Posted on 09/18/2007 9:23:19 AM PDT by SJackson
President Bush has won the Battle of September.
When he turns over the presidency on Jan. 20, 2009, there will likely be as many U.S. troops in Iraq as there were when Congress was elected to bring them home in November 2006.
That is the meaning of Gen. Petraeus' recommendation, adopted by President Bush, that 6,000 U.S. troops be home by Christmas and the surge of 30,000 ended by April. Come November 2008, there will likely still be 130,000 U.S. soldiers in Iraq.
Will this make America safer, Sen. John Warner, R-Va., asked. "I don't know," answered the general. An honest answer. None of us know.
The general did know, however, that "a premature drawdown of our forces would likely have devastating consequences."
So we are trapped, fighting a war in which "victory" is not assured and perhaps not attainable -- to avert a strategic disaster and humanitarian catastrophe should we walk away.
While the posturing of the Democrats, using Petraeus as a foil for their frustration and rage, was appalling, it is understandable. For, as this writer warned the day Baghdad fell, this time, we really "hit the tar baby."
What has the war cost? Going on 3,800 U.S. dead and 28,000 wounded. More than 100,000 Iraqis are dead; 2 million, including most Christians and much of the professional class, have fled. Millions have been ethnically cleansed from neighborhoods where their families had lived for generations.
Once the most advanced country in the Arab world, Iraq has been devastated and is coming apart. Sectarian, civil and tribal war has broken out. Al-Qaida has a presence. And it is a fair prediction that when the Americans depart, they will have fought the longest war in their history, only to have replaced the Sunni dictatorship of Saddam Hussein with a Shia dictatorship aligned with Iran.
Across the region, the situation appears bleak. In Pakistan, al-Qaida has reconstituted itself. Bin Laden is sending out tapes. Gen. Musharraf, who rules a nation of 170 million with atom bombs, is floundering. The Taliban have made a comeback. As our allies have left or are leaving Iraq, including the Brits, so, too, the NATO allies in Afghanistan are wearying of the struggle.
In the United States, the war has taken its toll, as do all no-win wars. With the cost of the two wars closing in on $1 trillion, we are as divided as we were during Korea and Vietnam.
As Truman fell to 23 percent after firing Gen. MacArthur, and was drubbed in New Hampshire, and LBJ broken after Tet and dropped out, Bush has seen his support fall from near 90 percent at "Mission Accomplished" to near 30 percent. Approval of his war leadership is virtually nonexistent.
Gen. Petraeus is trusted; his commander-in-chief is not.
To the cost of our dead and wounded must be added the near-breaking of the U.S. Army, the estrangement of our allies and the pandemic hatred of America across the Arab world.
As for the "cakewalk" crowd that accused opponents of the war of lacking in patriotism, they never repented their demagoguery. Despite the pre-invasion propaganda they pumped out about Saddam's awesome weapons and ties to 9-11, or their assurances that U.S. troops would be welcomed with candy and flowers, like Paris in '44, and their prediction that a democracy would arise in Iraq to which Islamic nations would look as a model, they have never been called to account.
Now they are back with a new enemy for America to attack.
This time the target is Tehran --and once again, they have the ear of this most ideological and unreflective of presidents.
Speaking to the American Legion, Bush used rhetoric against Iran equal in bellicosity to anything he used on Iraq before invading.
Iran "is the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism." Iran "funds terrorist groups like Hamas. ... Iran is sending arms to the Taliban." Iran's pursuit of nuclear technology threatens to put the Middle East and Gulf "under the shadow of a nuclear holocaust."
As Bush ratchets up the rhetoric, Russia, China and, reportedly, Germany are balking at new U.N. sanctions. That leaves Bush only the military option if he wishes to effect the nuclear castration of Iran. And Gen. Petraeus just provided him the rationale.
"It is increasingly apparent," said Petraeus, "that Iran, through the use of the Quds Force, seeks to turn the Iraqi Special Groups into a Hezbollah-like force to serve its interests and fight a proxy war against the Iraqi state and coalition forces in Iraq."
Petraeus' charge that Iran is fighting a "proxy war" against America comports with the new War Party propaganda line that we have been at war with Iran since 1979 and Bush needs no authorization from Congress to fight it more aggressively.
Congress gave Bush a blank check for the Iraq war. Any chance Congress will at least insist the administration come to Capitol Hill to make the case for the next war, on Iran, before Bush launches it? Probably not.
Typical Buchanan musings from the rabbit hole. (rolling eyes)
If the USA attacks Iran first without help from our Allies and, we will cause a problem much worse than Iraq.
- Oil will sky rocket in price and gas will go to $4-$5 a gallon or even more.
- There are thousands of Iranians in this country & some will atack us here.
- Expect missile attacks & suicide attacks on the USA troops in the middle-east and on our USA allies all over the world.
- It is possible that a regional war will break out involving most of the middle east.
We really need to choose the sanctions route first and back China and Russia into the corner on this one before we attack. Just like the previous general in command of the Iraq War said today:
Gen. John Abizaid, who retired from the Army in March after three years leading U.S. Central Command, told a Washington think tank that Iran’s leadership is pursing “reckless” policies and seeks to dominate the Middle East.
“We need to press the international community as hard as we possibly can, and the Iranians, to cease and desist on the development of a nuclear weapon, and we should not preclude any option that we may have to deal with it,” he said.
But he added, “I believe the United States, with our great military power, can contain Iran.”
“Let’s face it — we lived with a nuclear Soviet Union, we’ve lived with a nuclear China, and we’re living with nuclear powers as well,” Abizaid told an audience at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
Buchanan was always a little off-kilter, but he’s a raving lunatic now.
Either we should just back off, and allow Iran to do whatever it wishes; or, alternatively, we should take whatever military action is necessary to stop Tehran's nuclear ambitions (whether that means a total naval blockade or a massive air strike).
I personally support the latter, as the less terrible altermative.
But we simply must choose. Now.
No more fence-straddling.
Pitchfork Pat rides again.
Poor Pat, he is ticked that Saddam and Sons are no longer able to pay terrorists to blow up Israeli kids, and force Israeli out of the ME.
Pat’s hope for Iran’s nut job to continue where Saddam left off, is fading.
People forget WWII. Today we have lost a little over 3,000 of our military. Nobody likes that but keep it in perspective. 3,000+ in five years. We lost 7,000 in Iwo Jima in about a week. War is tough but we don’t have to make it tougher by having our own Congress bad mouthing our commanders, and some Congressmen/women calling our military murderers. Get rid of JAG and let our military do their job and we’ll get out of there a lot faster. These guys on TV are just making names for themselves at our countrys expense. If we hit Iran, so be it.....there’s a reason for it. If we do strike, do it hard and fast from the air, then walk away.
To the extent Iran might pose a threat in the future, that threat will be far graver to Israel than to us. Therefore, Israel should use its regional military superiority to deal with any threat. There is absolutely no reason for the US to attack Iran.
Are we safer when our ememies are destroyed?
Is this a trick question?
Then on to Saudi Arabia.
“Let’s face it — we lived with a nuclear Soviet Union, we’ve lived with a nuclear China, and we’re living with nuclear powers as well,” Abizaid told an audience at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
Containment works only with rational leaders of nation-states. The USSR was not willing to endure the vaporization of Moscow in exchange for the incineration of Washington.
The zealous apocalyptists in charge of Iran's mullocracy, by comparison, wish to hasten the re-appearance of the Twelfth Imam; and this can best be accomplished through a nuclear exchange.
How does one "contain" fanatics who think the death of many millions would be a truly wonderful thing?
re: Gen.John Abizaid
Probably you will get slammed for posting that, but IMO we have as much or more reason to suspect Abizaid is right than that he’s wrong.
Blah, blah, blah...
From my reading up on Iran, only a very few in Iran's leadership circles believes this to be true.
As proof it was said, these other leaders are the ones who forced their President (kook) to back down in the controversy over the captured British soldiers. They did not want to risk a confrontation with Britain, knowing the USA would join in also on the attack.
Hey Prophets are hated because they speak the truth. Pat reads Bush’s mind - that really isn’t that hard.
All true prophets love Israel; which makes Pat a false one, if at all.
Not that it matters a great deal. He never was very consequential.
Congressman Billybob
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.