Signs that war is lost
I am very tired of hearing the spin masters and media members complain that we have lost or are losing the war in Iraq. This is so far from the truth.
However, I will provide them with a few signs of how to know that we have lost the war, as they claim.
You will have to buy a prayer cloth and turn and pray several times to the east. The only thing that you will see when watching women walk by on the street is their eyes. Our police officers will drive around with four or five of them in back of a pickup truck holding AK-47s. Christian and Jewish houses of worship will be things of the past. Eating a good BLT will be a capital crime.
Until these things happen, do not tell me that we lost the war.
Anthony Edwards,
Commerce City
Also be sure not to vote for Barack Obama. He was raised in a Muslim home.
Posted by A on May 14, 2007 07:17 AMPlease define "winning the war".
If it's removing Hussein and his army, and making sure there aren't any WMDs - then mission accomplished. We "won" that war, a LONG time ago.
If it's installing/enabling a functioning, stable government in Iraq - Democracy or otherwise - we appear to be not so successful. To put it mildly. We're "losing" that particular war.
Posted by Tim on May 14, 2007 07:56 AMAnthony,
You've been conned. Your paralizing fear of Moslums has you thinking sideways. I suggest you try and figure out why you are so paranoid and quit listening to preachers and politicians who seek to reinforce your fears for political and/or monetary gain.
If you're a Christian then I suggest you start thinking rationally and give up the delusional belief in ghosts and magic.
Christianity and Islam are co-dependant on the idea that supernatural forces are at work. These shared beliefs must be abandoned before gullible people will stop murdering in order to spend "eternity" in some fantastical, make-believe world.
Quit lying to your children about the afterlife. Even moderate Christianity concedes the premise of this made-up afterlife, and therein lies the problem.
How can we demand that other cultures stop murdering in the name of religion when we serve to reinforce the most dangerous aspects of their religion with our own irrational beliefs.
Pull the rug out. Give up the God delusion.
Posted by Charles B on May 14, 2007 08:23 AMThe old "we're fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them over here". I'm sure that didn't get that from the "spin-masters", eh Tony?
Must be truly sad to live one's life in such fear. But, you seem to shallow it hook, line and sinker...
Too bad all of that money that we're spending to police a civil war isn't being spent over here securing the boarders, inspecting in-coming cargo and the like. You know, things that actually might make us safer.
Posted by Ah well... on May 14, 2007 08:53 AM"Please define 'winning the war'."
Gee, I thought it was rather simple: Render the enemy incapable and unwilling to fight back. That's how it's been defined for centuries.
As long as there is an enemy avowed to destroy us, we must fight. Because, you know, holding our breath and hoping they'll go away has worked so well.
Posted by prima facie on May 14, 2007 09:00 AMNo, Anthony,
We'll know we've lost when the last helicopter evacuates the green zone, and the Iraqis are free at last of the foreign occupiers.
As for the prayer cloth and turning to the east several times a day, congratulations!! You've been successfully deluded by your government!
I agree with "Ah Well" We should pull all of our troops back to the US. Not just from Iraq but from every country. Let the terrorist take control of the vast majority of the oil of the world, give them the time and money to develope nuclear weapons, and recruit a few more million fighters. In the mean time we can sit back and watch the moderate muslims and the Iraelis being massacred. We can live in our fortress with the knowledge that once these terrorist have everything they want they will not come after us. Oops! Maybe I better rethink my agreement with "Ah well's" ideas
Posted by jgd777 on May 14, 2007 09:14 AMjgd777, whose oil is it, would you say?
Does Iraqi oil belong to them, and do you think we have a right to it in some way?
Prima Facie: "Render the enemy incapable and unwilling to fight back."
Um. Didn't we already do that 4 years ago? It just took a few weeks to wipe out the world's 6th biggest army, and that's because we wanted to be nice about it and keep civilian casuaties as limited as possible.
What we're trying now is much, much harder - create a stable government.
PF, if you want us to stick around Iraq until every single person who hates us is "incapable and unwilling to fight back" I'm afraid we'll never leave.
I guess I didn't understand your definition with regards to this situation, so how about this question: When can we leave? Ever?
Another scared little man heard from. Oh noes--the "terrorist" is going to come knock on my door! What ever shall I do???
The "terrorist" are just going to take control of the "vast" majority of the world's oil, huh? Sure, that's how the world works alright.
All the multi-national oil companies with their private armies and stooges in power are just going to let that happen. Ever heard of Blackwater? Let them stay and protect the oil from the 4% of Al Quida that is in Iraq.
Who exactly is this "terrorist"? The Iraqi's? The Iranian's (like American, populated by reasonable people and ruled by nut-jobs)? Our "good" friends the Saudi's? Or is it anyone who's not a white, christian male?
Don't want to give $ to them? That's a good one. I'm sure you're all for giving up your big SUV or investing in technology that would allow us to stop import all of this oil that the "terrorist" own.
And, are you seriously deluded enough to think that our presence in Iraq isn't providing the perfect recruiting tool?
Man, you need to rethink a lot of things, my friend.
Posted by Ah Well... on May 14, 2007 10:35 AMEvery war has several battles -- the ultimate victors of the war can expect to win some battles and lose some.
If we can agree that current 'war' we are/should be fighting is against terrorists such as Bin Laden, then we should expect several battles but measure victory based upon the outcome of the overall war.
Let's consider the first battle as 9/11 -- the terrorists won that one. The second and obvious reaction was the battle of Afganistan -- the United States enjoyed complete domestic and international support for this action, but the job isn't done, and while the U.S. could likely win this battle, the status quo looks more like a stalemate than a victory for America. This particular battle continues to enjoy complete support from the American people and the world. However, for whatever reason, America hasn't been able to put this one away, and the parallels with the former Soviet Union increase with each month that we linger there.
The Iraq battle was ill-chosen, made by civilians rather than military leadership, and given the fundamental strategic flaws and mismanagement, America is now caretaking a civil war in a failed state. Failed states attract terrorists, and make relatively easy hunting for one-off attacks on American troops stationed there.
America has limited resources it is willing to spend on the overall war, and specific battles. By not instituting a draft and not raising taxes, American citizens have drawn their own line in the sand for the degree of support for the overall war on terror. Given these limited resources, it is a sound military decision to consider retreating from a losing battle, regroup and recommit resources to the remaining battles so as to win the overall war.
Posted by on May 14, 2007 11:16 AMCharles B said, "How can we demand that other cultures stop murdering in the name of religion when we serve to reinforce the most dangerous aspects of their religion with our own irrational beliefs."
So what's your solution? Sit back and do nothing? The Islamofanatics have clearly stated their goals. They have perpratrated atrocities against believers and non-believers (infidels) alike all around the world.
How is practicing our own self defense through pre-emption "reinforcing" the most dangerous aspects of their religion? This is a group that will use any deception, any excuse to justify what they do.
I understand your views on anti-religion, or mysticism. However, this is a policy matter for our civilization. Simply stating that there is no God or afterlife will not prevent these fanatics from another attack on us.
And no, I don't personally fear these terrorists coming to my door. I refuse to submit to fear and irrationality.
Posted by [Skeezix] RU Serious on May 14, 2007 11:41 AMKeith: You have been labeled as follows by the commentator. You need to clean up your act. We do not want to lose you. I will remain anonymous.
The insufferable Keith (can he be more than 14 years old?) has included you among the commenters he accuses of being prostitutes -- as long as he keeps his language clean, I'm leaving those comments, but if you think it is worth objecting to, let me know.
The war in Iraq and Afghanistan are lost, and we should bring the troops home and prepare to foil future terror attacks through intelligence and defensive measures. Why is the war lost? It was lost the same way vietnam was really lost. By a combination of incompetent micromanagement from politicians and a civilian public without the nerve or willingness to fight an all out war. To paraphrase Sherman, war is the most gruesome form of savagery known to man. It should never be entered lightly (as was the case in Iraq) but once entered the only way to fight is to be as savage as possible. We worry so much about collateral damage that we do not conquer those hiding as civilians, and more civilians die in the end because of the drawn out nature of the affair. Instead of doing what we have done, We should have began after 9/11 by carpet bombing Afghanistan and Pakistan (our alleged ally that actually HAS nuclear weapons and is currently harboring Osama bin Laden). After overhwhelming victory had been achieved there, we probably would have been able to stop. But if we did go after another country it should have been Saudi Arabia, not Iraq. S.A. is where the clerics formulate the hateful ideaology and where the money comes from.
Knowing someone is going to say that brutal complete conquest only lays the seeds for further conflict --- sorry history disagrees with you. Have we had any threats from Germany or Japan the last 60 years? When was the last time anyone was threatened by Gaul? Don't know where Gaul is? It was where France is. Julius Caesar so savagely defeated the Gauls (After the defeat of Gallic chief Vercengetorix Caesar had the hands of the surviving Gallic warriors cut off as a warning to others) that it permanently ceased to exist.
Posted by Edmond on May 14, 2007 12:02 PMHow is practicing our own self defense through pre-emption "reinforcing" the most dangerous aspects of their religion? This is a group that will use any deception, any excuse to justify what they do.
Replace the word "reinforcing" with "validating" and I think you answer your own question. To the extent we adopt the methods/tactics/justifications of this current enemy, regardless of whether our rationale is economic/political rather than religious, we validate their world-view with our own variation on the same theme.
As seen with the Iraq debacle (and Guantanamo, Abu Graib, etc), America has cycled through a fair number of deceptions to justify why our country is practicing what used to be regarded as un-American values.
For example, when the British sailors were released by Iran a couple months back and complained about their mistreatment while in captivity, it merely proved that Iran was a member of the same club as America. But we've successfully convinced ourselves, through deceit and denial, that our torture (pre-emptive war, killing of civilians, etc.) is somehow, 'different'.
Posted by on May 14, 2007 12:07 PM11:16, why would we start with 9/11?
Are you proposing that these people just randomly attacked without any rational reason for doing so?
11:16, why would we start with 9/11?
Are you proposing that these people just randomly attacked without any rational reason for doing so?
No, I don't think the 9/11attacks random, nor irrational. And clearly not the first time that this particular strain of terrorists attacked the U.S. or other western interests. (see Beruit, first WTC attack). Just as Afganistan was not the first formal military response from the U.S. But for the purposes of fleshing out exactly what 'war' folks are talking about now, 9/11 marks at a minimum a point of fundamental escalation, from both sides, and as such, a good reference point.
Posted by on May 14, 2007 01:58 PMAmerica has done many fine things in Iraq in recent years, but we only started when our national interests were in jeopardy. This is one main reason for foreign resentment. If we truly believed in "liberation" we would have entered Iraq (or pressured the U.N.) back in the late 70's when we knew of Saddam's genocide.
Pres. Bush looks at "liberation" as a collateral effect, but his sole goal was to preoccupy Al Quada by bringing the war there, instead of fending off attacks here. All one can say right now is that we have not been attacked since 9/11 on our soil. Tomorrow might be different.
The administration didn't foolishly forercast wrong on what would happen in Iraq, it just wasn't their goal. Getting conflict out of America was the goal, and yes 3700 have died in Iraq over 5 years, which is miniscule to all other wars we fought. Little comfort and my heart breaks knowing of the parents of soldiers who look out their front window to see two Army reperesentatives visiting with a "message."
We need to estimate now how badly the miscalculation, or carelessness (to not care) of getting involved with no forethought.
Signs that the war is lost? The heavily populated Shia were slaughtered by the less poulated Sunni when Saddam was in power. If someone kills your mother, would you forgive them, and how long would your memory be?
If you think there is a civil war now, wait until we leave. And there's is a simple reason for this conclusion - look at the flag of Saudi Arabia - two crossed swords. That's the only way the Middle East settles matters.
Posted by David DiBello on May 15, 2007 01:35 PMDavid DiBello,
"America has done many fine things in Iraq in recent years"
I didn't need to read beyond that.
Let me guess, you went on to praise Dear Leader for his righteousness and forsite in this Global War and talked about the dire consequences if we leave Iraq, and how all the sacrifice is worth it because we're on offense instead of playing defense. etc. etc.
Somebody tell me if I'm right because I simply couldn't bring myself to go on reading it after that Orwellian intro...
Posted by Charles B on May 15, 2007 10:18 PMCharles B.
Your answer said it all: "I didn' read it after the first sentence." Either reading is not a passion or you believe ignorance is bliss.
Many illegal drug users talk of the euphoria in the beginning of their use, not the devatstaion in the end. Always stick around for the end of the story, so an educated conclusion can be made.
I said America's historical actions are not altruistic, we do things when there are a national interest, not when people are in despair (genocide), which is part of the reason that foreigners despise us.
When we do intervene with no monetary or security interest, as in Bosnia, we have one political party saying we should not get involved.
One seems prejudiced when they discounount another's beliefs, and it sounds like you hate this "police action," and think we did "no good," over in Iraq. Wouldn't it sound like a fairer assessment if one said "some good is being done, but some bad things exist as well?" That's true in all life, that proverbial glass half empty, glass half full.
But I suspect most of this "anti" belief comes from what the media releases. The best interpretation we get is from returning servicemen (and women) - some think it is horrible, and a waste, some think there are mnay positive results.
Personally, I think this action was run wrong because we should have gone in with 500,000 troops. We are fighting a discount war, again because Bush really cares about keeping interaction away from America.
General Haig pointed out that in the Gulf War we went in with 11 battalions of troops, in this conflict, we went in with 1 1/2 battalions.
There are two sides to the coin. What if we didn't remove Saddam, which really should have been done decades ago? Are you really naive to think that he didn't have anything to do with terrorism, or wanting America's demise?
Proving a mob leader condoned or approved of "a hit" is almost impossible because nothing is written down, and it is ordered covertly. There is no trail.
When a person is acquitted of a crime, it is not saying they are innocent, it is saying that we don't have evidence of guilt.
Pres Clinton said, "Saddam, unlike North Korea, has used biological weapons, and I have no doubt, given the opportunity, he would do it again."
I am no fan of Pres. Bush, nor do I hate him, as we shouldn't "hate" anyone, and believe he is a pawn of Cheney and the Neo Con. I stated his beliefs and motivation regarding intervention in Iraq. I cited his mistakes, and I also cited that a Civil War is pre determined given the civilzation of the people involved, which was not part of Bush's equation when pursuing this plan. He didn't care about that part as much as moving the violence away from America''s shores. I said Liberation was a collateral effect.
This would be apparent after reading my WHOLE opinion.
Naivete isn't bliss, and not listening to someone's opinion, even if you disagree (AFTER LISTENING), is rude and ignorant. Who knows, one might change their mind, or at least come to an understanding.
Posted by David DiBello on May 16, 2007 08:51 AMDavid,
And if we had gone in with 500,000 troops, or even a 1,500,000, just what more would we have accomplished?
Would we have ended the rivalry between sects that has gone on for nearly 1100 years now? Would there be no civil war there? Would there be a "stable government", with no suicide bombers?
And just what degree of "Liberation" would have been achieved, even as a "collateral effect"?
Or is an occupation for many years to come, of a totally hostile area, our only potential?
Posted by Old Grouch on May 16, 2007 09:54 AMDear Old Grouch,
You last sentence sealed the unspoken thought.
We intervened in a land that "lives by the sword," and your sentiments are "the end is inevitable." We seemed to simply add fuel to the fire. We are fighting people whose pysche is "I have nothing to live for" and would die as a martyr. Civilizations behind.
I think 500,000 troops or more, sealing off the borders by building moats and walls, would have the effect of styming future attacks. Hearing and seeing soldiers and people still get killed in downtown Baghdad makes me speechless.
But your right; even in sealing off the borders, having an overwhelming presence (police state) might still end in failure due to the civilizations and mentality we are battling, or got in the middle.
Here's a cold hearted assessment. We averaged 5,000 dead soldiers a year in Vietnam, 10,000 a year in Korea, and God knows how many in our World Wars.
This "conflict" has seen 3700 dead over 5 years. We are paying this price to keep terror off our shores, and behind closed doors in some "war boardroom," this isn't all that bad, as horrible as this is to say.
Anthony Edwards speaks of prayer which is what Bush does every day and the way things are going it proves "Nothing fails like prayer" as in today's RMN headline: "Family's prayers answered, boy's body found." If God had been involved, surely they would have found the boy alive. Me your friendly deicide intelligent enough to be an atheist but not courages enough.
“When you consider that God could have commanded anything he wanted--anything!--the Ten [Commandments] have got to rank as one of the great missed moral opportunities of all time. How different history would have been had he clearly and unmistakably forbidden war, tyranny, taking over other people's countries, slavery, exploitation of workers, cruelty to children, wife-beating, stoning, treating women--or anyone--as chattel or inferior beings.” Katha Pollitt
Posted by Richard Grimes Risen Ape r22037@yahoo.com (ffrf.org) on May 16, 2007 04:40 PMRG you know the old joke, Moses came down from the mountain and said " God has given us these 15, oops crash, uh 10 commandments.
Posted by Sharon B. on May 17, 2007 04:42 AMOur Darkest Hour by Yaner Mohammed The Satyya, Feb. 2007:
"We have been put into a time machine. Under Saddam it wasn't perfect, but women could go to work, university, get married or divorced. But at the moment women have lost almost all their rights.
"We are outraged by a constitution that gives legality to these tribal, ethnic and religous heads, and has turned Iraq into an Islamic country. The U.S. government simply handed us over to Islamic forces.
"We are seeing the rise of a civil war because religous groups are competing for power, and currently the group who has the most seats in Parliament is the most notorious. With Sharia law, there is no minimum age for the marriage of a female. If you are six years old, you can be married to a man of any age. Under this change -- that George Bush said was supposed to be for the freedom of women -- we encourage pedophilia. Under these new laws, if you steal something you have your hands chopped off. If you have committed a major crime, you are beheaded.
"This is what happens when you enact a constitution [based on] religious laws written 15 centuries ago. We have been forced to let go of all of our struggles in human rights."
Mohammad had a six-year-old wife; Mo was Allah's premier scribe. Why would Allah pick an illiterate scribe. Mo could not read or write. His fan club did it all 21 years after his death. Mormons may have copied the young wife for old men. Me, RG, your friendly deicide saying to letter writer Anthony: Yaner is not a happy camper under Bush's invasion of her nation.
Posted by Richard Grimes Risen Ape r22037@yahoo.com (ffrf.org) on May 17, 2007 10:53 AM