Captain's Quarters -

Don't worry, the left, the Democrats, the liberals, the aging communist/socialist hippies, and the anti-Americans will still state Iraq is lost.

This guy needs a lawyer, hell send a whole team send the ACLU, Move-on.orgasm, Pelosi, Reid, Lugar, and the Answer dudes he's entitled to a defense after all.
Do they still have that rope that Sadamm stretched?

Cap'n Ed: The war goes on after this victory, of course. The same BBC article lists three more attacks today, and more will come.

Sure. And I believe that, to some extent, we can thank the libs and other Benedict Arnolds. Why? Because, by constantly preaching defeat and retreat, by constantly undermining the war, by constantly accusing the US in general and Bush in particular of being the bad guys, they give the terrorists hope that the US is going to eventually pull out of Iraq. The terrorists can plainly see just by watching the news or reading a paper that, if only they can hold on for a few more months, victory will be handed to them wrapped up in a bloody pink ribbon... courtesy of the Benedict Arnolds in America.

I concur docjim and have been saying so for at least 2 years. The so called anti-war protesters are against the establishment of peace in Iraq.
But peace is coming despite their efforts to aid the enemy.

It took only three weeks to find and kill the mastermind behind the Yazidi attacks. al Qaeda is running out of room to operate without being exposed and civilian casualties are down significantly in September.

If there is as much progress in each of the next four 3 month periods as in the last 3 months a year from now one will need to suspend disbelief to believe:
1. that peace is not coming to Iraq and
2. having called the architect of this progress a liar that Hillary is somehow fit for the job as CIC.

I concur also Doc... The strategy of AQ is and has always been, to kill as many soldiers & citizens as possible; that by doing so they feed the American leftists, and the Liberal press will demand for retreat and defeat. Everybody understands this strategy at this point; even the Dems in my family admit that it "appears" that OBL and AQ are working the American left like a finely tuned violin.

Meanwhile, allied forces are kicking the living crap out of AQ and all other forces of evil operating in Iraq and around the world.

Good news for Americans came as BAD news for the American left; that was made obvious to all, by the behavior of the leading Democrats last week.

I repeat; good news for Americans came as BAD news for the American left... Which is exactly why I have lost all respect for the Democratic Party, as well as the 99.9% Liberal American MSM...

Comrades; if you haven't already read this, here is a pretty good read...

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/AustinHill/2007/09/16/bad_news_is_good_news__its_more_than_a_cliche

It is now accepted wisdom that Iraqis have turned against al Queda. Yet we never hear a reasonable analysis of that development.

We're told about the many "mistakes" the U.S. made in Iraq and the anti-warriors repeat ad nauseum the high death toll since the invasion. But perhaps we HAD to go through that phase to reach this point where AQ has been discredited. Would Sunni (and some Shia) tribes have ever aligned with the U.S. absent the horrors al Queda visited upon civilian Iraqis? I think it's highly unlikely. Like so many things in life, we had to go through the horror before Iraqis would face reality.

In like vein, perhaps there's future hope for the Palestinians once they've had a full stomach of Hamas' tactics. And maybe the folks in southern Lebanon will tire of Hezbollah using their homes and children as bomb magnets.

As every sailor knows, once the tide turns it is shocking how fast and strong it can be.

Hopefully it has turned.

JeanneB, We're told about the many "mistakes" the U.S. made in Iraq and the anti-warriors repeat ad nauseum the high death toll since the invasion. But perhaps we HAD to go through that phase to reach this point where AQ has been discredited.

I have been thinking the same thing. Lincoln would never have picked Grant and Sherman at the begining of the Civil War. The war came to them.

"A dog on the run is safely kicked."

Arab proverb.

I guess we have to decide, are we going to be the dog or the one doing the kicking?

Right now, AQ is on the run, it has few few friends and fewer safe havens. Nobody wants them around. They really can't trust anyone, it's just as it was with Saddam and his sons after the fall. There's always going to be someone somewhere who will rat you out, if the price is right or if you blow up a sheikh from a really big family.

Why does so much of what happens in Iraq remind me of "The Godfather" movies?

What would WWII have been like if the right used that war as a political football like the left is doing today?

We had one of the most socialist presidents in office when we were attacked at Pearl Harbor. We were attacked by the Japanese but the first battle was fought in Africa. What if conservatives had begun the mantra of "Germany didn't attack us so why are we waging war with the Germans?"

We won WWII in four years because the Country was united. There wasn't a whole segment of the population undermining our soldiers and their mission. The right didn't use that war for political gain.

Today's soldier is facing two enemies; Islamic extremists and their enablers, the American left. The left has as much blood on their hands as any AQ thug.

I wonder how many of the AQI associates still in action are the crooks Saddam let out of jail before we invaded. The ones in it strictly for the money, and if they were lousy and stupid enough at it that even Saddam could catch them, then they've got to be bottom of the barrel both in their humanity and in their aptitude for murder.

If they are local bad guys and already known to the populace that would make it even easier to round 'em up once an APB is put out on them.

(Interesting that one of the resident moonbats immediately throws his head back and howls for the ACLU - says something about recent activities of *that* unesteemed organization.)

Oh dear. I go away for one weekend and come back to find NahnCee calling dhunter "one of the resident moonbats."

Well, if dhunter's become a lefty, I'm switching teams too.

Meanwhile the Iraqi "government" has lost its parliamentary majority, Alan Greenspan says the Republicans deserve to lose because of their reckless fiscal policy (GO ALAN!!! He also says the Iraq war was all about oil)... and after a strenuous week of campaigning Fred Thompson decides to take next week off.

So.. am I back up to speed?

"Alan Greenspan says the Republicans deserve to lose because of their reckless fiscal policy (GO ALAN!!! He also says the Iraq war was all about oil).."

You've read Greenspan's new book? What did you think about his comments on the subprime lending crisis?

Bennett... So far I've just skimmed the book and latched onto the juicy parts (like we used to do in junior high school :-)

Greenspan says he believes loosened terms for subprime borrowing created "significant risk" but overall the benefit of expanded home ownership was worth the risk.

(I'm not sure I agree... especially given the general stampede to cash in on home ownership by immediately squeezing every fragile bit of equity from all those newly-owned houses.)

He also says, interestingly enough, that patents, copyrights and other "intellectual property issues" will be the most important economic concerns facing America in the next few decades.

To which I reply... "Hmmmm...?"

I was curious if he addressed it in his book because Greenspan has conceded that he failed to recognize the risks associated with this practice. This seems rather unbelievable. And calls into question his credibility on other issues as well. But if in fact he failed to recognize the danger, one wonders about his judgment overall.

http://money.cnn.com/2007/09/13/news/economy/greenspan.ap/index.htm

We need to get the word out to ALL the Iraqi people in a strong and consistent fashion that we know they want us to leave ASAP, and that we would love nothing more than to leave right away too.
Here's how:
Get your own security situation in order.
Turn in or kill the car bombers and AQ.
Turn in or kill foreign fighters
Stop sectarian attacks.

After that.. with the understanding that we won't let Iran take over Iraq... we redeploy.

Isn't the Anbar awakening an argument that actually supports withdrawal of US forces ? The main rationale for staying in Iraq is to prevent AQI from taking over part of Iraq. Apparently the Iraqis can handle AQI themselves, with little US help (Petraeus denied that he gave them weapons)

tng

its not time to leave iraq yet. we still need the use of the airbases in the north for about a year and a half.

watch for fleet reinforcements in the gulf next summer.

the t'heads have this attitude that if their capital is still standing, eventhough all of the other stuff like refineries, powerplants, nuke stuff is dust they haven't been beaten.

few aircraft can make it to tehran with out air to air refueling from kuwait.

lots of aircraft can make it to tehran from north iraq.

C

"Apparently the Iraqis can handle AQI themselves, with little US help..."

"An Iraqi in the know, unsentimental about his country's ways, sought to play down the cult of Abu Reisha. American soldiers, he said, won the war for the Anbar, but it was better to put an Iraq kafiyyah than an American helmet on the victory. He dismissed Abu Reisha. He was useful, he said, but should not be romanticized. "No doubt he was shooting at Americans not so long ago, but the tide has turned, and Abu Reisha knew how to reach an accommodation with the real order of power. The truth is that the Sunnis launched this war four years ago, and have been defeated. The tribes never win wars, they only join the winners."

Just some professor wrote this though, probably not as knowledgeable about The Anbar Awakening as blog commenters.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010610

Bennett:

I personally heard this opinion for the first time. The narrative always went that the Anbari people were fed up by numerous and nasty AQI crimes against them and thus turned on them.

If the US forces alone defeated their enemies in Anbar, there would be gradual improvement of the situation over time. But in the reality the change was quite sudden and the US military leaders themselves were apparently surprised by it, they did not anticipate this and thought that Anbar was lost.

"If the US forces alone defeated their enemies in Anbar, there would be gradual improvement of the situation over time. But in the reality the change was quite sudden and the US military leaders themselves were apparently surprised by it, they did not anticipate this and thought that Anbar was lost."

Not so sudden and not without some very brave and persistent US Army soldiers. There was a thread about this a few days ago (see the London Times article mentioned in the thread for the interaction between US Military and Anbar sheikhs starting months ago):

http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/012626.php

JeanneB, The Iraqi people had to go through it to find out who they could trust, provided the lefties don't force us to abandon them on the eve of victory as they did in Vietnam. After all they lived under intense propaganda under Sadamm and took a while to find truth. And a better general was a big help.

Just as the freedom loving Americans had to have a substantial number of Dems elected for the Dems to show that they don't have a better way, a smarter war strategy, only second guessing, armchair quarterbacking. Their real policy: cut-n-run faster than a Frenchman, wave the white flag of surrender and ask for permission to retreat, leaving those who are helping in the war on terror to be brutally butchered as they did in Vietnam.

As goes Iraq, possibly, so goes the middleast and lots of Dems are between a rock and a hard spot. Winning in Iraq is a terrible defeat for Dems and cuttin and runnin leaving freedom loving Iraqis to the butchers is a defeat for the Dems. Not a spot I'd want to be in at all. Their holdin aces and eights the dead mans hand.

I note that the anti-war types who care so much about ending the war, have *NEVER* claimed that Iraq can take care of itself now.

Anti-war types need to ensure America's failure, and the war is a club to beat us with. It will give them a collective coronary if the US citizenry feels that Iraq has succeeded, leading eventually to troop level reductions.

Because, you know, "War doesn't prove anything". They can't let this war (and the US) succeed in any way.