Skip to comments.A Bad Idea that Deserves a Try The surge isn't going to work. Let's try it anyway.
Posted on 01/22/2007 11:23:08 AM PST by Witchman63
So why shouldn't the Democratic Congress block such an unpromising strategy? Three reasons point, I think, independently in the same direction.
First, the Constitution. It provides for one commander-in-chief, not 536. A determined president can evade all but the tightest congressional attempts to override his military decisions, and any sufficiently tight congressional strictures are likely to emasculate the presidency and fracture the Congress.
Second, politics. Blocking the president's last-resort plan would divide the country for years to come. Many Republicans would believe that the war was winnable and that Democrats lost it. If the United States is going to leave Iraq, it should do so when even Republicans agree that there is little reason to stay -- which they will, if Bush's Hail Mary pass fails.
Third, morality. America has not quite discharged its debt to Iraq. Apart from evacuating as many as possible of those Iraqis who personally aided the American effort, the United States can do nothing for moderate and peace-loving Iraqis if the Baghdad government is determined to press or abet a sectarian agenda. A tragedy will unfold. But if there is any chance that the Iraqi government might yet be salvageable, then the United States owes it to the Iraqis to find out.
(Excerpt) Read more at reason.com ...
Uh-hunh. The Constitution also gives Congress, not the President, the power to declare war. It also gives Congress, not the President, the power of appropriations. It designates the President as "Commander in Chief" of the armed forces of the United States, but it says nothing to imply that the President may assume dictatorial powers, abrogate the Constitution, or ignore the will of Congress or the people during war.
You'd think that that might give Congress a voice in what was going on in Iraq and elsewhere American forces are deployed in conflicts.
You'd think so...
Surge = = More American Infidels to terrorize muslims.
It is not the surge that will prevail. It's the fact that we are taking the gloves off.
Someday, someone on the Left will wake up and realize that the whole antiwar/antiwar "movement" has been unwittingly racist. We marched a million troops to confront Hitler's armies for essentially the same threats that Saddam and Bin Laden have presented the U.S. But the French, British, and Germans themselves were never accused of being to culturally limited to ever be expected to want or be able to retain democratic values. The left had better be careful this is not pointed out someday. Leaving 50 million muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan to the likes of Zarqawi (FBOH/RIP), Saddam (FBOH/RIP), ahmedinajihaad (FBOH), nosedroolah (FBOH), etc. would be like shipping railcars and cyanide barrels to the third reich.
This is crazy! You know we should call it a day.
Sound advice, great advice,
Let's throw it away.
Sarah Brightman -- "Too Much in Love to Care"
The problem with Democrats today is that they're being held to their vote in 2002, and that vote was held before the mid-term elections. Can you imagine what things would be like if Congress were able to wait until after November 2002 to vote on Iraq?
And the fact that people like you won't have to deal in any event with the mess that results, gloves on or off.
All the war-propaganda, all the screaming and lies and hatred, comes invariably from people who are not fighting. ---George Orwell
Never seen ya before, but reading your posts you sound like a chickenshit buchananite.
Get a grip on history, will ya. This MESS you and Pinchy dream about, is called victory. Victory is always brutal and always comes at a price. Iraq is historic not for being a quagmire, but for being so casualty adverse.
Go back to sitting on Cindy's knee.
"It is not the surge that will prevail. It's the fact that we are taking the gloves off."
Speaking of the gloves being taken of....
U.S. Forces Raid Iranian Consulate in Iraq, Detain 5 (Update2)
By Marc Wolfensberger and Robin Stringer
Jan. 11 (Bloomberg) -- U.S. forces in Iraq raided Iran's consulate in the northern city of Arbil and detained five staff members, a state-run Iranian news service said.
The U.S. soldiers disarmed guards and broke open the consulate's gate before seizing documents and computers during the operation, which took place today at about 5 a.m. local time, the Islamic Republic News Agency said. There was no immediate information on whether any of those detained are diplomats.
The raid follows a warning yesterday to Iran and Syria from President George W. Bush in his address to the American people on a new strategy for Iraq. Bush accused Iran and Syria of aiding the movement of ``terrorists and insurgents'' in and out of Iraq and said the U.S. will ``seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies.''
Coalition forces arrested six people during ``routine security operations'' in the Arbil area, the U.S. military said in an e-mailed statement. The military didn't confirm that the consulate was raided and didn't say whether any of those detained were Iranians.
The operation was ``part of an ongoing effort by coalition forces targeting individuals involved in activities aimed at the killing of Iraqi citizens and coalition forces,'' the military said.
Deal reached to keep weapons off streets: Sadr City mayor
By Qassim Abdul-Zahra
Thursday, January 25, 2007
BAGHDAD - The mayor of Baghdad's Sadr City says he has reached an agreement with political and religious groups to keep weapons off the streets of the heavily populated Shiite militia stronghold and has presented the deal to U.S. and Iraqi government officials in an apparent attempt to avoid a military crackdown on the area.
Hopefully that would be a futile attempt.
While yes the Congress does the the power of appropriations, there is nothing in the contitution giving it the right to make policy via appropriation. That, however, is exactly what the congress has done for years upon years.
In theory, the Congress should approve a budget for the DoD, and it should be up to the President and his executives to administer said budget. To infer that congress must agree with every policy decision of the executive would give them rights of micromanagement, far beyond their contitutional role of advice and consent.
I was pointing out that the mere threat of the "surge" has those aholes scrambling to make nice. Personally I think Sadr City(shiite terrorist stronghold) should be made an example of, as well as Fallujah(sunni terrorist stronghold). Cordon off both cities, announce that all citizens who wish to leave can do so unarmed through checkpoints there to catch the occasional disguised known terrorist and then level both areas. No house to house search, just level the bastards. Now thats "gloves off".
Make Baghdad a NO DRIVE ZONE for 4 weeks.
Treat it like crossing a border, search every truck, every car, and let them strip if necessary to check for bomb vests.
Many Checkpoints, Many Iraqi Police at the check points under supervision of the the US Army.
Plus, the house to house search, in the problem neighborhoods.
Isn't it quite telling that everytime someone steps up to answer their little calls to jihad they duck for cover? I am in agreement with you, a Fallujah style operation is full well warranted and it might just come to that in Sadr city.
I would point out though that seeing them stand down would be quite beneficial from the perspective of presenting quick gains demonstrating progress.
Here is the basic standoff as I see it. They say 'you leave and we stop blowing up bombs'. We say 'no, you stop blowing up bombs and we will leave'. This is where the 'surge' comes in. W upped the anty with a third option. More bombs means more soldiers come in.
Sadr should be a dead man but us taking that step, as opposed to Iraqi forces taking that step, creates it's own set of problems. From that perspective, getting them to stand down in this way could prove to be quite positive. Especially if we can cut of the Iranian money and supply lines that afford him and his thugs the ability to cause so much trouble.
I could have it pegged wrong but I think major progress is afoot. I think Democrats and even some fool Republicans are about to regret their current and past positions big time.
Oh. Al Kayda and Iran are making so much noise that you can't hear them, right?
I could be wrong but I don't think any war, be it a civil internal war or a war between two countries has ever ended in any kind of lasting peace by having the two or more parties fight to a stand still or fight to the bargaining table. The only lasting peace and civil order that comes from it happens when one of the parties prevails over the other by making the other party realise that anything other than surrender is unbearable. Don't get me wrong, I don't mean that we should side with the majority shiites over the minority sunnis but that we should side with all pro govt peoples over all anti govt forces. If a roadside bomb goes of, we level a quarter mile radius around where it went off. If a sniper fires from a rooftop we level the block. See how fast people start turning on the insurgents. If a death squad member is caught then the block he comes from is leveled. Same goes for police caught aiding and abetting the enemy. The people will become very peaceful and cooperative or their towns will become very flat.
No! They're afraid he's going to succeed!!!
"Are the Dems afraid President Bush is going to fail?
No! They're afraid he's going to succeed!!!"
Well that goes without saying.
Well, as we have been told time and time again, this is a very different kind of war. In this example, a functioning constitutionally elected government remaining, while not a surrender, presents direct evidence of loss.
I see merit in specific punishment for specific action but one must take note that the Israelis have done this same thing for a long time and the media just has a field day with it.
I'm Just sayin that what actually constitutes victory in this fight is very different from what history would consider victory in past wars.
On the contrary, it needs to be said over and over and over...!
"Are the Dems afraid President Bush is going to fail?
No! They're afraid he's going to succeed!!!"
"and the media just has a field day with it."
Whats your point?. Kidding. It should be noted that Israel has existed against all odds, surrounded on all sides by thoses that would destroy it, by usings those tactics. Israel is THE press pariah. It is also a democracy with a reasonably high standard of living. So, so what? If lil ole Israel can take the hit from the media(as well as its enemies) and keep on chuggin then certainly the US can as well. IMHO copying Israel on a few things wouldnt hurt. El Al, Israel's commercial airline has never had a highjacking. We could start there.
"I'm Just sayin that what actually constitutes victory in this fight is very different from what history would consider victory in past wars."
No. Its no different. As Clausewitz said "War is a continuation of politics by other means" and politics is the art of getting your way(diplomacy is the art of getting as many peoples' way as possible). Nothing has changed. Victory will be getting our, the US's way, a stable , non belligerent govt and if possible some kind of democracy.
I like to frame it a bit this way. War is the final step in diplomacy, rather than an absence of it.
What is different this time is that surrender will not be the measure, the simple fact that what a surrender would bring will already be present without it.
What will see it last is the fact that even though we are getting the things we want as you framed them, we will not be imposing them. They will chosen by their own free will.
This is what scares the terrorist entities the most. They fear that when people can choose by their own free will, they are less than likely to choose militant islam that keeps entire populations stuck in the 7th century.
I respectfully continue to disagree. The loyalist didn't get their way in our revolution nor did the fence sitters who hoped that we could, with a few battlefield victories, bargain our way back to equitable terms with England. We defeated England and excepted their surrender. The south during our civil war got less than they would have gotten than if they had not tried to seperate from the Union. We defeated the south utterly and excepted their surrender. Korea is still a thorn in our side because we fought them to the bargaining table and we lost in Vietnam because, though we didnt surrender(we are simply more powerful than Vietnam will ever be) we let them have everything their way because anything for us other than excepting defeat was unbearable. Again, nothing has changed. As for imposing what the US wants on Iraq versus the Iraqis chosing what we want, it really is a matter of what is doable. It looks like, at this point in time, the Iraqis are unable to free chose anything. Its to unstable and has too many belligerent players. It may take imposing civil order on the Iraqis for several decades before they stablize to the point where a democratic govt can stand on its own legs. Why this is unthinkable to even conservatives I do not know. The only reason we will have to be in Iraq for several decades is because we shy away from utterly defeating insurrectionists right now. We utterly defeated Japan and Germany and if then we proclaimed that they all had to wear clown wigs, they would have. If you think thats a stretch think about the fact that the USSR imposed communism on the other half of Europe and they took that up the butt. If we choose not to utterly defeat all enemies in Iraq AND choose not to be defeated in Iraq then we must except that we will be in it for the long haul.
So true. I don't know why people can't see this. The "surge" is a cover for a change in tactics and rules of engagement. It's also a good one, considering the number of Democrats on the record for calling for more troops.
In case you haven't notice, the Islamic world has seen fit to bring its pathologies to our door. Otherwise, I'd love to allow them to kill each other over there.
I don't disagree that our presence will be required there for a good long while. After all, we are still in Germany and Japan to this day. However, in those two nations we had a direct beef with the over all populations. I would offer to you that Iraq is very different on that note.
Saddam's ruling regime was the overwhelming minority and that is who we went after, that and our little buddy Abu Musab Al Zarqawi and his merry band of thugs. Even those groups together would constitute a serious minority.
I would offer that comparing the populations of Japan and Germany to that of Iraq would be something akin to comparing apples to oranges.
While imposition of civil order is what is needed, given that culture and Islam itself, I have to come down on the side that 'infedels' cannot do that imposition. Muslims themselves must do it or they will just hold onto the idea that they must resist.
A good pace forward would be for us to continue to hunt al qaeda and the like and see Iraqi forces deal with sectarian fights. This is not to say we cannot aid the Iraqi forces in that endeavor, just that they have to lead it.
If we alone do the defeating, the Iraqis remaining will never feel as if they acheived anything themselves, this is a part they need for long term success, imho.
Kinda like in this example. If a parent buys their child a car they will respect it to point A. If they buy it themselves, with their own money, they will respect it to point B. Point B seeing the car last much longer. See what I mean?
"While imposition of civil order is what is needed, given that culture and Islam itself, I have to come down on the side that 'infedels' cannot do that imposition. Muslims themselves must do it or they will just hold onto the idea that they must resist."
Why do you think that? For one thing it sounds like you think all muslims are radical fundamentalists. There WERE moderate non militant japanese prior to and during WW2. There WERE moderate non militant germans prior to and during the same war. Iffin only we had attacked and utterly destroyed the militants before they came into their own and decided to spread it around.. But the world doesnt work that way. Ya use war as the last resort. But to assume that the only arabs or muslims that get the press are what we have to deal with from here on out is truly an unsupported assumption. Kill as many radical islamists and the people who just want to run a business, hold a job, or plow a row or send their kids onto higher education, own an dishwasher, a cell phone, a tv, a radio for that matter, can be convinced to support us, again if only they truly believe we are in it to utterly destroy the insurgents.
I don't believe they are all radicals but one must take note of the that they are taught to side with muslims first and foremost. That is far harder to deal with than what we saw in Germany or Japan.
TO say "if only" is fine but then that goes back to Carter as I believe his actions (rather lack of them) really got this current problem going.
Some will blame Ronald Reagan along the same lines( pulling out of Beruit), the only defense I have to that is that he had another, more dangerous at the time, enemy and he did in fact deal with them decisively.
Then it goes to Papa. He did take action against Saddam and Slick willy didn't finish.
I believe this war is and always has been really against Iranian leadership. I believe that they support more terrorism than Saddam did( not that he didn't) and that includes Al Qaeda. We are climbing a ladder that is toppd with the Iranian leadership. Taliban, Al qaeda, Hamas, Hezballah, and Saddam (baathists in general) are rungs on that ladder.
While 'mowing them down' does have merit, I don't think that is the best tactic to employ in this war. One by One....at a time and place of our choosing.... fits much better. I believe this path removes the tactic imams, mullhas and clerics would employ (one they have tried to employ) that we are making war on Islam itself.
This is what the anti war folks do not understand. This conflict did not brew overnight and it is not going to be dealt with overnight. It took decades and generations to foment this problem and it is going to take decades and generations to solve it.
I agree we have to destroy this enemy, Im Just sayin I don't believe we can do that in the same way we did past enemies.
Two things will win this conflict, Time and Resolve.
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.