Monday, March 17, 2008

The War is Over and We Won

I have noticed that many editorial pages are bemoaning the five-year anniversary of the start of the Iraq War, including our own.

The recent headline on our editorial is lifted from the title of the anti-war documentary, "No End in Sight."

Well, not to put too fine a point on it, the Iraq War is over and we won.

We won it early, the day the Baathist government of Saddam Hussein fell with not a crash but a whimper.

After that, it was a mop-up operation and it remains one. The difficulty with this endeavor was never the winning of the war, it was the winning of the peace. Getting rid of Saddam Hussein and his henchmen, proved far easier than even the most optimistic hawks could have hoped for. The Not-So-Grand Bluffer proved not to have all the WMD that he pretended to have hidden from UN weapons inspectors.
He got called and he had squat. American and allied forces rolled over his supposedly scary and loyal troops like butter.

The war was won. The mission was accomplished. Then the hard part started.

The difficulty, as all reasonable people knew from the start, was in building the first Arab democracy in the Middle East. And it remains so. Getting people from different religious sects and tribes who have been oppressed and ruled over for centuries to govern themselves is no small trick.

It takes money (ours), blood (mostly theirs) and time.

Five years later, a democratic central government is in place. But more importantly, with the brave and necessary help of U.S. Armed forces, community organizations in cities across Iraq are building semi-democratic institutions from the ground up.

This remains a work in progress. After five years of hard work and bloodshed there is an end in sight. That end is not the withdrawal of all U.S. troops, any more than that was the goal of the war in Europe during WWII. The goal is a stable, non-threatening, and reasonably democratic Iraq.

It wasn't that before we invaded. It is a lot closer to that now that Saddam is dead and his oppressive regime gone. And today, according to recent polls and despite much knashing of teeth by liberal editorialists, a majority of Americans believe we will ulitimately prevail in Iraq.

It took America years of political wrangling and debate to fashion a contitutional government. And that was without gross interference of our neighbors and terrorists bent on our distruction.

Coming out of the constitutional convention of 1787, Ben Franklin was asked what type of government he and his fellow had devised for the country. "A republic," he replied, "if you can keep it."

There are plenty of defeatists and peaceniks in our communities who literally hate the idea of success in Iraq. They hate it because it would mean democracy will have been brought there on the barrel of a gun. And they don't like guns. They conveniently forget that is how our ancestors won the right to rule themselves.

Whether invading Iraq to depose a brutal dictator was worth the cost in time, blood, and money only time will tell.

But, according to the men who are there, men like Gen. David Petraeus, the withdrawal of all our troops could allow al Qaida and other terrorist groups to stage a comeback. Until, the Iraqi government is capable of dealing with these groups on their own, we should ignore the bleatings of the Cindy Sheehan Left and stay the course.


Anonymous randal said...

Yeah, that Far Lib editorial in the Daily Times today touched on all the tired Lib weeps about the war: Bush lied… no WMDs… “Mission Accomplished”… war dead scorekeeping… blahblahweepweep… And once again the Daily Times gives undue exposure to the anti-war whackos while giving, well, no time to the other side. Fair and balanced? Heck, it was practically an advertisement for their planned protest this Wednesday.
And these are the same “journalists” that we’re expected to accept the “news” they present us as unbiased? Lol…

Note to Libs: “We do not wage war by weepy Liberal consensus, nor should we.”
“The President of the United States is not the enemy, terrorists and their Liberal enablers are.”

March 17, 2008 at 10:41 AM 
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Gil, Would you have same opinion if your son or daughter were headed over there in harms way?

March 17, 2008 at 11:49 AM 
Anonymous r said...

There's that childish Michael Moore Standard again.

March 17, 2008 at 11:52 AM 
Anonymous steve mcdonald said...

mccain's son just came back from a tour of duty. McCain didn't publicize it, remained on course for completing the overall mission.

March 17, 2008 at 12:21 PM 
Blogger David Diano said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

March 17, 2008 at 12:56 PM 
Anonymous steve mcdonald said...

so, randal, in your words, would be another bat villian?

March 17, 2008 at 1:04 PM 
Anonymous steve mcdonald - said...

we need delco's #1 progressive patriot, Joe Sestak to take charge! (When he's not too busy collecting cash for his 2010 defense like he did right off the bat in 2007 for the 2008 run)

does progressive patriot joe sestak drink fair trade coffee? do his bat villians?

March 17, 2008 at 1:15 PM 
Anonymous randal said...

Would you have same opinion if your son or daughter were headed over there in harms way?

That kind of thinking –putting such emotion and personal interests above all else- would have the world speaking German now.

Besides, weep not, Libs, for our boys in uniform. Do you forget that ours is an all volunteer military? Everyone there wants to be there; they signed up willingly.
There aren’t many Libs over there anyway. Most of our boys are Righties and they hate you Libs and your morale-killing, anti-American, enemy-aiding treason as much as the rest of us do.

March 17, 2008 at 2:07 PM 
Anonymous TG said...

Gil ,that was a nice little rant you went on. Too bad you are spewing the neocon views of the war.

As a nation, if you are going to embark on pre-emptive war, you better make sure your intelligence is 100% correct. The Bush admin cherry-picked all the reasons for going to war. They were wrong. At the least, they were extremely incompetent, at worse, they lied.

So I guess we should not hold those responsible for this mess accountable. Might be hard to do for years since the criminals in charge have done all they could to seal and keep records secret.

And Randal, since you are so big on war and you point out that it is all volunteer, guess you are off to the recruiting station, eh?

March 17, 2008 at 6:48 PM 
Blogger Spencerblog said...

TG, I'll take the neocon view over the cut-and-run view of the Defeatocrats any day.

In what world do you suppose you can make sure your intelligence is 100 percent correct?

That standard could lead to a lot of American civilians killed.

As it is, a brutal dictator is dead, his regime is gone and a fledgling democracy is sitting in his place.

Will it succeed? As I said, only time will tell.

But the courage of the Democrats is awe-inspiring.

Hillary Clinton in a desperate attempt to win her party's nomination today proclaimed defeat in Iraq.

When the war was popular, she was for it. When the people -- mostly those in her party -- turned against it, she turned against it too.

What a profile in courage.

And now here comes John McCain, a critic of the administration's strategy but a passionate believer in the importance of winning and succeeding in Iraq.

What a nightmare for you Lefties. Start making your "Impeach McCain" signs. I have a feeling your gonna' need 'em.

March 17, 2008 at 8:52 PM 
Anonymous r said...

More of a problem now than the terrorists are our domestic insurgents giving them aid while trying to seize power in this country.
Recall how our sworn enemies campaigned against Bush and literally danced in the streets when the Dems won big last time. We know which side they would have voted for if they could.
So is now really the time we should have anti-military enemy sympathizers -a weepy woman or a black militant and maybe closet Muslim named B. Hussein Obama- running things?

March 17, 2008 at 9:03 PM 
Anonymous steve mcdonald said...

he dems don't want the war in their campaign platform, neither Obama Nor Clinton know half as much about the issue as John McCain. Aim on attacking the economy and age, folks.

March 17, 2008 at 10:49 PM 
Blogger David Diano said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

March 17, 2008 at 11:25 PM 
Blogger Spencerblog said...

I'm crushed.

I've lost all of David Diano's respect, just like America has lost the "respect and affection" of our "allies."

Funny how the "affection" of the world of socialists and tin-pot dictators flows to America she is attacked but not when she decides to do something about it.

Diano objects to being called a defeatocrat while announcing our defeat in Iraq.

Meanwhile, recent polls show most Americans believe the tide has turned there and we are on our way to success thanks to the surge the defeatocrats condemned.

McDonald is right. To win in November Dems need to stick to the economy.

They can ask "Are you better off than you were four years ago."

Funny, but 80 percent of the people in Iraq would answer yes to the same question. With prospects of the future being even brighter.
That's a loss in Diano's book.

It's not the war that is bankrupting America. It is stupid loans by too many banks and a government that has foolishly tried to protect investors from their own risky behavior.

During WWII we were spending 40 percent of GNP on the war effort. Today we are spending one percent.

Like, I said Dems need to focus on the economy, stupid. Instead they're turning this into a vanity and mud-slinging contest.

Dave, you're fitting right in.

March 18, 2008 at 6:43 AM 
Blogger Spencerblog said...

Correction: Operation Iraqi Freedom is costing 2 percent of GDP, still the least expensive war in American history behind the first Gulf War.

March 18, 2008 at 6:47 AM 
Anonymous r said...

Gonna have to give this one to Gil, D.

March 18, 2008 at 10:40 AM 
Anonymous TG said...

Randal has his nose up Spencer's butt as usual.

March 18, 2008 at 11:59 AM 
Anonymous r said...

Nah, he just regularly makes better arguments than Dave. Or you.
And really, it’s more the quality of the product than one’s ability to sell it anyway. I mean, Dave always brings his tired, childish Libism. It doesn’t take much to best that silly mess.

March 18, 2008 at 12:22 PM 
Blogger David Diano said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

March 18, 2008 at 9:31 PM 
Blogger Spencerblog said...

Well let's see, Dave thinks calling Democrats, Defeatocrats is hackneyed. Perhaps it is. Accurate but hackneyed.

And I suppose calling people Chickenhawks is orginal. And telling people that if they don't join the Army they have no business suggesting our efforts in Iraq are worthwhile. Now that's imaginative. Never read that before.

Iraq is an "unmitigated disaster."

Well, maybe it is mitigated a bit by ridding the world of Saddam Hussein and his two psychopathic sons and thuggish regime.

No doubt, the Iraqi public is looking forward to the day that they can run their own affairs without American help. But why then hasn't the government asked us to leave?

Maybe it's because they and the Iraqi people they represent recognize they still need our help in crushing al Qaida's killers and the Baathist dead-enders.

Let's see, what else?

Suddenly the cost of the war isn't "bankrupting" America, it's only a "significant cost."

Well, that's progress.

But this "America is doomed unless we get out of Iraq tomorrow" business is pretty weak and needs work.

Keep trying.

March 18, 2008 at 10:23 PM 
Blogger David Diano said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

March 19, 2008 at 4:37 AM 
Blogger Spencerblog said...

"So the deaths of 4000 US troops was mitigated by getting three people? The "thuggish regime" didn't cause as many deaths as our blundering."

It didn't?

Four months before Saddam's fall, Human Rights Watch estimated that up to 290,000 people had "disappeared" since the late 1970s and were presumed dead. The Coalition Provisional Authority's human rights office estimates that 300,000 bodies are contained in the numerous mass graves. "And that's the lower end of the estimates," said one CPA spokesperson. In fact, the accumulated credible reports make the likely number at least 400,000 to 450,000. So, by a conservative estimate, the regime was killing civilians at an average rate of at least 16,000 a year between 1979 and March 2003.
-- The Weekly Standard.

Once again your argument is weakly presented and ad hominem. But that's becoming standard.

March 19, 2008 at 8:54 AM 
Anonymous r said...

Dave does the best he can with what he has to work with.

March 19, 2008 at 10:31 AM 
Blogger David Diano said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

March 19, 2008 at 11:46 AM 
Anonymous r said...

Did you just post that same weepy crap in another thread, Dave? Stop flooding the board.

March 19, 2008 at 12:00 PM 
Blogger David Diano said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

March 19, 2008 at 12:54 PM 
Anonymous r said...

And everything you post is the same childish Liberal rant.
This makes you worse because, as we know, Libism is the problem.

March 19, 2008 at 1:04 PM 
Anonymous steve mcdonald said...

Here's a great question. Did the peace dividend of the 90's hurt our military strength in Iraq and Afghanistan?

March 20, 2008 at 8:43 AM 
Anonymous randal said...

Yes. Not only did Willie do nothing, he actually hurt our military preparedness while ignoring worldly threats to our security.

But ya gotta cut the guy some slack, after all he was busy with other large things, what with wagging the dog and staining size XL blue dresses.

March 20, 2008 at 11:04 AM 

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home