Despite the impressive and persuasive testimony of Gen. David Patraeus earlier this week, President Bush addressed the nation directly Thursday night for the eighth time on Iraq and delivered his least persuasive case to date. His position can be summed up thusly: The troop surge is working, therefore, we’re ending the troop surge and reducing our troop strength.
What the…?
The troop surge was announced nine months ago. The full contingent of additional boots on the ground has been in place for about six months. It hasn’t resulted in “victory,” but it has resulted in some positive progress. Therefore, instead of maintaining the additional, effective troop level, the president told the enemy Thursday night that he was going to begin the process of reducing our troop strength back to the level where they were effective.
What the…?
Here’s what else I heard in the president’s speech: Iraqi troops are being trained to fight their own battles (Vietnamization?), peace is at hand, and the troops will be home by Christmas. When the president said “Return from Success,” I heard “Peace with Honor. It was like watching a bad Richard Nixon re-run.
President Bush desperately wants us to believe that “winning” in Iraq will make us safe - as though there are no Islamic jihadists in caves anywhere else in the world plotting to kill Americans where we breathe. Not only does the president want us to believe Iraq is the key to victory over Islamic fanatics, but it’s a democratic shining city on the Middle Eastern hill.
Sorry, but that dog just won’t hunt.
Not that the Democrats are any better. Sen. Jack Reed came on after the president to give the Democrats’ response, which can be summed up in one word: Retreat!
While the president argues for staying the course, the Democrats argue for changing the course. Alas, the course they have in mind is skedaddling with our tails between our legs, pots and pans clanging on the ground behind our Humvees, all under a bleached, freshly starched white flag flapping in the desert wind. These guys make cheese-eating surrender monkeys look like Audie Murphy (google it kids).
The fact is our enemy is a world-wide scourge of barbaric religious fanatics stuck in the 9th century who want nothing short of the absolute and total destruction of Western civilization. You can’t reason with these people. You can’t negotiate with them. Like a rabid dog, the only thing you can humanely do is put ‘em down, thus eliminating the threat.
Coincidentally, that’s exactly what the surge has apparently been accomplishing. While Americans have tragically been losing about 1,000 soldiers a year, the president informed us in his speech that since the surge, the enemy has been losing about 1,500 fighters a MONTH. This is no time to fall back and hold onto our previous position. This is the time to crank it up yet another notch and bring the enemy to its knees. Not just in Iraq, but anywhere in the world where he breathes.
To quote Gen. George S. Patton in the Oscar-winning film bearing his name: “I don’t want to get any messages saying that we are holding our position. We’re not holding anything. Let (the jihadists) do that. We are advancing constantly and we’re not interested in holding onto anything except the enemy. We’re going to hold onto him by the nose and we’re gonna kick him in the ass. We’re going to kick the hell out of him all the time and we’re gonna go through him like crap through a goose.”
It just doesn’t get any more eloquent than that.
Had THAT been President Bush’s message to the American people Thursday night, I’d have been right there with him. But it wasn’t. So I’m not. If you’re not going to hold onto Johnny Jihadi by the nose and kick him in the ass, why fight at all? Is this a war, Mr. President…or isn’t it?
Posted on September 13th, 2007 by Chuck Muth
Filed under: National
I’d like to hear you lay out the whole strategy of your world wide war, Chuck. It sounds like we ought to declare war on every nation that harbors a 9th century fanatic. It’s been 6 years and we still haven’t killed the top two generals of el ki a da. So, if you were president, were would you attack? Be specific, ” We’re going to hold onto him by the nose and we’re gonna kick him in the ass.” Who is this, Chuck, and were do we find him/her?
Why aren’t you over there with the college republicans killin all these bastards?
As the party out of the presidency, the Dems are trying to be all things to all people. The party didn’t take a national stand on Iraq going into last year’s elections, instead telling their Congressional candidates to articulate their own positions to their districts. Right now, they give the impression that they want us out of Iraq. The MoveOn.org people are interpreting this as an immediate withdrawal. That’s nowhere near the truth.
The think tank Center for a New American Security (with a board that includes former Clintonites Bill Perry, John Podesta and Madeleine Halfbright) issued a paper in June that called for achieving a goal in Iraq of “the three no’s.” No regional war, no genocide, no al quaeda. CNAS advocates a four phase operation to achieve stability in Iraq. It projects the need for an American troop strength of 60,000 in Iraq by 2009, but then gives no further projections for troop cuts, stating that the timetable will have to be worked out by the next president depending on the military situation. To prevent a further al quaeda presence in Iraq, prevent genocide from occurring and to prevent a regional war will probably require the presence of those 60,000 American troops for quite some time.
Given the presence of establishment Democrats on the CNAS board, it seems probable that CNAS has Senator Clinton’s ear, and that she will at least consider using CNAS’ paper as a blueprint for her Iraq policy if she becomes president.
I wonder what sense of “BetrayUs” Cindy Sheehan and the MoveOn.org folks will feel when January 2009 rolls around and President Clinton doesn’t initiate an immediate and total withdrawal from Iraq.
Hey Southy, the college Republicans aren’t killing the bastards in Iraq because they’re showing support for our nation by helping elect Mitt Romney.
In defense of Governor Romney, though, he said that he has a niece whose husband has recently been called up by the National Guard. Gee, that really brings the war close to home, doesn’t it?