THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ, ELEVENTH THREAD

Whether it is in Israel or in Iraq or anyplace else in the world, those who fire rockets indiscriminately into civilian neighborhoods hoping to hit any man, woman, or child who might be there are terrorists, and they deserve to be annilihated.

InsideCatholic.com
Holding the Wolf by the Ears: Why We Must Stay in Iraq
by Robert A. Sharp
1/09/08

Everyone has an opinion about Iraq and whether we should let go or hang on. But who is taking the longer view? The presidential election beckons. Where is the right leader to move us forward? Islamic extremists are not just guided by their history -- they are entrenched in it. They are still enraged over the Mongol invasion of 1253 and the ripping of the heart of Islam from Baghdad. It is, therefore, little surprise that our presence stirs them up. We have invaded and occupied their sacred lands. We are seen as Crusaders. Bin Laden's rhetoric mobilizes the people. It is acidic. Engaged against us, they rejoice in our failings and salivate at the loss of every infidel life. Victory to them is everything; they take a long-term view and expect success as a divine right. This idea of divine victory compared to the limited goals of the United States makes the conflict in Iraq a kind of game played out by diametrically opposed cultures. In Bernard Lewis's book The Middle East he uses the analogy of backgammon versus chess to express this. Backgammon (Islam) is subordinate to fate and the throw of the dice. Chess (the West) involves calculation, strategy, and considering alternatives at every decision point. Luck has a role, as Clausewitz would concur, but the player shapes his outcome. The West and Islamic extremists are like two players forever engaged -- but one is playing backgammon and the other chess. To further complicate the analogy and to show the true dynamics of the relationship, neither player seems to care to understand his opponent's game or rules. The West does not comprehend enough of Islamic culture or indeed how to interpret its history. We do not realize that, since 2003, we have merely moved the Extremist Islam vs. West conflict to a new location -- back in its homeland. The engagement has been waxing and waning for 1,400 years. In that time the conflict has been about a variety of ends, ways, and means, ranging from trade to agriculture to technology, and all unfolding under our very eyes. The fight is now in their homeland again, at the flash-point of Iraq. It is a conflict we must learn to map and interpret. Today, the situation is a military-centric wrestling match, a brute struggle in its final phase. It is a desperate and total fight to the death and is of Armageddon-sized proportions. Some miss the simple fact that we are holding an incensed wolf by the ears: We fear to let go and dread to hold on. The wolf's pack, wider Islam, watches our moves patiently. Some are looking for weakness and the opportunity to strike; others wait to join the side of victory. The longer we hold on, the weaker we hope the wolf will become. We wrestle this wolf in his Iraq lair and in plain sight of the media. If we withdraw, the wolf may pursue us on exit. Worse, he may bring the fight to us in our homeland. If we do not know what he will do, our best option is to hang on. The very last thing we must do right now is to lose our nerve and declare surrender. Indeed, we will put our deployed sons and daughters at greater risk by openly discussing our intent to surrender. The wolf will likely rout our withdrawal. Is there an end in sight? Who knows the answer? Where is the present-day equivalent of the great Founding Fathers? If they were here today, I am sure they would advise us to hold our nerve and hang on to the wolf's ears as long as necessary for his internal struggle -- the cancerous clash of extremist versus moderate Islam -- to take its toll. We must engage his weaknesses and mobilize the moderates, driving a wedge between them and the extremists, while actively reducing extremist support from neighbors. In short, we must tough it out in his lair on our terms. America must at least hold the wolf's ears until assured beyond a reasonable doubt of the impact of letting go. Our election debate should not be centered around which aspiring president will get America out of Iraq the quickest, but the real strategic issue of who is the best leader to manage this conflict and the others we have not yet foreseen.

Robert A. Sharp is a retired British Army colonel who served in the first Gulf War, Kosovo, and Afghanistan and has emigrated to the United States.

Bush is now in the Middle East rabble rousing the governments to take action against Iran; his preemptive rhetoric before his war in Iran.

He needs to start another war to get the American Public to support his presidency.

The Surge Worked: We shouldn't risk our victory by withdrawing troops before it's time.
By JOHN MCCAIN and JOE LIEBERMAN
January 10, 2008 Wall Street Journal

It was exactly one year ago tonight, in a televised address to the nation, that President George W. Bush announced his fateful decision to change course in Iraq, and to send five additional U.S. combat brigades there as part of a new counterinsurgency strategy and under the command of a new general, David Petraeus.

At the time of its announcement, the so-called surge was met with deep skepticism by many Americans -- and understandably so.

After years of mismanagement of the war, many people had grave doubts about whether success in Iraq was possible. In Congress, opposition to the surge from antiwar members was swift and severe. They insisted that Iraq was already "lost," and that there was nothing left to do but accept our defeat and retreat.

In fact, they could not have been more wrong. And had we heeded their calls for retreat, Iraq today would be a country in chaos: a failed state in the heart of the Middle East, overrun by al Qaeda and Iran.

Instead, conditions in that country have been utterly transformed from those of a year ago, as a consequence of the surge. Whereas, a year ago, al Qaeda in Iraq was entrenched in Anbar province and Baghdad, now the forces of Islamist extremism are facing their single greatest and most humiliating defeat since the loss of Afghanistan in 2001. Thanks to the surge, the Sunni Arabs who once constituted the insurgency's core of support in Iraq have been empowered to rise up against the suicide bombers and fanatics in their midst -- prompting Osama bin Laden to call them "traitors."

As al Qaeda has been beaten back, violence across the country has dropped dramatically. The number of car bombings, sectarian murders and suicide attacks has been slashed. American casualties have also fallen sharply, decreasing in each of the past four months.

These gains are thrilling but not yet permanent. Political progress has been slow. And although al Qaeda and the other extremists in Iraq have been dealt a critical blow, they will strike back at the Iraqi people and us if we give them the chance, as our generals on the ground continue to warn us.

The question we face, on the first anniversary of the surge, is no longer whether the president's decision a year ago was the right one, or if the counterinsurgency strategy developed by Gen. Petraeus is working. It is.

The question now is where we go from here to sustain the progress we have achieved -- and in particular, how soon can more of our troops come home, based on the success of the surge.

Gen. Petraeus has already announced that five "surge" brigades will be withdrawn by mid-July. The process is now underway. The Pentagon has also announced that it is conducting a series of internal reviews to examine whether and when additional troops can be withdrawn -- with Gen. Petraeus, the Joint Chiefs of Staff and U.S. Central Command each asked to offer their own analysis. As the president awaits these recommendations, it is important for the rest of us to keep some realities in mind.

First, it is unknown whether the security gains we have achieved with the surge can be sustained -- and deepened -- after we have drawn down to 15 brigades. Until we know with certainty that we can keep al Qaeda on the run with 15 brigades, it would be a mistake to commit ourselves preemptively to a drawdown below that number.

As the surge should have taught us by now, troop numbers matter in Iraq. We should adjust those numbers based on conditions on the ground and the recommendations of our commanders in Iraq -- first and foremost, Gen. Petraeus, who above all others has proven that he knows how to steer this war to a successful outcome.

Every American should feel a debt of gratitude to Gen. Petraeus and the great American troops fighting under him for us. This gratitude is due not simply for the extraordinary progress they have accomplished in Iraq, but for what they have taught us about ourselves.

If the mismanagement of the Iraq war from 2003 to 2006 exposed our government's capacity for incompetence, Gen. Petraeus' leadership this past year, and the conduct of the troops under his command, have reminded us of our capacity for the wisdom, the courage and the leadership that has always rallied our nation to greatness.

As Americans, we have repeatedly done what others said was impossible. Gen. Petraeus and his troops are doing that again in Iraq today.

The war for Iraq is not over. The gains we have made can be lost. But thanks to the courage of our troops, the skill and intellect of their battlefield commander, and the steadfastness of our commander in chief, we have at last begun to see the contours of what must remain our objective in this long, hard and absolutely necessary war -- victory.

Mr. McCain is a Republican senator from Arizona. Mr. Lieberman is an Independent Democratic senator from Connecticut.

Hey, ican, is that a "biased" report? Just needed to ask the obvious.

What makes extending an illegal war worth our sacrifice? Did you know that Iran has more influence in Iraq than the US? Who are we fighting this war for?

cicerone imposter wrote:

Bush is now in the Middle East rabble rousing the governments to take action against Iran; his preemptive rhetoric before his war in Iran.

He needs to start another war to get the American Public to support his presidency.

So, since you are part of the American Public, its nice to know that you would support going to war with Iran.

BTW, I dont think Bush will have us in a war with Iran.
I do however think that if a dem wins the WH we will go to war with Iran.

Never met or read soro; your fixation is a sickness.

cicerone imposter wrote:

Never met or read soro; your fixation is a sickness.

You have knowingly or unknowingly read that which was financed by soros and have been duped by it. That is obvious from what you post. That which you post is harmonious with the Soros financed, Sorosaian propaganda.

ican, What exactly is the "soros's propaganda?" Please enlighten me.

Actually, most of my information is garnered from NYT, Washington Post, BBC, and a few others. I rarely watch tv news, but read the San Jose Mercury News almost every day. Soros owns those too?