If Brian Williams says it's a civil war, then it must be, right?
Mr. Williams is entitled to his opinion as I am to mine. What do I call the war in Iraq?
(drumroll please)
The War in Iraq!
The Kurds would be in favor of a civil war I would think. Let the Sunnis and Shiites kill each other and we will sell our oil and open a Taco bell on every corner. The Kurds are flourishing in northern Iraq, a story that seems to be a national secret that MSM does want to keep from the public. The war in Iraq has too many players to qualify as a civil war in my book, but if you want to call it by that name, by all means do so.
Here is a fact that America will soon have to face. Iran and Syria are real threat to America in the Middle East now that Saddam is soon to have his neck stretched. Iran and Syria are going to attack the US through surrogates sooner than latter. We had better get used to the idea of a regional conflict not just a few car bombs and IEDs in Baghdad. The democratic view that we need to a phased retreat from Iraq is foolish, the Bush administration's assertion that if we give the Iraqi government enough time, they will get their act together is also foolish without addressing the two nation that are shipping terrorists, IEDs and money into the war.
This war is going to get much worse before it gets better. I believe that we will ramp up the fight in Iraq in the short term. Not only to drive out the foreign fighters, but to get ready for an attack on Iran or Syria, or both. Even if the Iraqis produce an army that can keep the peace in Baghdad, without stopping the free flow of weapons, jihadists and money from both nations, the Iraqi government will fall in short order. The Iraqis are in no shape to accomplish this, therefore this will be left to the US and coalition forces to do.
Which brings us to the second problem, the military is in no shape to do any boots on the ground fighting outside of Iraq. That may not be needed if we can pressure the Syrians and Iranians into staying out of Iraq by the use of air strikes. The dictators of both nations have American blood on their hands, its time for them to answer for exporting terrorism around the globe. Kofi and the world press, along with the New York Times will cry to the heavens, but let them.
This is the world we live in. It was not created by George W Bush and Haliburton, it was created by you and I and the rest of the western world standing by and pretending that Islamic fascism was not a real threat until it came knocking on our door five years ago. Ask most Americans what a Sunni is and they will probably tell you that it is a new flavor at Jamba Juice, Americans it seems are too busy to figure out that we are in a war. We want the new PS3 and that promotion at work and a vacation in Fiji, and we want to see the pictures of Britney Spears without underpants.
What do the Syrians and Iranians want? They want us dead, they want to turn you and I and our children into bloating corpses lying about in the street. They won't stop being terrorists if we pull out of Iraq, they won't stop trying to kill us just because we have retreated behind our porous borders. When America is wiped off the map, down to the last man, woman and child, they will stop to take a breath and then start killing each other because, well because they are killers. They love death more than we love life, just ask them.
What will it take for us to wake up?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
It is so obvious, yet our leaders are missing the point entirely.
The Democratics won't accept this until we are shooting in the streets in American cities.
Thankfully, many millions of Americans are armed.
Yes YC, you are right on with your politics and war assessment. While our politicians are so busy with getting elected, and raising millions to remain elected, a war rages on that will have grave consequences. Jeez, how do we the people get rid of this batch of politicians and train a new one?
Mistake after mistake after mistake.
While it was huge mistake to invade and occupy Iraq we still could have prevailed in creating a stable Iraq. Instead we put in to few troops, disbanded the Iraqi army and went with debathification instead of integrating Sunni(Bath party) and Shia.
Bushco denied there was an insurgency until it was so bad a blind man could see it. If we had engaged Iran and Syria from the beginning that also would have helped. You must talk to your enemies. Instead we have strengthened Iran and they know it.
It has been a civil war for some time it is just spreading now. Semantics aside the Shia are in control of the govt. and it is the police (mostly Shia) that make up most of the death squads wiping out Sunnis in Baghdad. The separation of the country is in full force.
The Kurds have had an autonomous area since the first gulf war. The no fly zone protected them and Saddam had no power in northern Iraq. The Kurd had there own army and government since the early ninety's.
It is the Shia and Sunni that are fighting for Baghdad. The government we set up has no real power. They sit in the Emerald city as figure heads. The real power is in the militia's like cleric Al Sadr who has ties to Iran and if you remember was to be killed or captured for murder before the transfer of power to Iraq. Instead after fighting the Mahdi army the US decided to let him join the political process. Now Sadr is in the government and guess who has more power -Maliki or Sadr?
T&Q, let me get this straight, more troops, keep the Sunni led Army in tact, the same army who had been killing hundreds of thousands of Shiia and Kurds for decades, and just talk to the Islamo-fascist Mullahs in Iran and Assad the terrorist running Syria, we would be doing better? Can you Imagine trying to gain Shiia(the majority) support for a new government through elections while an army of Sunnis is back on the streets 'keeping the peace'? Yea, good luck with that.
The Shiia militias would have started running gun battles through the streets of Baghdad from the first day, and the worst part is the Sunni Army would have been the face of Iraqi Provisional Authority. What a great image to put forward to the rest of Iraq, the same killers and thugs that worked for Saddam are now working for America and the coalition to bring you a new government. Good luck indeed.
Your democratic talking points are not very credible, save one, more troops. Looking back, the administration made many mistakes, not having enough troops in Baghdad after we crushed Saddam is one of the most glaring. Once the rioting and revenge killings were left unchecked to fester, the Sadr city area became a haven for Shiia bent on payback for a few decades of Sunni oppression. That area became a snowball that grew into what we have today; call it a civil war if you like. No one can say for sure what would have happened if we would have ran a few brigades through Sadr city and killed him in late 2003 or 2004, but I would guess that it may have resulted in making the Shiia militias less stable and a very fractured.
As for the fantasy that talking with Ahmadinejad or the dictatorship run by the Mullahs in Iran would stop them from shipping brand new, front line weapons and IEDs to the Shiia militias is just that, pure fantasy. Well, I take that back, maybe we should send a delegation to Tehran and give them the Pakistan speech. Tell Iran you either stop sending weapons and IEDs into Iraq, hand over any Al Qaeda terrorist, like Osama's sons, or we will bomb you back into the Stone Age. Give the same message to Assad in Syria. Hey, maybe negotiations could work.
Your talking points, integrate Shiia and Sunni, keep the Iraqi army intact, engage Iran and Syria, are all folly, plus you don't acknowledge the main point of my post. Iran and Syria are the main cause of instability in Iraq. They don't want peace or to live with a democratic Iraq next door, they each want to split the nation, along with its oil reserves, to gain more power in the region to eventually destroy America and the west. They want you dead. Yes even you.
YC- to gain more power in the region to eventually destroy America and the west
The world domination fear mongering is alive and well. The only reason they give us a second thought is we are involved in their backyard (Iraq, Israel etc). They view our involvement the way we did Russia's involvement with Cuba, to close for comfort. Justified or not that's how they see it.
You miss the point of my comments. We threw out the Sunni's and installed the Shia which just reversed what was already in Iraq except the Shia are controlled by religious extremists unlike Saddam and are aligned with Iran.
By disbanding the ENTIRE army we gave rise to the Sunni insurgency. Instead we should have removed all the leadership and retrained with more Shia involvement (again known before)it may have given us a shot but anyone that didn't know there was a likely chance of civil war once the brutal dictator that held the country together was removed was not paying attention to the people saying it before the war.
Why didn't 41 take Baghdad? They knew the mess that would likely result.
Simply talking with Iran would not make everything OK and I never said as much. But ignoring them will make a bad situation worse. Ignoring North Korea resulted in more nuclear weapons and a test of one. Keep your enemies close and talking gives them nothing.
There is no magic bullet or even any good options to deal with the mess bush has made in Iraq. Our leadership has put us in a position that all options are bad and with the same decider that created the mess still making decisions what are the odds of a good outcome? Zero. So pick the least horrible choice we have been left with.
Mr. Cowbou, I really enjoyed reading your blog. I took some extra time this morning to read back. It is incredible the amount of people that has no idea what is happening. I find it hard as a veteran and a citizen to be completely at ease and on with my own life while my country is at war. I find it a refreshing day when i see like-minded hands throughout this great country. I anticipate keeping up with your blog to see what's happening with a good and hones married man with kids, horses, cattle and ,ost of all being what God would have you to be. Have a goodun!
YC you must really hate the Iraq Study group and the incoming Defense Secretary Gates.
Both want the U.S. to talk to Iraq and Syria. Gates in his testimony yesterday he said we are not winning in Iraq, past mistakes include not enough u.S. troops, disbanding the Iraqi army and debathification.
Where have I heard this before?
A little bit of common sense is coming back to Washington. I hope the decider listens.
Ah yes, the Iraq Study Group. I think one of the best takes comes from Robert Tracinski at Real Clear Politics.
'The whole ISG report is a spectacular punt. It contains a few broad, vague goals for our policy--and a whole range of specific recommendations for actions that are not in the power of the American government to take. It recommends, for example, that the Iraqi government "accelerate assuming responsibility for Iraqi security by increasing the number and quality of Iraqi Army Brigades," that the Iranian government "use its influence over Iraqi Shiite groups to encourage national reconciliation" and that the Syrian government "stem the flow of funding, insurgents, and terrorists in and out of Iraq."
The members of the commission certainly hope that these governments will take those actions. But then again, they very well might not.
What the ISG offers us are mere aspirations, with no serious consideration of the concrete means required to fulfill those aspirations. '
Congratulations T&Q, you think just like Lee Hamilton. Maybe you should head the Iraq Study Group II when Iran and Syria invade Iraq after our retreat.
Post a Comment