Bush Lied, Will Innocent Iranian Terrorists Die?

A recent move by the Bush administration authorizes and urges the use of lethal force against Iranian intelligence officers and Iran’s Revolutionary Guard within Iraq; as these groups have been working with Shiite militias there.

Washington Post:

“In Iraq, U.S. troops now have the authority to target any member of Iran's Revolutionary Guard, as well as officers of its intelligence services believed to be working with Iraqi militias.”

Before this however:

"For more than a year, U.S. forces in Iraq have secretly detained dozens of suspected Iranian agents, holding them for three to four days at a time…..U.S. forces collected DNA samples from some of the Iranians without their knowledge, subjected others to retina scans, and fingerprinted and photographed all of them before letting them go."

Kicking it up a notch:

“The decision to use lethal force against Iranians inside Iraq began taking shape last summer, when Israel was at war with Hezbollah in Lebanon.”

Here’s the “but wait…:”

At the time, Bush publicly emphasized diplomacy as his preferred path for dealing with Iran. Standing before the U.N. General Assembly in New York on Sept. 19, Bush spoke directly to the Iranian people: "We look to the day when you can live in freedom, and America and Iran can be good friends and close partners in the cause of peace."

Appropriate actions, but the familiar refrain of calling the president a liar may pop up.

As with any plan of action or action, this new authority has it’s supporters and detractors:

“The wide-ranging plan has several influential skeptics in the intelligence community, at the State Department and at the Defense Department who said that they worry it could push the growing conflict between Tehran and Washington into the center of a chaotic Iraq war.”

Is this the same “intelligence community,” that just a few years ago was looked upon as wanting? Is this the same “intelligence community,” that after being chastised by representatives on both sides of the aisle became the “all knowing darlings” to those in opposition to the Iraq Theater of Operations whenever it disagreed with the administration?

I understand concerns; I also understand concerns have kept us from taking this fight to the enemy as is necessary to some semblance of victory.

“Senior administration officials said the policy is based on the theory that Tehran will back down from its nuclear ambitions if the United States hits it hard in Iraq and elsewhere, creating a sense of vulnerability among Iranian leaders. But if Iran responds with escalation, it has the means to put U.S. citizens and national interests at greater risk in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere.”

Holding Iran accountable unfortunately does have its risks, one risk of course being escalation. I also don’t know whether the administration’s “theory” is accurate, I have my doubts; but only time will tell.

To fight a war of this nature, or of any nature for that matter one needs to recognize the enemy and those that would do the endeavor harm. It doesn’t lean toward victory if we choose to ignore various aspects of the field for fear of escalation.

We can back down and pull out of Iraq for fear of just such an escalation; but retreating would create an escalation as well, to the greater war.

Trackback to this post: http://haloscan.com/tb/blandlyurbane/2334732133509386485

Turnaround in Baghdad?

From within the U.S. governments opposition to the Iraq front in the greater war on terror, we receive comments like this from Chuck Hagel (at CNN):

"There is no strategy. This is a pingpong game with American lives. These young men and women that we put in Anbar province, in Iraq, in Baghdad are not beans; they're real lives. And we better be damn sure we know what we're doing, all of us, before we put 22,000 more Americans into that grinder." - Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-NE

Not terribly inspiring unless your inspiration is derived from our defeat.

Yet this mornings New York Sun has an opinion piece that turns the oppositions arguments and statements on it's head. Granted, this is an opinion piece, that said however, Hagel and others comments are opinion as well.

Why do we not read/see more news of this kind? Would it balance the arguments too much?

From the New York Sun (a no less appropriate argument toward victory):

"The wider Sunni insurgency — the groups beyond Al Qaeda — is being slowly, and surely, defeated. The average insurgent today feels demoralized, disillusioned, and hunted. Those who have not been captured yet are opting for a quieter life outside of Iraq. Al Qaeda continues to grow for the time being as it cannibalizes the other insurgent groups and absorbs their most radical and hardcore fringes into its fold. The Baathists, who had been critical in spurring the initial insurgency, are becoming less and less relevant, and are drifting without a clear purpose following the hanging of their idol, Saddam Hussein. Rounding out this changing landscape is that Al Qaeda itself is getting a serious beating as the Americans improve in intelligence gathering and partner with more reliable Iraqi forces."

"In other words, battling the insurgency now essentially means battling Al Qaeda. This is a major accomplishment."

"Last October, my sources began telling me about rumblings among the insurgent strategists suggesting that their murderous endeavor was about to run out of steam. This sense of fatigue began registering among mid-level insurgent commanders in late December, and it has devolved to the rank and file since then. The insurgents have begun to feel that the tide has turned against them."

Read the rest here

Trackback for this post: http://haloscan.com/tb/blandlyurbane/8120973900464601476

Senate Repudiation of Bush Troop Increase - Some Quotes

From DeMediacratic Nation at Townhall:

When the going gets tough, just back down!

To Quote a statement from CNN:

"the revised policy involving a war that has lasted nearly four years, claimed the lives of more than 3,000 U.S. troops"

I'm somewhat surprised CNN said the war "has lasted nearly four years," V.S. "nearing the fifth year...." Be sure to keep an eye/ear out as we close in on the end of the fourth year....it will change to "in the fifth year...." This is how it was referred to last year; the msm did not have time to keep it correctly at three years...most references were this was the fourth year.

(The legislation is) "not an attempt to embarrass the president. ... It's an attempt to save the president from making a significant mistake with regard to our policy in Iraq." - Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Delaware

Hey "Slow Joe" - what the president is doing is not an attempt to embarrass the Senate; he is just trying to save you all from continuing your significant mistake with regard to your policy in Iraq. Not sure what your policy is other than to get out, but...

"I am not confident that President Bush's plan will succeed," - Sen. Richard Lugar R-Indiana

Not competent? Oh, sorry, Sen. Lugar is not confident, which I guess means.....something of significance?

"There is no strategy. This is a pingpong game with American lives. These young men and women that we put in Anbar province, in Iraq, in Baghdad are not beans; they're real lives. And we better be damn sure we know what we're doing, all of us, before we put 22,000 more Americans into that grinder." - Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-NE

I agree, we had better make damned sure we know what we're doing when we up and pull out...sorry 'phased redeployment.' Now there is a positive/supportive victory motivated statement.

"I wonder whether the clock has already run out," - Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine.

I wonder about you too. Shouldn't you know? What, you're just guessing? You mean you don't know anything for sure? Shouldn't you then speak more forcefully as though you do, like the Democrats?

"I think all of us are talking about a phased redeployment which would leave American troops in the region to send a strong message, not only to the Iraqi government that we want to help them, but also to neighbors, like Iran, that we're not abandoning the field." - Sen. Barack Obama D-IL

"Troops" in the region...where? Iran won't see us as "abandoning the field?" "Strong message?" Um, yeah, this would be an extremely forceful message to Iran.....? Wouldn't remaining in the region (between borders in a place called Betwixt), be seen as an "occupation?" Can't we just continue talking? Maybe it will all just work itself out? Might we consider "Betwixt" a U.S. territory/possession and if so would it be exempt from increases in the minimum wage?

I read nothing but defeat; not in Iraq, but in our leaderships(?) comments. They know nothing and likely never will, at least not until they think for themselves rather than just working toward remaining employed.

The NY Times Relies too Heavily in Propaganda as Fact

According to the New York Times Editorial board:

“President Bush’s refusal to come up with a serious policy on Iraq means that the Democrats will have to goad him toward one. Congress needs to do more than just oppose the latest ill-conceived military escalation.”

So, the “paper of record,” puts it all on Bush, which to a certain degree is accurate in that this has been his project. Where the paper is woefully pathetic is it’s insistence that “congress needs to do more than just oppose….” Yeah, the Democratic Congress needs to not just oppose Bush, but offer “ideas?” The paper should know better than that, but that would require it’s peeking it’s head outside the self imposed bubble of ignorance of the msm. All the Democrats have done since the beginning of Bush is oppose…as they have no ideas, or at least ideas they wish to share due to their lack of popularity. Until poll result come out telling Dems what to do, we can expect more of the same.

This is not to deny imperfection on the part of the president in his efforts in Iraq, but to place blame more liberally. Those in opposition to the Iraq theater in the war on terror have done nothing but offer soundbytes consisting of inaccuracies and lies, even when the truth would have done. They have felt the need to oppose; one for the sake of opposition and two, propagandize against their own country and it’s interests.

Rare is the journalist that asks: “well what do you guys suggest?” and “what might the results/ramifications of a Democratic Party plan be?” Instead, we get predictions regarding what the president is doing in Iraq. To hear them tell it, there are no negative ramifications to “cutting and running,” only a return to the “9/10/01” world.

Regarding the resolution in the works according to the Times:

“Passing this resolution by the widest possible bipartisan margin would be a good first step. It would make clear to the American people (who called for a change last November), to President Bush (who didn’t listen) and to Mr. Maliki (who didn’t seem to notice) that the days of uncritical American support for Shiite misrule are over.”

The Times knows exactly what “we” the voters had on our minds when we voted last November, the Bush doesn’t listen (otherwise, gosh things would be just swell) and the American public’s “uncritical” support for the previous Baath/Sunni misrule prior to our invasion. As in the U.S. minority rules the majority.

The msm and the Democrats, whether they like it or not have much to do with the state of Iraq as it stands. To yell, Vietnam, Quagmire, Pol Pot, Nazi tactics, Ahu ghraib under new management, etc. and to tout/offer nothing of a positive forwarding nature has done much to damage reality and truth.

Were the truth good enough, the Democrats would have used it. Magnifying the view of al jazeera’s and speaking to it as truth only muddied what exactly is going on in our world today.

Trackback for this post: http://haloscan.com/tb/blandlyurbane/1513082203662837137

Counterproductive Symbolism from NRO

The Editors at National Review have a few choice, yet even handed words for the Democrats and their friends on the Right(?) like Chuck Hagel of NE.

Opening with:

"At a time of crisis, count on U.S. senators to step up with symbolic measures that hold absolutely zero risk to themselves. That is what Senators Biden, Levin, and Hagel have done by offering their non-binding resolution disapproving of the Bush surge in Iraq. The only effect the resolution can possibly have is to weaken the commander in chief and dampen the morale of U.S. troops. These senators in effect want to say to the thousands of troops who will be part of the surge, “The U.S. Senate has no confidence that you can possibly accomplish your mission. Carry on!”'

The opening, fodder for the Left, but what isn't? Iraq, the surge and the opponents of the surge is the subject, but it gets to the root of too many politicians: 'do as little as possible and everything will be fine.' It's not just Iraq or the global war on terror, it's everything.

Iraq though, is perhaps one of the bigger concerns of the day. Pundits from the Right have called for the Dems/opponents of the surge to describe how their plan(?) would work and what results they expect. It's an awfully good question and one they cannot answer and won't. The only good long term planning/vision of the party of the Left is electoral and nothing else.

Have we gone as far as we have in Iraq, investing financially and physically as we have only to duck out? Why are Democratic offers in Iraq just variations of defeat? Can they fathom what victory is outside the realm of elections?

Is there anything the Democrats have called for with regard to any subject that isn't just the opposite of what the president offers? Soundbytes fade as do memories, anyone can voice opposition and come up with realistic and horrible sounding outcomes to a plan, that's the easy part. The tough part is the one they have opted out of and that is looking toward and planning for victory; on this and other subjects they don't bother because they don't have what it takes.

From the Editors at National Review Online: "Counterproductive Symbolism"

Let Him Eat Cake....

Will it be the end of Saddam?

If nothing else, they don't diddle around for 10 plus years in following through....if and when it happens.

Good Riddance.

Victory is Our Goal

Rightwing Guy posts this morning regarding what he believes to be the status of the battle in Iraq.

Bemoaning the media and the likes of Kerry, Murtha, Clinton...., whose message is and has been:

"That our military endeavor in Iraq has been merely a huge failure and we would be better off if we packed it up and came home right now and forget what happens in the part of the world."

That is so, so, so, shortsided that it boggles the mind.

Terry believes that withdrawing from Iraq would embolden the enemy and result in them coming to our shores. I agree with him and will add that bringing the "battle to our shores," is the ultimate negative consequence of not taking the situation in Iraq seriously. That would be bad enough, but what would become of things elsewhere prior to their visiting us?

To the ilk we are up against, the U.S. does not have what it takes to persevere; to a degree they are correct, but we haven't been hit hard enough to make it stick. The war is a propaganda nightmare, with the espousers of defeat leading the way. This is "Bush's war," not a cultural fight for survival against warped individuals.

The melding of fact and fiction has created such a misunderstanding, that I would be surprised if we ever understood what it was all about.

Do you think working with the U.N. is difficult now? Just wait until we have backed down and turned tail - believe it or not, that would make things all the more difficult.

I'm 40, I don't think this will be over in my lifetime; the Iraq battlefield will be history, but the war will continue. That's what I understood the president to mean when he said, "Our war on terror is well begun, but it is only begun. This campaign may not be finished on our watch -- yet it must be and it will be waged on our watch."

Give Rightwing Guy a visit and read his very worthwhile post, "Victory is Our Goal."

Wednesday Hero

Sgt. Roy A. Wood
47 years old from Alva, Florida
ODA 2092, Company C, 3rd Battalion, 20th Special Forces Group (Airborne)
January 26, 2005



Sgt. Roy A. Wood, a Special Forces medical sergeant, was fatally injured when the vehicle he was riding in was involved in a traffic accident near Kabul, Afghanistan, during a return convoy from Qalat to Bagram Air Base.

His 24-year military career with the Army Reserve and Army National Guard was distinguished and unique. After receiving a commission as a second lieutenant in 1979, he was first assigned to the Army Reserve’s 421st Quartermaster Company (Light Airdrop Supply).

While assigned to the 421st, he received training as a quartermaster officer, a parachute rigger, and participated in both basic airborne and jumpmaster courses.

In January 1982, he left the 421st to begin an association with U.S. Army Special Forces that would last until, and beyond, his death.

His first SF assignment was to the Army Reserve's 11th Special Forces Group (Airborne) at Fort Meade, Md., where he served in the 3rd Battalion’s Company A as the detachment executive officer for Operational Detachment-A 1175.

In May 1983, he became Detachment Commander for ODA 1175 after returning from the Special Forces Detachment Officer Qualification Course.

In October 1984, he left ODA 1175 to become the Company Logistics Officer.

He served in a variety of positions at the 11th SFG over the next 11 years, including operations officer and support company commander.

After four years at USSOCOM, he served a year with the Army Reserve’s 73rd Field Hospital in St. Petersburg, Fla., before switching from the Reserve to the Army National Guard and renewing his association with Special Forces.

He was assigned to 3rd Bn., 20th SFG in December 2001, where he served for a year as the Battalion Surgeon, supervising medical coverage of three Special Forces companies and one support company.

In December 2002, he resigned his commission to become a Special Forces medical sergeant on Operational Detachment-A 2092, Co. C, 3rd Bn., 20th SFG.

He, with ODA 2092, was mobilized in July 2003 in support of Operation Enduring Freedom.

At the time of his death, he was pending appointment as a Special Forces warrant officer, a position in which he would have served his team as an assistant detachment commander.

During his service, he received the Army Commendation Medal, the Army Achievement Medal, the Army Reserve Achievement Medal with Silver Hourglass device, the National Defense Service Medal, the Army Service Ribbon, the Basic Parachutist badge, the Parachute Rigger badge, the Ranger tab and the Special Forces tab.

Sgt. Roy Wood leaves behind a wife and two children.

These brave men and women have given their lives so that others may enjoy the freedoms we get to enjoy everyday. For that, I am proud to call them Hero.
We Have Every Right To Dream Heroic Dreams.
Those Who Say That We're In A Time When There Are No Heroes, They Just Don't Know Where To Look

This post is part of the Wednesday Hero Blogroll. If you would like to participate in honoring the brave men and women who serve this great country, you can find out how by clicking here.

Blogs Partcipating In Wednesday Hero

Right-Wing & Right Minded
Hooah Wife & Friends
Yankee Mom
Bear Creek Ledger
Mail Call! Supporting The Troops
Yeah, Right, Whatever
CrosSwords
Gazing At The Flag
Gawfer
Ohio Military Reserve
DeMediacratic Nation
My Point
A Day In The Life Of.....
Blue Star Chronicles
Prying1
Pet's Garden Blog
Pictures From My World
Freedom, GUNZ, Glory and EBYJO
Gunz Up
Say No To Politically Correct B.S.
Did You Ever Get The Feeling
A Rose By Any Other Name
My Weekly Thoughts
Rightwing Guy
Trying My Best To Support The Troops
American And Proud
Maryannaville
Not Ready For My Burqua
Perry Nelson's Website
A Fresh Start
Right On!
Echo9er
Befuddled
Potpourri
Conservative Cowboy
Petrus
Pettifog
Tanker Brothers
Chicagoray
Gop3
ArmyNGntcfamily
Soldiers' Angels New York
My Republican Blog