Defeatists On Free Republic Who Are Giving Aid and Comfort to the Enemy

January 18 2007 | jveritas

[dakine]

"Try listening to Rush..."

hahaha...Yeah, listen to Rush, educate yourself....

[leadpenny]

Stop, you're killin' me.

[brazzaville]

Good morning.
"They'll soon lose the appetite to kill each other."

You are buying into the Leftist myth that our people are driving around with targets painted on their chests, doing nothing but dying in a sectarian civil war, as opposed to the reality that they are steadily destroying Al Qaeda while planting a veteran US presence in the heart of Islam.

You are putting out another variation on the Left's "unwinnable war" line, one that says that we are not fully engaging and so will lose.

That certainly sounds like what jveritas is describing.

Michael Frazier

[Michael.SF.]

LOL. You are welcome. Sorry if I sounded terse, but I actually thought that you were trying to tell me, in a slightly subtle, slightly smart 'alecky' way, that the word did not exist.

My apology for the incorrect assumption.

[joesbucks]

I think jveritas is limiting his remarks to the folks who only complain and say we need to get out because all is lost.

It's written that way, but it's meant for most any concern over the current fight on the WOT. I mean, how could anyone have any disenting ideas. It's all worked so beautifully.

[popdonnelly]

I think we waste too much time in these threads fighting with one another. People should express their opinions without getting personal.

[antisocial]

"Your screed reads like something out of the McCarthy era"

McCarthy was RIGHT ON.

[kristinn]

No.

[AmericaUnited]

Do you have any names?

Yes, the're known as 'P_ts_es'.

[Bob J]

"You are how old and you don't know? Go back a study wars we truly won."

Uhh, first I was asking someone for their opinion and second I wasn't talking to you.

[righteousindignation]

heartfelt thanks for, at last!, a post that is clearly on point and substantive

[sauropod]

Thank you for posting this. 'Pod.

[Steel Wolf]

That goal has been attained in northern Iraq and can be acheived in the rest of the country given time and determination.

...a free democratic Iraq with a non-sectarian government that can defend itself, is not a threat to its neighbors and is an ally in the war on terror.

Are you sure this shouldn't read

"...three democratic Iraqs with governments that can defend themselves, are not a threat to their neighbors and are allies in the war on terror."

I say that because you mentioned the model of Kurdistan as the reference point. Kurdistan has it's own flag, military, police and government. It is an ethnnocentric entity. Modeling Iraq on the Kurdish north will produce three little ethnically different Iraqs, not one happy republic.

[leadpenny]

That's fine. I'm not going to get into that. It's the lock-step, group-think tone of the vanity post I reject.

[Elpasser]

You wrote "With the Democrats in control, FREEDOM is rapidly FLEETING!

So, pull you head out of what ever orifice you currently have it, and support this critical point in our history, or else go join the other side. (You may already have.)"

I haven't advocated defeat, only the right to freely debate whether we are really fighting a winning battle 4 years into this thing. It's amusing that you are attacking me. I am a veteran and former military officer. What's your contribution?

[Michael.SF.]

Yes, the're known as 'P_ts_es'.

Patsies?

I think that word is acceptable here.

[batter]

I reread the statement, an I still think it is limited to the negativity only crowd. I guess we'll have to disagree on the intent until billbears gets a direct response from jveritas (although it would be worth looking back through the thread to see if billbears concern hasn't already been addressed in a previous post).

I have to go pick up a relative at the airport, so I'll check back later tonight or tomorrow.

[jude24]

The defeatists who argue that Iraq is not part of the war on terror but rather it is just a civil war between Sunnis and Shia are wrong and naive beyond belief.

At the same time, to claim that Iraq is even mostly about Al Queda is equally wrong and naive beyond belief. As a matter of scale, Al Queda in Iraq franchise is dwarfed by the sectarian violence going on now. Al Queda may well be our primary concern, but Al Queda is present in Iraq only because Iraq is teetering on the edge of becoming a failed state.

What will happen if we leave Iraq before we achieve complete victory?

Lurking behind this question is the assumption that "complete victory" in Iraq is still possible. Secretary Gates has indicated that it is, but it is a long-shot.

Now, we must remember that it is not "defeatism" to question the Administration's tactics, claims, strategies, or ideologies. We got into this mess because the Administration assumed, because we'd be greeted as liberators, that de-Baathifying the country would go as easily as de-Nazification went in Germany. Dissenting voices, like Gen. Shinseki, were marginalized and ballyhooed. Good faith questioning of the Administration's tactics is not "defeatism" or treason. It is loyal patriotism..

[joesbucks]

What is your definition of "complete victory" in Iraq?

Whatever the current administrations position is today, which could change tomorrow, or next week. And then there will be an update to match from many here.

[jude24]

That is quite a bit different from: I see 'x' as a problem and believe that we need to do 'y' to overcome it. That is, constructive criticism.

I think you are right.