Sun, 18 Feb 2007 03:17:00
Success and failure in Iraq
I’ve always had a weird ride as a reader of Daily Pundit. I often find myself agreeing with Bill Quick - in fact almost all the time - but the few times I’ve opened my mouth in disagreement, we end up calling each other names and acting like kids. It’s weird and frustrating because I almost always like what he writes, like 99.95% of the time. But then I get all jerkstore at times I guess and he is not one to take kindly to things you can buy at the jerkstore. :) Anyway, I read him (and his co-authors) every day, and once again, I find myself in lock-step with something he wrote. Bill quotes Instapundit saying the following in regards to this New York Times article:
This sounds promising. Unfortunately, too many members of the U.S. political classes have now put themselves in a situation where success is politically more dangerous than failure.
Bill’s response, chopped. Obviously you should hit the link for the whole thing…
You know, I’d take this sort of thing considerably more seriously if those burbling on about both “success” and “failure” in Baghdad and/or Iraq would define precisely what they mean by the words.
...
Sure, I’ll go first. Success in Iraq means an Iraq able to exercise self-determinism without fear of terrorist or other types of violence sponsored either by Iran or Saudi Arabia, and possessing a government that poses no terrorist threat to anybody else.
...
Failure is anything appreciably less than the definitions of success. Defeat is cutting and running without ever really trying to achieve success in the first place.
I agree with this definition, but would add one thing; We need a permanent (yes, I said permanent) military presence in the Middle East, in a friendly country that isn’t Israel. We need another Rammstein or Okinawa, only a little more hot and dry ifyougetmydrift. I think success in Iraq depends not only on a stable government that is out of the terror business, but is also dependent on that stable government being not only friendly toward us, but acting in partnership with us. I think Iran is all too well aware of what a stong-ish Iraq backed by a permanent US military base or two would mean. I think that is why Iran is running this puppet insurgency. Syria wouldn’t be too happy with that kind of success either.
Anyway, I don’t expect too many to agree with me, and I certainly don’t expect a single politician to say the words “permanent military base” out loud until it’s already built and staffed and has had its first bake sale courtesy of the Fort Green Zone Military Wives Auxiliary or whatever it will be called.
This is my definition of success; A stable-enough-to-run-itself Iraq, no funding or training or support of terrorism, and a military base that is nicely situated between Rammstein and Kadena (or maybe Pine Gap in Australia when they eventually relocate the Okinawa facilities). If we can walk away with those goals achieved, no one, not even John Murtha or John Kerry could say that we lost.
Posted by JimK at 03:17 AM on February 18, 2007
Permalink | Trackbacks (0) | Email to a friend |
Categories: News, Politics, The Federal Government, The Middle East, War, U.S. Military
Tags:
Technorati: military war iraq
Comments:
#2 Posted by Drumwaster 
on 02/18 at 01:26 PM -
Lest we forget, they were calling it a “quagmire” even before our guys had reached Baghdad, because a sandstorm had slowed the advance to a mere hundred miles a day.
I mean, we took a country the size of California in less time than it took Janet Reno to take down a religious compound in Waco, with fewer casualties than in any war we had ever fought. And that was without the reinforcements scheduled to arrive from Turkey, remember?
#3 Posted by JimK on 02/18 at 08:36 PM -
And that was without the reinforcements scheduled to arrive from Turkey, remember?
I do remember that. As well as the no-flyover decision France made, which turned out to be because they were in bed financially with Saddam. To this day no one seems to even care that Germany AND France AND Russia all opposed *any* action* in Iraq, and were all later to be found in violation of the UN regulations. Gee, wonder why they didn’t want us poking around in the paperwork, eh?
But I digress. We’re there now, and we need to finish this thing and not let the Democrats have another Vietnam “victory.”
I wonder if publishing photos of the slaughter in Vietnam after we pulled out would make a difference to these people? They seem inordinately fond of trying to use graphic images to prevent anyone from ever doing anything, I wonder if they could be inspired to make the right choice if they see the real-world effect of pulling out too soon?
#4 Posted by chrisbg99 on 02/19 at 07:30 AM -
I doubt it. They’ll just claim we are dredging up the past to confuse the issue.
RSS (Subscribe)
Tip jars (Donate today!)
When we first went in Iraq people started asking What the exit strategy ws. My response was , what was our “exit strategy” for Germany and japan? we are still there’s and with Good reason too.
Tactically and strategically Iraq is a Damm good spot for us.