I realize this is going to come as a shock considering my post below from just a couple of days ago, advocating the immediate bombing of targets inside Iran, but I have come--quite suddenly--to the conclusion that it's time to go. Yes, you read correctly. It is TIME TO GET THE HELL OUT OF IRAQ.
There. I've said it. I wish I felt better about it, but I don't.
I have supported this war from the git-go. I have supported the "Surge" but my increasing rage at this President over immigration has led me to believe that he no longer deserves my support for this policy either.
Does this mean I've changed my mind and that our withdrawal won't leave a chaotic untenable situation? NOPE. Still believe that, 100%. I think the minute we *start* to withdraw the shit is going to hit the fan. I still think Iran will move in--openly and without shame--and I still think a bloodbath of Pol-Pot proportions will ensue. The only difference now is that I don't give a shit.
No, really, I don't. I mean, why should I? Have you seen Gaza lately? I'm starting to come to the conclusion that some of the naysayers, the ones I used to call "bigots" were right all along. These people--Muslims who'll kill for their religion--can't handle freedom. Period. They can't handle it, and they therefore sure as hell don't deserve for one more drop of American blood to be shed in defense of it FOR them. Fuck them. I'm sorry to those brave souls in Iraq who *do* want freedom, I really am. I know you're there, I wish you well. Shit, I wish you a free ticket outta there and into safe assylum here if your bonafides are in order. But I think the time has come to face reality. There are just too many people in your country who would rather kill each other than live in peace. They would rather settle old grievances (your grandfather stole my goat types of grievances) than set them aside and build a future for their children. Apparently they don't care if their grandchildren are able to say "Your grandfather killed my chance at freedom."
But I'll tell you what, there are American CHILDREN who are sick of saying "You killed my Daddy (or Mommy)." Enough is enough.
And Mr. President, you've had your chance too, it's time to go.
How you ask? How should we do it? What about our long-term interests in the region? What about them "following us home?"
Well, I wish this were my idea, but it's not. This comes straight from my Dad, but he's put into words the best plan I've heard in a loooong time.
I think the time has come for Bush to say that it is obvious that forces in the region, including Iran, Shiite and Sunni extremists
from a number of countries, and anti-US extremists from various countries in the region, such as Al Quaeda, have made it impossible for the Iraqi's (with the kind of aid that the US is able to give), to
establish a representative government for the country.Since this objective, which was the secondary objective of the original decision to implement a regime change (getting rid of Saddam), cannot be achieved, we will begin withdrawing our military from Iraq, except from the autonomous Kurdish region, if the government of that region asks us to continue to deploy troops there.
With that announcement Bush should couple a warning that if any extremist group is emboldened by our withdrawal to start attacking US installations or US territory, and we trace the attackers to any country or region, we will respond by devastating all of the infrastructure of that country or region, including power plants, roads, bridges, etc....
That would transform the campaign debate about Iraq into a debate about what will our next leader do when the next attack occurs--and
Hillary won't be able to avoid it by saying it's hypothetical. That way we'll put the candidates on the hot seat, and when whoever is
elected is elected, we'll know what we're getting (and if we elect a
candidate who said he/she would just jawbone, we will have invited
another attack).
You see, we're not saying we can leave and expect not to be back, let's just put them on notice that when we come back, it will be by AIR not by land, and we won't be so choosey about the targets this time. The time for military-as-social-worker should end, NOW. I love--no, adore--the members of our military for their service, but with every passing day I'm more convinced that they have not been allowed to do their jobs, not really, not the way they were trained to do(i.e., seek the enemy, surround the enemy, kill the enemy. Full stop.) Instead they seem to be bogged down in the "seek the enemy" step more often than not. Well, as cruel as this sounds, my present attitude is that the enemy is in Iraq in the same way the enemy was in Germany or Japan. We didn't pick and choose *which* enemies to target in Dresden, nor should we do it in Falluja or Basra or Mosul or Bagdad. No more. Enough is enough.
If this is really a fight about our national interests, then surely bringing it to a quick decisive END is also in our national interests. After years of fighting the "nice" way what have we wrought? A terrorist magnet, that's what.
Do I sound like a left-wing moonbat? I'm sure I do, but you know what? The genius of the left is that they thwart policy for so long the chaos they claim the policy is causing (the same policy they have strangled and twisted until it's less of a policy than a half-measure) will come to pass. Make no mistake, I still blame the left in this country for the present situation in Iraq--at least as much as the terrorists and extremists--it is there fault that we've had to spend so much time pretending Islam is "peaceful" and that we could go door-to-door fighting terrorists and "insurgents" in Iraq. I still blame the Arabists at the State Dept. (liberals all of them) for giving self-defeating nation-building advice to Bush, and I still blame the media for exaggerating all the bad news and serving as willing propagandists for the enemy. The *only* new thing here is that I blame Bush personally for listening to all of them, and I blame the Iraqis for not stepping up and telling them all to FUCK OFF, for not recognizing the beautiful gift our soldiers gave them--we taxpayers gave them--of freedom from tyranny. They want tyranny apparently, badly enough that they're willing to die for it.
So let's give them their wish.
If I sound harsh, sorry, but there it is.
Deb,
You are completely right: politically correct warfare cannot prevail. Even Gen. Petraeus sounds like he trained at the Kennedy School rather than West Point. If we were really seeking victory over Islamo-fascism, Mecca and Medina would be rubble and the Iranian oil fields would be smoking ruins. President Bush is a utopian. He really thinks Democracy should be welcomed by people who want us dead because we're infidels. He fantasizes that everyone wants freedom, when that is palpably untrue. The problem with the scenario you outlined is that the jihadis would be emboldened by our withdrawal, and our threatening the use of air power would be mocked as empty posturing. We would confirm bin Laden's view that we are the 'weak horse'. My preference would be for an all out air assault now, on Iran and Syria, but the President has yielded to the State Dept appeasers and will probably do nothing more than appeal to the UN to pass meaningless resolutions. We can see the fruits of appeasement in the Gaza strip where the jihadis are gaining strength, backed by Iran. The West seems ennervated and there is no Churchill discernible.
I disagree with Mr. Rittenberg and of course with you. I believe the President will attack Iran. The ground is being prepared for it now. BTW, the theory that obliteration bombing is what made the occupation of Germany and Japan successful is open to being debated at www.conservapedia.com under "History discussions."
Posted by: Jason Galbraith at June 14, 2007 6:14 PMJason, if they are going to attack some minor installations inside Iran, using special forces or black ops, hey, why the hell not? I mean, if Bush is gonna see it through in Iraq until he leaves office, I say can't hurt, might help.
I know there are those saying it *will* hurt, but honestly, I'm sick of those people too! Who are the Iranians to get all huffy at us for taking out people whose sole purpose has been to help the Iraqis KILL US? I hate to sound like a little kid saying "you started it," but if the combat boot fits, ykwim?
It cracks me up (in a sad not funny way) that pundits keep worrying about all this "heated rhetoric" when it comes to Iran, and then in the next breath tell us we should "talk" to Iran. What exactly should we be saying? "Pretty please stop aiding and abetting our enemies, puhleeeeze!"
See, I would have thought we'd be saying "Your people come within a thousand miles of ours, Teheran is a crater, mmmm'kay?" Or at the very least, do it and we'll blockade your gasoline imports and oil exports. Neither of those is what I'd call un-heated.
Meanwhile, Ahmadinejad can stand at a podium in front of hundreds of cameras and have his smarmy voice broadcast to billions of people (literally) saying that his number one goal is the genocidal anihilation of an entire country--a country that happens to be FREE, democratic and (most importantly) OUR FRIEND, and neither we, nor Israel are allowed to be perturbed about THAT? He can wax all threatening and we have to play nicey nice? Why? Because we're better than he is? What.Ever. Last I checked, you didn't get survival points for taking the high road. I bet that's what the Dodo did, and look where he ended up.
No, survival in this case means taking a lesson or two from the enemy, or, better yet, taking the FLOOR out from under the enemy--literally and rhetorically. Why are we always letting them set the agenda? And why does it go without saying that his outrage and frustration with our "aggressive" tone is so much more acceptable or understandable than ours with his? Anyone care to explain THAT to me?
So if we're gonna stay anyway, it almost makes no sense NOT to attack Iran. What's the alternative? Sit back and let his revolutionary guard train some more terrorists, arm them some more, so they can kill some more Americans?
No thanks. Fish or get off the pot Mr. Bush. Bring 'em home or send the other guys to Allah, take your pick, but this middle-of-the-road crap has got to stop. Now. Better yet, yesterday.
Posted by: Deb at June 15, 2007 11:44 AMAll I said was, "I believe the President will attack Iran. The ground is being prepared for it now." You may be working too hard to read between the lines. For example, I agree with your dad about the need to issue stern warnings and be prepared to back them up. Remember my e-mail of a few months back?
On a lighter note, it's interesting that you hardly ever mention the Republican Presidential candidates, even after three debates. I hope you don't think it's too optimistic to say there WILL BE AN ELECTION next year. Would a post on "Why I have joined the Constitution Party" be in order?
Posted by: Jason Galbraith at June 15, 2007 6:19 PMHehe, good observation Jason! I probably don't mention them b/c I'm in denial: They ALL SUCK. For me it's a choice between "scares me half to death" and "scares the crap out of me."
I'll leave you to guess which side does which! ;)
There's time, trust me. You'll be hearing PLENTY.
Posted by: Deb at June 16, 2007 12:56 AMHey Jason, now that it seems (almost) official, I decided to leave you in suspense no longer. As you can see, "I'm for Fred."
The rest of those windbags can go pound sand as far as I'm concerned.
Posted by: Deb at June 16, 2007 2:24 AM