until the job is done!", "stay the course", "we stand down when they stand up" and sooner or later you got to realize there is no criteria for ever leaving. GWB already said its going to be some other President's job to figure that out.
However you may have hit on the downside of a Republican victory in November. If Republicans do control both sides of Congress, I wouldn't be surprised at all to see us attack Iran. The White House is already making noises about it. Out of the 2 remaining "axis of evil" members, Iran is preferrable to North Korea in that there are a bunch of "reasons" for invading(can't implement sanctions, source of terrorists, supporting insurgents in Iraq, etc), our troops are already in the region (Iraq and Afganistan) with fortified bases surrounded by a population that we don't really care gets in the way and Iran doesn't already have nukes. Then take into account that most of Iran's millitary is surplus Russian. From the WH POV there isn't a downside. GWB has got 2 years left and a rubber-stamp congress...
Posted by: matt a at September 13, 2006 02:47 PM
