Ollie ping!
Please FReepmail me if you would like to be added to, or removed from, the Oliver North ping list...
Posted on 12/08/2006 4:07:00 PM PST by cgk
State of war II
By Oliver North
Friday, December 8, 2006
RAMADI, Iraq -- "If everything went as planned, they wouldn't call it 'war.'" That was the tongue-in-cheek assessment of a U.S. Marine Major as to why our helicopter flight from Baghdad to Ramadi had been delayed for half a day. By the time we arrived on the LZ at this outpost of freedom it was the middle of an unusually cold, damp night. A proffered hot cup of coffee was gratefully accepted as the Major helped us load our backpacks, camera gear and satellite broadcast equipment aboard a dust-encrusted Humvee. Just hours later, this widely respected and much admired Marine officer and two brave U.S. Army soldiers were dead, killed by an IED -- an improvised explosive device -- the insidious weapon of choice for terrorists in Iraq.
The tragic loss of three more Americans in bloody Al Anbar province -- like the four who were killed in a CH-46 crash the day we arrived for this, our eighth "tour of duty" in Iraq -- will be cited by critics of this war as proof that it cannot be won. That's the essence of an exchange earlier this week between Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), soon-to-be chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and Robert Gates at his confirmation hearing to become the next Secretary of Defense:
Sen. Levin: "Do you believe that we are currently winning in Iraq?"
Gates: "No sir."
Gates hastily added that, "we're not losing either," but also said he sees "the very real risk and possible reality of a regional conflagration." In short, his testimony was seized upon in Washington as yet another depressing appraisal of the war in Iraq.
To the so-called mainstream media and our political elites it hardly matters that President Bush disagrees with such dismal assessments. White House spokesman Tony Snow noted that the president still believes the United States is winning in Iraq. "What I think is demoralizing is a constant effort to try to portray this as a losing mission," Snow added.
The soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines with whom we're embedded here in Ramadi concur with their commander in chief. Not one of the many with whom we have spoken since arriving here believes that they are failing in their mission. They see the growing ability of the Iraqi army and police as proof of their effectiveness -- and evidence that this war is heading toward a favorable outcome for the country that they volunteered to serve -- and the people of Mesopotamia.
Unfortunately, the judgment of those with "boots on the ground" doesn't seem to much matter to the masters of the media and many of the power brokers on the Potomac. Just a day after Gates delivered his negative prognosis, President Bush tersely announced that he had received the much-leaked final report of the bi-partisan Iraq Study Group (ISG). Flanked by committee co-chairmen, former Secretary of State James Baker and former Rep. Lee Hamilton, Bush described the report as a "tough assessment" that he will take seriously in seeking a strategy for the way forward in the Middle East and Iraq.
Eyewitness participants here are understandably reluctant to comment on a report that they have not read in its entirety, but privately many express grave concerns that it appears to be at odds with what those who are fighting this war are seeing. After a single four-day visit to Baghdad the ISG finds the situation here to be "grave and deteriorating" and accused the Pentagon of "under-reporting" the violence in Iraq.
The report calls for a "new" emphasis on training Iraqis to assume greater responsibility for their own security. Yet, it pays scant attention to dramatic improvements in the capabilities of Iraqi police and Army units being wrought by Military Transition Teams (MTTs). One MTT officer who has lived with his Iraqi counterparts for months dryly observed, "I wonder what the hell they think I've been doing out here?"
As forecast in a stream of pre-release "leaks" the ISG recommended that, "Given the ability of Iran and Syria to influence events within Iraq and their interest in avoiding chaos in Iraq, the United States should try to engage them constructively." And in a strange conclusion ignoring the long-term, global jihad being waged against the West, the committee found a link between a successful outcome in this war to a "right of return" for Palestinians who left Israel since the founding of the Jewish state.
Negative news is nothing new in war -- neither Gates nor the Iraq Study Group is unique in that. In 1944, after the Japanese began making Kamikaze suicide attacks during the Battle of Leyte Gulf, there were those who suggested that winning the war was becoming too costly. They were wrong then -- and they are wrong today. Winning that war was crucial. Winning this one is too, if the sacrifices being made today are to be worth anything.
Oliver North is the founder and honorary chairman of Freedom Alliance and author of The Assassins .
Please FReepmail me if you would like to be added to, or removed from, the Oliver North ping list...
I've been watching Ollie's reports from Iraq this week. It's been amusing to see the smirky contempt on his face, as well as on the faces of the troops he's interviewed, for the ISG's recommendations.
I've asked this question before, and I'm going to try asking it again.
Exactly what is the Iraq Study Group proposing that is really going against the conduct of the war? It seems like they are proposing more or less exactly what Bush is already doing - training the Iraqi army, keeping the troops in until the mission is accomplished, etc.
The only thing that's new is this desire to engage Iran and Syria. It seems unlikely for anything to come out of talking to them, and but it seems to me like little more than a distraction. iran and Syria aren't going to give us anything we want, because we don't have anything to give them that they want that would not be obviously and powerfully harmful to us.
I was listening to NPR news today and they had someone droning along saying well, if you put forth conditions for negotiating, you won't get people to the table, and the important thing is to get people to the table, and you're negotiating by definition with the bad guys, so if they're bad and you say you don't want to negotiate on principle, then negotiations would never happen.
I wanted to ask the guy, well, what is it we can give Syria or Iran that they want and that would not bite us in the end? The interview ended without that vital question being asked, I think because the answer was "nothing", and that would have pretty much wrecked his whole argument.
I thought more about this and I'm not sure if negotiated peace agreements have ever stuck unless the government was defeated militarily. I guess we have the end of the Korean war, but with North Korea threatening I don't see that as something really that worthy of emulation.
NPR news is professionally produced by a competent team but I'm afraid that to ask the tough questions you'll have to look elsewhere.
D
Another great piece by Ollie North.
It's amusing that only one of the ten in the group left the Green Zone when they went to Iraq.
Ollie has been all over Iraq for weeks at a time on many occasions since the invasion of Iraq. It's evident he knows more than all of them will ever know about the war and the conditions that exist now.
Aw come on Ollie, who know's more about war and the situation on the ground in Iraq, you or that distinguished pinhead angel dancer Sandra Day O'Connor?
I think of the Israelis and Palastinians as the most worthwhile example of this strange phenomenon, especially since the ISG report also says we should deal with this situation.
Even Mr Negotiator on NPR laughed at that conceit, saying there's no way in the world you will get a result with that kind of pressure.
The only thing I suppose we could do for the Syrians is try to bribe 'em with foreign aid, and I think the result would be that they'd spend it on weapons and become more dangerous than ever.
I don't know if the Palastinians want to do anything but fight Israel and so as far as I can tell all negotiation is futile. That's certainly what the land for "peace" trades have told me.
I wonder why this is so clear to me and so opaque to the ISG members and many others, who seem to be ignoring history and the facts on the ground at their peril.
At least President Bush understands.
D
Thanx for the ping.
The clamor to feed the Jews to the Arabs is getting louder, when we *should* be putting more pressure on the Arabs to absorb all Pallies born after 1948.
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.