Famed War Correspondent Joe Galloway Calls for U.S. Pullout After Iraq Elections

Editor & Publisher ^ | Jan 14 05 | Editor & Publisher

[churchillbuff]

YORK In his latest column for Knight Ridder newspapers, famed war correspondent Joseph L. Galloway, a Bronze Star winner, calls for the United States, following Iraqi elections on Jan. 30, to "declare victory and begin leaving."

He joins the rather small band of commentators or editorialists advocating withdrawal.

Last month, in a USA Today column, founder Al Neuharth called for the United States to leave Iraq "sooner rather than later."

Galloway, co-author of "We Were Soldiers Once... and Young," won a Bronze Star in Vietnam after saving the lives of several soldiers and has covered nearly every major conflict since, including the current one.

In his current column he writes that if we stay the course in Iraq "we're likely doomed to an even bloodier and more costly defeat in a country divided along ethnic and religious fault lines and headed toward civil war. ...

"The problem is that there is no way we can win -- defeat the insurgents and install a stable, democratic, friendly government -- and bad things are going to happen anyway. There is no way Americans are willing to pay the price even of stalemate, never mind an unattainable victory. ...

"Why can't we win? Because we charged in with false premises and bogus assumptions. Because for every insurgent we kill, two or three more join the cause. Because even our advertised victories -- like Fallujah, where we apparently had to destroy the city in order to save it, or Samarra or Ramadi -- only turned the entire Sunni population against the United States and its Iraqi allies. ...

"If we learned nothing else from the bitter history of Vietnam it should be that there are places and people who won't accept change and won't quit fighting until even the most powerful nation and army in the world wearies of the killing and dying. ...

"As we approach the second anniversary of our invasion of Iraq we need to be discussing and debating what we are gaining, if anything, from this war and what we are losing."

[thesoothsayers]

Yes, you are correct, many many I have spoken too know that we are in a mess. Regular marines, who are trained just to kill, and enjoy doing it. They even know that we can not win. The place is a crap hole, and we should leave it now. We can't though, because of the oil, and that is the reason we stay.
I have a simple solution, arm the Kurds, tell Turkey to stick it, and let them take over the damn muslums and wipe them all out.

[Hank Rearden]

When some dictatorial nut is routinely firing missiles at your fellow countrymen, do you think that constitutes an imminent threat that needs to be responded to by eliminating the nut?

We haven't eliminated the nut - we're screwing around with the nut. We need to shoot the nut in the head and begin leaving, with a threat to return if they screw with us.

Or would you rather we stay there forever, like South Korea, Japan, Germany, Bosnia, Haiti, Phillipines etc. etc.? What are we - the World Occupying Force?

[ladyjane]

Let them "explode in violence" if that's what they want.

[vbmoneyspender]

It's like our country has collective amnesia on that issue. Not even people like Dennis Prager or Hugh Hewitt seem to remember that Hussein fired 100s of missiles at our pilots before we went to war. I always like to ask opponents of the war if firing 100s of missiles at our pilots doesn't constitute grounds for going to war, then what does? When they respond that we had to wait for Hussein to actually kill some of our pilots, I then ask if they hold that same position with respect to our response to Hitler's declaration of war on us?

[jveritas]

Great point.

This jounrnalist, Joe Galloway, was also played as a character in "we were soldiers" the Mel Gibson movie about the first battle of Vietnam.

[Southack]

Southack On Iraq: The Great Poker Surprise

For Iraq, we have a beautiful thing going; the press thinks that we're losing, the armchair ankle-biters think that we're losing, and the terrorists think that we're losing.  All that you have to do is to ask them about the impending Iraqi elections and they all exclaim that there will be too much violence to hold them.  They're wrong.

What we're losing in Iraq are 1 to 2 Americans per day.

What we've gotten in exchange are the deaths of more than 100,000 jihadis, the vast waste of pro-jihadis funds, the cut-off of Saudi jihadist funds, Hussein in jail, Hussein's money cut off from the Palestinians, control of Pakistani nukes, the end of Egypt's, Lybia's, and Iraq's WMD programs, a strategic base from which to next strike any of Lebanon, Syria, or more likely: Iran...as well as a perfect roach motel in which jihadis come from all over to check in, but they don't check out alive.

Attacks in Iraq are down from 98 per day to 46 per day. Elections are coming up, and more than 120,000 Iraqi soldiers have now graduated from U.S. training.

We're flowing more oil out of Iraq right now than what Hussein managed to do pre-war. We've got more electricity over there, more teachers, more doctors, and better staffed local hospitals for the natives.

It's a thing of beauty.

In poker, the object is to convince your opponents to bet big when they have lousy hands. That's Iraq. The news media, the French, and the Jihadis all have lousy hands in Iraq, yet they believe their own hype and naively think that they are winning.

You couldn't script a war, an occupation, a Reconstruction, and the implementation of democracy into a previously authoritarian land any better than what has been done. Certainly not more craftily. Bush and Rumsfeld have been *brilliant* in sitting there taking the abuse from the critics; that's essential to the poker side of this fight.

The #1 Shi'ite cleric, Sistani, is the *biggest* backer of Iraqi elections. The #2 backer would be the entire Kurdish population, and the #3 backer is the Sunni President Alawhi.

That leaves the Jihadis with recruiting Iraqi Ba'athists and foreign fighters...hardly the stuff of a successful (or even threatening) rebellion.

We'll have the elections, and I predict the "Violence" during the elections to be less than the 110 adults shot dead on the average day in Rio, Brazil. Iraq will come out more like Afghanistan than Lebanon, and this will serve as a major morale-buster for the local "support" of the foreign fighter jihadis.

Likewise, the liberal news media will have to eat crow if the violence turns out to be anti-climatic.

One would have to ask the liberal reporters (and Stratfor) just *why* they were surprised by the subdued violence against the elections. They are all betting that the violence exceeds the hype...that's a bad hand to be playing.

It won't.

Southack On Iraq: The Great Poker Surprise

For Iraq, we have a beautiful thing going; the press thinks that we're losing, the armchair ankle-biters think that we're losing, and the terrorists think that we're losing.  All that you have to do is to ask them about the impending Iraqi elections and they all exclaim that there will be too much violence to hold them.  They're wrong.

What we're losing in Iraq are 1 to 2 Americans per day.

What we've gotten in exchange are the deaths of more than 100,000 jihadis, the vast waste of pro-jihadis funds, the cut-off of Saudi jihadist funds, Hussein in jail, Hussein's money cut off from the Palestinians, control of Pakistani nukes, the end of Egypt's, Lybia's, and Iraq's WMD programs, a strategic base from which to next strike any of Lebanon, Syria, or more likely: Iran...as well as a perfect roach motel in which jihadis come from all over to check in, but they don't check out alive.

Attacks in Iraq are down from 98 per day to 46 per day. Elections are coming up, and more than 120,000 Iraqi soldiers have now graduated from U.S. training.

We're flowing more oil out of Iraq right now than what Hussein managed to do pre-war. We've got more electricity over there, more teachers, more doctors, and better staffed local hospitals for the natives.

It's a thing of beauty.

In poker, the object is to convince your opponents to bet big when they have lousy hands. That's Iraq. The news media, the French, and the Jihadis all have lousy hands in Iraq, yet they believe their own hype and naively think that they are winning.

You couldn't script a war, an occupation, a Reconstruction, and the implementation of democracy into a previously authoritarian land any better than what has been done. Certainly not more craftily. Bush and Rumsfeld have been *brilliant* in sitting there taking the abuse from the critics; that's essential to the poker side of this fight.

The #1 Shi'ite cleric, Sistani, is the *biggest* backer of Iraqi elections. The #2 backer would be the entire Kurdish population, and the #3 backer is the Sunni President Alawhi.

That leaves the Jihadis with recruiting Iraqi Ba'athists and foreign fighters...hardly the stuff of a successful (or even threatening) rebellion.

We'll have the elections, and I predict the "Violence" during the elections to be less than the 110 adults shot dead on the average day in Rio, Brazil. Iraq will come out more like Afghanistan than Lebanon, and this will serve as a major morale-buster for the local "support" of the foreign fighter jihadis.

Likewise, the liberal news media will have to eat crow if the violence turns out to be anti-climatic.

One would have to ask the liberal reporters (and Stratfor) just *why* they were surprised by the subdued violence against the elections. They are all betting that the violence exceeds the hype...that's a bad hand to be playing.

It won't.

[vbmoneyspender]

Our basic war strategy is to never fight a war on American soil. Fighting the war in Iraq is simply carrying out that strategy, which, more than anything else, has enabled our country to become what it is today.

[Theresawithanh]

"We can't though, because of the oil, and that is the reason we stay."

Riiiight. I've read some of your other posts, you're goofy.

[thesoothsayers]

That is pretty funny, oil shipping fact is totally false. You can pull up tanker bookings and rates and they have imploded out of Iraq, if they are pumping oil, it is being hidden somewhere, it ain't coming here.

[Bombard]

Never heard of the guy. Ernie Pyle is the only famous war correspondent I know over. Just a bunch of old leftists shooting their mouth off.

[Theresawithanh]

Now I know you're really goofy. How are Mickey and Minnie?

[SuziQ]

Isn't that the plan, anyway. It may not be immediately after the elections, but I think we were planning to hand it over to Alawi and co. pretty quickly.

[section9]

That's my take, as well. No way do we want to keep the Army stuck in some backwater like Iraq, especially if the Chia Pet starts acting up in Korea.

Be Seeing You,

Chris

[FreedomCalls]

This is a MUST READ in conjunction with this post.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1321200/posts

[thesoothsayers]

Yep, I sure am, before the war I bought SU, CNQ, ESV, ECA, CHK, DVN, APA, APC and NUE, oh and ATK. I thank Mr. Bush everyday for making me so much money. It is fun to be goofy, it is even better to know facts and not believe hype. If you really think we are in Iraq for Saddam, or for freedom, you and your friends are on drugs. By the way, where is Bin Laden?

[Racehorse]

As we all use to call him in Vietnam,

...here's "S/MAJ"

Absolutely wonderful!  Thanks!

And thank you for what you did . . . and do.

[thesoothsayers]

Come on, you can't refute the facts I have, is that the best you can do? Come on, I am a registered republican, I voted for Mr. Bush, I had no choice, Kerry would have been worse. Tell me some more jokes so I can laugh harder.

[Thorin]

Mr. Galloway is on target.

[Theresawithanh]

Did you hear the one about the goofy "republican" who voted for Mr. Bush because he had no choice, Kerry would have been worse, and everything is going so badly in Iraq that we should just pull out now, but not before nuking the entire country, and THIS WAR WAS ALL ABOUT OIL?

Cracks me up, every time.