We Might Win? Surrender At Once!

It seems that the NYT editorial about how we should abandon Iraq regardless of the consequences is having its effect. Congressional Democrats have already declared the surge a failure, even though they know that any results of the surge couldn't be quantified until September at the earliest, and reports from non-military sources are saying that the surge is working. But it's not something the Nyt is willing to admit.

I'm not sure what the NYT and the No-War-At-Any-Cost folks would consider victory, unless it's victory for Al Qaeda and Iran's Qods Force in Iraq. But there are fallacies they are spreading in an effort to get us to quit, despite what the cost in human lives will be. (Of course they won't be American lives, just Iraqi lives.)

The two biggest fallacies being promoted are false, disproven because of the sheer amounts of evidence to the contrary.

Falsehood No. 1: The "surge" is already a failure.

Fact: The surge is just beginning. All of the brigades Gen. Petraeus requested have only been in place since mid-June and already there are promising indicators. Since January, sectarian murders are substantially down, arms caches are being found at three times the rate of last year and young Sunnis and Shiites are joining the Iraqi security forces in record numbers.


Falsehood No. 4: U.S. troops are not fighting an enemy in Iraq, just policing a "civil war."

Fact: America's enemies are invested in our defeat in Iraq. Al Qaeda leaders like Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri say they want to "expel the Americans from Iraq" and establish a "caliphate" to "extend the jihad to the secular countries neighboring Iraq." These killers are intent on spreading their violent ideology, and believe stoking sectarian violence is the best way to achieve their goals. Al Qaeda may only make up 10% of the insurgency in Iraq, but what they lack in numbers, they make up for in lethality. Gen. Petraeus has said that "80 to 90% of suicide bombers are foreign fighters," and by neutralizing them, we could stomp out the low-level civil war.

In light of these facts, our country faces an important decision: listen to David Petraeus and the generals in Iraq, who believe we finally have a winning strategy that will take time to execute, or bow to the political demands of Republicans and Democrats in Congress who are more interested in avoiding defeat in their home districts than defeating al Qaeda & Co. in Iraq.

Gen. Petraeus promised a candid report in September. Until then, for the same senators who unanimously confirmed him and his counterinsurgency strategy in January to undercut his efforts is extremely irresponsible, and exposes how quickly war-time leadership can transform into election-season pandering.

Never have I seen a bunch of cowardly, sell-out, racist, disingenuous bunch of surrender monkeys like those No-War-At-Any-Cost weenies in all my life. If they do not stand for what is right – fighting an easily identified evil that seems to know no bounds – then they stand for nothing...except what is expedient for them for the time being. They cannot look far enough into the future, nor learn the lessons of the past, in order to see the outcome of their actions. Upon them I wish an ancient Chinese curse:

“May you live in interesting times.”

Let us see how they would react once those they tacitly support come to their neighborhoods, into their homes or places of business and lay some of that harabahist “justice” upon them. Just as their severed heads hit the floor, maybe they will have a brief moment of clarity, allowing them to realize that they could have prevented the very tragedy that has befallen them if only that had had the courage to do the right thing rather than the easy, expedient thing.

But then again, probably not.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Comments are welcome. However personal attacks, legally actionable accusations,or threats made to post authors or those commenting upon posts will get those committing such acts banned from commenting.