Thursday, July 26, 2007

Yet Another, If We Leave Now and Still Worth Reading

I often get tired of the oft repeated stories, columns or opinion pieces regarding what Iraq would be were we to pack up and leave. This however, is not because I do not wholeheartedly agree with them, but because they are so absolutely realistic that it is rather annoying to have to continuously repeat the obvious to those that are still in the throes of “its Bush’s fault” fits.

This is for those that will not read it and cannot contemplate that the United States, especially under the leadership of President Bush is not a Rightwing, war mongering entity. I pity the previously referred to as it must be an incredibly miserable existence to believe in nothing, but the doom and gloom of theories justifying their self-loathing tendencies; that pity however does not go very deep because like the drug addict, initially they brought it on themselves and just cannot break the habit.

Of particular interest this morning is yet another entry from someone who has learned and applies lessons of history to present day issues; at least the lessons that so many choose to not see as lessons. Of Albright, Baker, Brzezinski, Carter, Clinton and Scowcroft and their “various remedies” prior to September 11, 2001:

“Apparently, Americans are supposed to forget these supposedly brilliant strategists’ dismal records of dealing with Middle East terrorism, Islamic radicalism, and murderous dictators. However, their three decades of bipartisan failure helped bring us to the present post-9/11 world.”

It is interesting not just because my mind has wandered there before and I agree, but it is additionally so as he doesn’t go over the old ground in detail of “millions” massacred. Give Mr. Hanson and his essay a visit here, with “Back to the Future?” at NRO.

As an interesting follow on to Victor Davis Hanson’s latest is Clifford D. May and “Imagining Defeat.” He like Hanson does not dwell on the massacre, but peeks into a world in which U.S. influence no longer plays a very large role due to its not being a nation that sticks to its word and cannot see a mission through to its end.

In the mind of May, the U.S. doesn’t so much depart and “end” the war as so many clamor for, but takes it from the wars opponents perspective being right.

From Clifford D. May, “Imagining Defeat,” at NRO:

For the sake of argument, imagine that opponents of the war in Iraq are right. Suppose that our military — designed to confront a different enemy, on a different battlefield, in a different era — has met its match. Suppose that the war against al Qaeda in Iraq, as well as against various Iranian-backed Shia militias, can not be won, and that staying on in Iraq can do nothing to protect America’s vital national-security interests.”

“If that’s true, we must prepare for defeat in Afghanistan as well. There is no reason to believe that the strategy being used against us in Iraq will be less effective 1,400 miles further east.”

Continue reading here…

Lastly, and as usual, not leastly, I direct your attention to Snooper over at Take Our Country Back. He has posted today on the latest from Michael Yon. One of the many interesting aspects of a Yon piece isn’t just the usual, “we’re winning;” for me this time it was the utter mind boggling sophistication with which our military is bringing it down on the pathetic ones whose heads have become to large to support.

From Take Back Our Country, Michael Yon’s “Birds Eye View” it’s a real hoot:

“A Tactical Operations Center (TOC) is the headquarters for a unit. Company-level TOCs are the smallest I have seen. A typical infantry company has about a hundred or more soldiers. The commander will normally be a captain. A company-level TOC often consists of a radio and a map, and one person on duty 24/7. It might have a coffee maker, too.”

The rest awaits you here….

Trackback: http://haloscan.com/tb/blandlyurbane/8589495199494281883

  • DeMediacratic Nation Blogrolls

    Please give this Post/Blog a Vote - Top Blogs


  • Trackposted to Perri Nelson's Website, Big Dog's Weblog, Pirate's Cove, Nuke's news and views, The Pink Flamingo, Webloggin, Stuck On Stupid, Leaning Straight Up, Azamatteroprinciple - A new blog dedicated to fighting pork barrel spending, The Pet Haven, Right Voices, and Conservative Thoughts, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

    11 comments:

    1. Anonymous12:42 PM

      I do agree with Clifford May that, if our strategy in Iraq is not working in Iraq then the one in Afghanistan won't either.
      In my opinion, the model we're using to combat terrorism in the ME- western troops on the ground- is dysfunctional. It's not reducing the threat and in fact seems to require an ever widening war (look at the calls lately to take action in Pakistan, Syria and Iran)
      We would be better served to secure our own borders and withdraw our troops from both regions, and I say this as someone who originally supported the invasion of Afghanistan.

      ReplyDelete
    2. Thanks for the comment, but no...an ever widening war seen from the point of view of an increase in numbers and time in Iraq?

      What shrinks the threat? This presupposes closing our doors makes us safer and I disagree; as we turn our back we'll get barbs in the ass as well as bigger problems.

      ReplyDelete
    3. Anonymous1:02 PM

      here is a video i found that portrays ann coulter in quite the unflattering light. this gets me going a bit. http://www.mypetpeeves.com/vid-contest-view-fsamr.html

      ReplyDelete
    4. Anonymous1:04 PM

      An ever widening war because these countries all have porous borders and it's easy for the bad guys to set up shop next door.
      I think you'll agree that attacking Iran, Syria or western Pakistan would constitute 'widening the war' No?

      ReplyDelete
    5. "I think you'll agree that attacking Iran, Syria or western Pakistan would constitute 'widening the war' No?"

      Yes I would agree, but I guess we would disagree as to whether 'widening' should or shouldn't come to be if necessary.

      I don't want to think what a nasty mess that would be; but that shouldn't be reason enough not to react however appropriate or inappropriate it may be.

      I realize you don't mean just walk away and ignore everything, but we may not have a choice...you know, that 'everything is on the table' talk.

      ReplyDelete
    6. Anonymous1:45 PM

      If we stay in Iraq I don't think there is any 'if' about enlarging the war since Iran is at least tacitly aiding some of the people we're fighting. Ditto for the Pakistani sanctuaries the Taliban are using.
      At this point I think we need to step back and coldly assess that 'nasty mess' you don't want to think about:
      From a tactical standpoint I'll say we don't have the troops to do it (I'm assuming you'll agree that just bombing won't do the job) From a strategic standpoint I'll tell you it would create Jihadis by the thousands, which is the very opposite of what we're trying to accomplish.

      ReplyDelete
    7. I resent your continuing returns, Man! You usually drop by and are off! What gives? Quit making me think! :-)

      There are definitely difficulties aplenty, but I think Jihadis reproduce regardless of whether we stay or go. We stay, they reproduce; we leave they reproduce.

      Iran needs to be thoroughly upended and given their own internal headaches like they are contributing to in Iraq and the region. This would create all sorts of havoc that would not just be our problem; let's keep them a little busier with their own problems rather than endlessly let them add to or create for us.

      The "cold assessment" I don't believe requires us to back up in Iraq, nor do I think it should. As much as we don't want to do anything hasty to inflame the situation we also shouldn't do anything hasty like just pull out and regroup (not sure if your "stepping back" means leave Iraq).

      I don't think we can just step back to our borders and just go on the defensive - it should be made as difficult for the Jihadis as possible - overtly and covertly.

      Pakistan? Good question: but do you really think pulling back and saying the heck with it (for lack of a better way of saying it) and let be what will be?

      I'm thinking the jihadis are like weeds regardless of what we do and if that's the case, I say take them down as they get up; no matter how difficult.

      With anything I suggest or make a stab at I don't discount things going on behind the scenes, whether it be negotiation/diplomacy what have you. But I think the fist has to go hand in hand with it. I don't think we have the luxury of that choice.

      Don't have enough military? Increase the military, obviously easier said than done, but so is everything we're discussing.

      ReplyDelete
    8. Anonymous2:17 PM

      Slow day at work...hence the returns!
      Actually increasing the military may be the easiest of all.
      You and I will just have to disagree on whether or not our military presence in the ME is creating more jihadis.
      A big question: do you think the American public would sign on for a regional war?

      ReplyDelete
    9. "You and I will just have to disagree ..." Agreed, I figured we wouldn't be changing either ones mind, but it's good to air it.

      Do I think the American public would sign on for a regional war? NO, I sure don't get the feeling that would go over too well. I also don't think it would be wrong on their/our part to not sign on for that.

      ReplyDelete
    10. Anonymous2:28 PM

      Well, we found something we agree on!
      Have a good evening.

      ReplyDelete
    11. Ditto and ditto

      Thanks for returning

      ReplyDelete