A unique and prestigious residential project in now being built in Mekor Haim Street in Jerusalem.
Sadly, the war in Iraq appears to be lost. The Democrats – like terriers shaking a rat (Iraq), using a plan of funding war for three months (salami tactics), causing the Army command to recognize that Congress, not the president, is effectively in charge – have achieved their goal: implementing withdrawal.
The Democrats will be responsible for affecting army morale. No one will want to lead the last charge and be responsible for (or themselves suffer) the last death, or be taken prisoner before the order to stand down is issued.
When and if – God forbid – the war and the acts of terrorism now faced daily in Iraq follow our retreat across the ocean to our homeland shores, the Democratic leaders who forced the withdrawal will be held responsible.
While they will reject responsibility for the deaths and destruction that occur here in our homeland, the American public, remembering the dire predictions of what would follow if we gave up the fight, and recalling the valiant efforts of George W. Bush to save us from those consequences, will switch their support honor Bush in larger numbers than those who mistakenly now loathe his very name.
The Democratic Party will reap the political whirlwind, notwithstanding that President Bush and his advisers, particularly former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, failed in a host of ways in the conduct of the war through incompetence. Our army easily won the war, but then lost the occupation.
While President Bush and Donald Rumsfeld failed in their leadership and strategy and bear the responsibility for those failures, they did recognize the true and long term danger of international Islamic terrorism – unlike the Democrats – and sought, albeit inadequately, to stop it in the center of the hostile Islamist world, Iraq.
The two men most responsible for causing the debacle other than President Bush and Donald Rumsfeld were CIA director George Tenet and former administrator of the U.S.-led occupation Paul Bremer – Tenet for his totally incompetent operation of the CIA, e.g., foolish and inaccurate reporting on what was taking place in Iraq with respect to WMD and the dangers to the U.S., and Bremer for his disbanding of the Iraqi army of more than 500,000 soldiers, which had been toughened in an eight-year war with Iran from 1980 to 1988 and was capable of policing the country and preventing the now ongoing insurrection and terrorism.
To see these two men honored by President Bush with the Presidential Medal of Freedom was shocking. They both deserved major reprimands and removal from their posts, rather than medals. That their effrontery has no bounds was evidenced when each produced a book seeking to absolve himself of blame. Both have since been hooted off the stage by the reading public.
My position until now has been different from that of either the Republicans or the Democrats. The Republicans take the position that we must remain in Iraq until the Iraqis are able to defend themselves. The Democrats believe the Iraqis will never reach the ability to do that and that therefore we should leave now.
My position is that we should provide our allies – the regional Arab countries of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Jordan and Turkey, all Sunnis – with the following ultimatum, with a similar ultimatum to our NATO allies: Unless they come in with boots on the ground, we will commence getting out in thirty days.
I believe that while our NATO allies under the leadership of France and President Jacques Chirac would never come in, our Arab allies, out of fear of the consequences to them of our leaving, would come in to prevent the enormous calamity of Iraqi refugees and terrorists crossing their borders by the millions.
I learned recently from a U.S. general who was in Iraq that in fact former Secretary of State Colin Powell had gotten Turkey to agree to provide one army division to serve in Iraq and help police the occupation – but the Iraqi government vetoed the offer, refusing to accept the services of those troops.
Our government, instead of insisting the Iraqi government accept the offer, acceded to the Iraqi refusal.
Our government has similarly acceded to the refusal of the Shi’ite majority in the Iraqi government to share power and oil revenue with the Sunni population.
It is, regrettably, time for us to leave. It makes no sense to lose any more American soldiers or spill any more American blood.
This is particularly true when, according to The New York Times, not long ago the king of Saudi Arabia referred to our occupation as “an illegal foreign occupation.” The Iraqi government has not passed a resolution denouncing the king’s comment and welcoming the presence of our troops.
Even more indicative of a lack of Iraqi support for our troops is the Times report dated May 12, 2007 that “A majority of Iraq’s Parliament members have signed a petition for a timetable governing a withdrawal of American troops, several legislators said…”
Because the Democrats are forcing an end to the struggle in Iraq, we must now prepare to fight terrorism in our homeland for the next thirty or more years. This is a war of civilizations. The Islamic terrorists worldwide want to destroy the U.S. and every other Western nation, along with moderate Muslim nations, e.g., Egypt, Jordan, etc.
Our very survival as a nation is involved. Will we have the courage and the will to do all that will be necessary to prevail?
What did “victory” mean in the Cold War? Did it mean invading the USSR? Did it mean bombing Moscow? No, it meant hanging tough, preventing the Soviets from expanding their base of power, until the internal contradictions and flaws in their system brought them down.
The fight against terror and Islamic radicalism has the same goal – preventing the radicals from expanding their base, which would happen if they get control of Iraq, and to maintain a tough defense until their medieval culture adapts to the modern world.
During the Cold War the pols in Washington were mostly united in support of this goal. But now the Democrats are not. There is no safety for the weak and foolish. When you seek to end a war without substantially achieving your essential goals by simply ceasing to fight, it is often a form of surrender.
And that’s the way the Democrat-imposed outcome in Iraq will be understood around the world, especially by our enemies.
About the Author:
If you don't see your comment after publishing it, refresh the page.
Comments are closed.
At Brandeis, much of what counts as Western civilization got cold feet and won’t stand with Hirsi Ali.
If itis a mitzva to eat matza all Pesach, then why is there no berakha attached to it?
When we are united with unconditional love, no stone will be raised against us by our enemies.
The reporter simply reports the news, but it is greater to be inspired to better the situation.
The Big Bang theory marked the scientific community’s first sense of the universe having a beginning.
Freeing convicted murderers returns the status of Jewish existence to something less than sanctified.
“The bigger they are the harder they fall” describes what God had in mind for Olmert.
We, soldiers of the IDF, who stand guard over the people and the land, fulfill the hopes of the millions of Jewish people across the generations who sought freedom.
How much is the human mind able to grasp of the Divine?
Jews have brought the baggage of the galut (exile) mentality to the modern state of Israel.
The Haggadah is an instruction manual on how to survive as strangers in strange lands.
It’s finally happened. New York Times public editor Margaret Sullivan reported on her blog that “many readers…wrote to object to an [April 2] article…on the breakdown in peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians,” claiming “[they] found the headline misleading and the article itself lacking in context.” Ms. Sullivan provided one such letter, quoted the […]
In his April 4th New York Times column, Thomas Friedman endorsed what he designated to be “non-violent resistance by Palestinians” against Israel. He added that Palestinians need to “accompany every boycott, hunger strike or rock they throw at Israel with a detailed map” delineating their territorial demands.
Equating terrorism with criminality is ridiculous. They have no relationship to one another. Criminality is generally for the purpose of enrichment of oneself by breaking the law. Modern day terrorism seeks to achieve political or military goals by the use of indiscriminate terror directed primarily at innocent civilians.
I read Nicholas D. Kristof’s New York Times column of October 6 with its headline “Is Israel Its Own Worst Enemy?” and concluded on finishing it that it is Kristof who is truly an enemy of Israel.
As I see it, in the current battle for public opinion Sarah Palin has defeated her harsh and unfair critics.
After the January 8 shooting of U.S. Representative Gabrielle Giffords and the murder of six others in Tucson, Arizona, some television talking heads and members of the blogosphere denounced her and held her in part responsible for creating a climate of hatred that resulted in the mass attacks.
The silence continues to be deafening with no Democrat in Congress to my knowledge crying out against President Obama for continuing to try to diminish America’s closeness to Israel.
I consider the Obama administration’s recent actions against the Israeli government to be outrageous and a breach of trust.
In 2004, I supported George W. Bush for a second term as president because I believed the most important issue facing the United States was the threat posed by Islamic terrorism, a life or death issue.
We are now getting down to the homestretch as we wrap up the Democratic primary and begin the race to the November general election. We will be electing the next president of the United States, and almost everyone expressing an opinion, informed or uninformed, believes the Democratic candidate will be Barack Obama.
Printed from: http://www.jewishpress.com/indepth/opinions/my-party-raises-the-flag-of-surrender/2007/05/22/
Scan this QR code to visit this page online: