Our exit strategy is victory
Like the folks at Powerline, I don’t always agree with the senior Senator from Arizona. But, when John McCain is right, he’s right, particularly on foreign affairs/military policy (where he usually agrees with the president) and on federal spending (where he is frequently at odds with the Administration). In taking issue with those fair-weather Democrats demanding a timetable for our troops withdrawal from Iraq, the good man from the Grand Canyon State has this to say:
Anyone reading the amendment gets the sense that the Senate’s foremost objective is the draw-down of American troops. What it should have said is that America’s first goal in Iraq is not to withdraw troops, but to win the war. All other policy decisions we make should support, and be subordinate to, the successful completion of our mission.Morality, national security and the honor our fallen deserve all compel us to see our mission in Iraq through to victory. . . .
We have told insurgents that their violence does grind us down, that their horrific acts might be successful. But these are precisely the wrong messages. Our exit strategy in Iraq is not the withdrawal of our troops, it is victory.
Exactly.
34 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
al Qaeda – globally.
Secondarily, Saddam regime diehards who would restore hopelessness in Iraq, pursue WMD and cultivate al Qaeda bases.
The fact that you have to ask, Bob, speaks truly astounding volumes about you.
Comment by Calarato — November 17, 2005 @ 1:56 pm - November 17, 2005
al Qaeda “globally, and in Iraq proper”, I should have said
Comment by Calarato — November 17, 2005 @ 1:57 pm - November 17, 2005
We are also at war with Syrian, Iranian, Saudi, and Palestinian terrorists who cross the border to murder Iraqis who want to establish an Arab democracy. But, “Al Qaeda” encompasses that.
Bigger question. If we cut and run like the democrats want, what happens? What lesson does this teach Al Qaeda? (Answer: Kill enough Americans and you get what you want.) What lesson does this teach those in the Middle East who want to help us fight terrorism. (Answer: If the terrorists kill enough Americans, we will abandon our allies to them.)
Comment by V the K — November 17, 2005 @ 2:12 pm - November 17, 2005
I actually agree, I think withdrawal would be disastrous and a reprehensible act of cowardice. We need to stay and fulfill the promise we made to the Iraqi people and fix what we’ve broken. Unfortunately this administration has neither the compassion, the intelligence or the courage to do what needs to be done there, so perhaps it is wise to get out before Bush’s incompetence makes it worse.
Comment by Andy — November 17, 2005 @ 2:26 pm - November 17, 2005
As a Pakistani general once said,
“The Americans are very dangerous allies. You just never know when they are going to stab themselves in the back.”
For a long time now, we have been seeing (and talking about) the deluded contingent who want America to stab itself in the back. The Michael Moores, Cindy Sheehans, GCBs, etc.
Let’s hope their premises/views are not now finally gaining the upper hand. McCain and the NYT types generally dote on each other; maybe the NYT types will listen to him.
Comment by Calarato — November 17, 2005 @ 2:28 pm - November 17, 2005
The same thing that happened when we cut and run from Vietnam thanks to the liberal Congress. The dominoes will fall. Whether another 3 million will die as a result, as happened in Southeast Asia, is another issue.
Comment by rightwingprof — November 17, 2005 @ 2:30 pm - November 17, 2005
Comment 5 -
What a weird self-contradiction, Andy.
“withdrawal would be disastrous…We need to stay” vs. “it is wise to get out before…” – Which is it? It can only be one or the other.
Also – “this administration has neither the compassion, the intelligence or the courage to do what needs to be done”…. Pray enlighten us, Andy:
What needs to be done there? What’s your positive plan to help us win? (or what leader do you look to, that has been advocating a plan that helps us win)
I really want to know – thanks in advance!
Comment by Calarato — November 17, 2005 @ 2:31 pm - November 17, 2005
#5 Andy, that’s about the most twisted excuse for logic I’ve ever heard.
It would be disasterous to leave but since Bush is such a nincompoop it’s going to be a disaster anyhow so maybe it’s better that we just leave before he causes a disaster, but really, I do believe that leaving would cause a disaster?
Are you sure this isn’t just a convoluted way to avoid any sort of responsibility to try to get anything less than a disaster?
I tried to suggest on some other blog that Democrats are missing an excellent opportunity to influence the rebuilding of Iraq, to do what they can to ensure social justice and self-rule in Iraq, and got told that the Republicans wouldn’t allow it. Bull. Dems are smart people, for the most part. It’s not as though they are powerless for goodness sake, or have no influence. They could figure out how to be pro-Iraq and pro-victory if they wanted to. If the national will was united for victory in and *for* Iraq, chaos and disaster wouldn’t stand a chance.
I think they’re just afraid of being branded “hawks” and giving Bush a “victory.” Lose-lose for them. I don’t dispute they’d get called “hawks” because we see it happen, but as for giving Bush a victory… besides the fact that I have a lot of faith in the ability of politicians to take credit even for things they *didn’t* have anything to do with, it amounts to hoping Bush fails no matter the consequences to anyone else. Which is lame.
Instead of stepping forward to say that, “…withdrawal would be disastrous and a reprehensible act of cowardice. We need to stay and fulfill the promise we made to the Iraqi people and fix what we’ve broken.” And putting forth some leadership within the context of the situation as it exists *today* we get rehashes, endlessly, of debates and decisions made 3 years ago.
Comment by Synova — November 17, 2005 @ 2:55 pm - November 17, 2005
#4
Bigger question. If we cut and run like the democrats want, what happens? What lesson does this teach Al Qaeda?
What the liberals choose to forget that we already played their game of bending over and lubing up for eight years and we got 9/11 for it. Their precious lord BJ had the cajones to deny Special Forces their requests for more armor and equipment in the Mog, got 18 men slaughtered and then had them cut and run away from the al-Qaeda there. BJ ignored the attacks on Khobar Towers, the embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, the USS Cole, the first WTC attacks etc.
We’ve played the liberal’s game and we got royally F**KED. It’s over. We’re NOT playing by their rules anymore. The liberals need to realize that whatever plan they have is a plan for FAILURE and I’ll be damned if we have to play their game again.
What’s so patriotic about losing?
Comment by ThatGayConservative — November 17, 2005 @ 3:06 pm - November 17, 2005
#9
I think they’re just afraid of being branded “hawks” and giving Bush a “victory.”
Are you kidding? All they care about is their blind hatred for Bush and the military. They’re not about to do anything that would undermine that.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — November 17, 2005 @ 3:09 pm - November 17, 2005
al Qaeda – globally.
Shouldn’t we be invading Saudi Arabia then?
Comment by gaycowboybob — November 17, 2005 @ 3:59 pm - November 17, 2005
The same thing that happened when we cut and run from Vietnam thanks to the liberal Congress.
So we should have stayed and kept sending our troops as target practice until… when?
Comment by gaycowboybob — November 17, 2005 @ 4:02 pm - November 17, 2005
Actually, in Vietnam, all we need do was to provide the military aide to the South Vietnamese government that we had promised.
Comment by GayPatriotWest — November 17, 2005 @ 4:54 pm - November 17, 2005
What’s so patriotic about losing?
Good f**king question.
I think that is exactly what the Democrats want: for the US to surrender to Al Qaeda in Iraq.
Comment by V the K — November 17, 2005 @ 5:43 pm - November 17, 2005
#12
For what?
Seriously. You couldn’t come up with a more f*cktarded question than that?
Comment by ThatGayConservative — November 17, 2005 @ 6:20 pm - November 17, 2005
What we need is to send Karen Hughes there to make things right…. can the Iraqi food supply handle that pig for a few weeks?
Comment by Britney — November 17, 2005 @ 6:23 pm - November 17, 2005
Just a few questions.
What if the best possible way to victory in Iraq is to withdraw our troops?
Are they not a magnet for terrorists from all over the region? Isn’t Iraq now a training ground for terrorists to pick up valuable skills going directly against American forces and to then use that knowledge elsewhere? That is exactly what has happen end in Afghanistan BTW. The terrorists there are adopting Iraq terrorists methods.
The majority of people killed in these attacks are Iraqis. If there would be less civilian bloodshed were we to leave, do we have a moral obligation to do so?
Some say that we need to stay in order to prove to the jihadist that we will stick out a rough situation. But regardless of when we pull out, whether tomorrow or 10 years from now, the terrorists and jihadist will still claim that they drove the Americans out. So does staying really accomplish that objective?
One last point. How many times have we been hearing from the Right that “IRAQ IS NOT VIET NAM”? And that you could not compare the two situations?
However, now the Right is saying we can’t leave because i would be just like when we left ….. Viet Nam.
So who is doing the comparing now?
Figuring out “Who’s on First” in this mess is quite a… quagmire. I don’t know who to trust, Democrats or GOP.
I do know however, that regardless of whether he thought he was telling the truth or not, George W. Bush was just plain wrong. As he has been wrong about a great number of things. And his Administration has proved its incompetence by failing to do any significant post-war planning. And certainly Cheney has lied. It’s very, very, clear if you compare his tv interviews over the last few years.
So should I really trust the War on Terror to a President and Administration that has made so many mistakes and falsehoods?
The quagmire is that the Democrats simply are not believable on the issue either because they have adopted the 60′s LSD generation’s nutty mantras. If, during the last 4 years, they had adopted a serious, thoughtful and competent opposition to the GOP, they would be believable now. But instead they have gone with the Flower Power crowd. So I can’t trust their competence either.
So who can an American really trust with The War on Terror?
I love my country, but sometimes I wish it came with a Reset button like on my computer. One push would remove all current politicians from office and restart everything from scratch. Time to reboot!
Comment by Patrick (Gryph) — November 17, 2005 @ 6:26 pm - November 17, 2005
I think that the consequences of another cut and run would be more damaging to our diplomatic ability than can be imagined. Not just in the Middle East but everywhere. A reputation (well earned!) of failing to finish what we start is what needs to be *corrected* because we’ve certainly already got that reputation.
It’s not *just* the ability of Condi or Bush to persuade other countries to shape up, be it Palestine and Israel, Syria or North Korea or the Sudan or even Saudi, that relies on the sure knowledge that the US means what it says when it says it… it’s also the ability of the *next* administration, which will likely be Democrat, to be taken seriously. It may make other countries *happy* to know that we’re just a slightly dangerous puppy dog with the attention span of a flea that they can disregard at will, but their happiness doesn’t give us any diplomatic clout at all.
Comment by Synova — November 17, 2005 @ 6:32 pm - November 17, 2005
Comment 12 -
Bob, who says we haven’t invaded Saudi Arabia? (You?)
Invasion takes many forms.
Last time I checked, right about, oh, SPRING 2003 (hint) and since, Saudi Arabia started seriously reining in and killing their own al Qaeda.
Comment by Calarato — November 17, 2005 @ 6:35 pm - November 17, 2005
Comment 14 -
And Iraq is on track for the same, in more ways than one.
In Vietnam, the U.S. militarily defeated the Vietcong and North Vietnamese and, simultaneously, increasingly turned the war over to native Vietnamese forces in a process called “Vietnamization”.
It worked – in the window 1970-1975. It fell apart in 1975 for 2 reasons:
1) the South Vietnamese government remained “narrowly based” or not fully democratic (from what I understand)
2) Ted Kennedy liberals in Congress pointedly cut off all supply & financial aid to it in 1975 as Dan pointed out – inviting the North to re-start the war they had previously been compelled to quit.
In Iraq, we have been slowly but surely building native Iraqi forces in a process that can be called “Iraqization”.
Iraq is different from Vietnam on point (1). Kurds and Shia Arabs together make up 80% of the country and are enthusiastic in the new government, even if some of the Sunni Arabs remain Saddam diehards.
But it remains to be seen whether Iraq will be different from Vietnam on point (2). As others have pointed out, this is where long-term U.S. resolve and reliability comes in.
Comment by Calarato — November 17, 2005 @ 6:47 pm - November 17, 2005
Wow, I never knew it was so easy to incite so many words from so few of my own.
Comment by gaycowboybob — November 17, 2005 @ 7:57 pm - November 17, 2005
even if some of the Sunni Arabs remain Saddam diehards.
And so you’re saying those are the only resistance fighters in the country? Not others from other countries like… oh I don’t know… people passing through Syria?
Comment by gaycowboybob — November 17, 2005 @ 8:00 pm - November 17, 2005
Our exit strategy is victory.
Mission Accomplished!
Wait.
You mean…?
Nevermind.
Comment by chandler in hollywood — November 17, 2005 @ 9:15 pm - November 17, 2005
#24
Once again, Chandler, as much as it may piss in your Cheerios, the mission for the USS Abraham Lincoln WAS accomplished.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — November 17, 2005 @ 9:48 pm - November 17, 2005
Comment 23 -
OK, now go back to posts 2, 3 and 4, Bob.
Your “resistance fighters from other countries” are nothing more or less than…..AL QAEDA.
You know – guys like Zarqawi, an al Qaeda guy who is condemned by his countrymen (Palestinian-Jordanians) and who, incidentally, Saddam was shielding in Iraq well before March 2003 (Coalition invasion).
So there would be, like, 2 elements of who we are fighting in Iraq? Just like comment 2 said already?
Get it, Bob? Has the penny finally, at long last dropped?
But this would be the first time I personally have seen you openly call al Qaeda “resistance fighters”.
The fact that they’re “resistance fighters” to you, Bob, speaks truly astounding volumes. (Just like the fact you had to ask who we’re fighting, in Comments 1-2.)
So much for those close ones you say you lost on 9-11, I guess!!
Comment by Calarato — November 18, 2005 @ 1:21 am - November 18, 2005
If the left is going to be consistent on the ‘Mission Accomplished’ rap, they should demand that the Marines take down that memorial and that iconic image of Marines raising the flag on Iwo Jima in World War II. Because after that flag was raised, the battle for Iwo Jima continued for over a month, with thousands of Americans dead. How Dare the Marines use that image, implying victory, when the battle for Iwo Jima, let alone World War II, was no where near accomplished. How dare they!
Comment by V the K — November 18, 2005 @ 6:19 am - November 18, 2005
I don’t see my logic as twisted at all. It’s actually quite clear. Pulling out would be a disaster, given. But staying the present course might actually be a worse disaster. If those are the choices, we should pick the less disastrous of the two evils. I don’t believe this administration is capable of correcting the path and doing what needs to be done there. I think we should stay and fix what we’ve broken, but doing that requires a lot of courage, a lot of humility, and a lot of cash. The present administration has none of that. The best thing would be for us to massively increase military deployment to fight the insurgents and secure Iraq’s borders and cities — but of course because everyone now knows we are in Iraq under fraudulent pretenses, enlistment is dropping like Bush’s poll numbers. So we might have to reinstate the draft. We also must surrender our authority in terms of military decisions and reconstruction plans to the U.N., as we no longer have credibility in the region. Then the U.N. should send us the bill, since it’s entirely our fault, and we’ll pay for it by repealing the Bush tax cuts, creating a 15% flat tax for corporate profits, applying the estate tax to assets over $500,000, added to a 10% federal gasoline tax, and increasing capital gains taxes for annual profits over $25,000.
Comment by Andy — November 18, 2005 @ 9:47 am - November 18, 2005
enlistment is dropping like Bush’s poll numbers. So we might have to reinstate the draft.
Liar liar, ass on fire!!!
Military Recruitment Hits October Targets
Thursday November 10, 2005 10:31 PM
WASHINGTON (AP) – The Army, which missed its recruiting goal for 2005 by a wide margin, got off to a strong start in the new budget year by exceeding its October targets for the active-duty Army as well as the National Guard and Reserve.
The other military services also met their goals for active-duty enlistments in October, the first month of the budget year. The Air National Guard got barely half the recruits it wanted and the Navy Reserve met 89 percent of its goal.
The Army said it signed up 4,925 for active duty, or 105 percent of its goal. It was the fifth straight month of meeting or exceeding its goal, following a severe slump last spring that prevented the Army from reaching its full-year goal for 2005.
The Army ended the budget year Sept. 30 with an 8 percent shortfall – the first since 1999 and the largest in more than two decades.
The Army National Guard signed up 102 percent of its October goal and the Army Reserve got 103 percent.
Re-enlistments, which were strong last year while recruiting slipped, got off to a weaker start in October. The active Army re-enlisted 91 percent of its goal for the month; the National Guard and Reserve both got 98 percent.
An Army spokesman, Lt. Col. Bryan Hilferty, said re-enlistments typically are lower in the early part of the budget year. In October 2005, for example, the Army got only 83 percent of its goal but finished the budget year with more than 100 percent.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — November 18, 2005 @ 11:03 am - November 18, 2005
Wow Andy, that’s a jaw-dropper.
I’ll ignore your false comment on enlistments and your false comment about us somehow being in Iraq under false pretenses…I’ll just focus on the constructive (?) details you have given of a plan for Iraq.
Just to make sure I understood – your ideal plan to help us win in Iraq is:
(1) Reinstate the draft on American young people.
(2) Take massive numbers of those draftees, ship them to Iraq, and put them under U.N. command there.
(3) Pay all additional U.N. expenses (you know – the standard U.N. corruption, child molesting, etc.) with tax increases on Americans.
Since (you admit) such a plan is infeasible, the next best plan to benefit America, in your view, is to pull out all the troops now – rather than doing the more gradual, considered pullouts that Blair and Bush have already either announced or hinted at for 2006.
Andy, I have to give you credit – I really mean this -
You answered my question. You actually told us the plan you envision for dealing with Iraq!
It’s bonkers, but I have to give you credit for being a war critic who finally put forward a plan. Now we can decide to do it or not.
I have a feeling your plan might be typical of the Left (or Democrats) and I wish they would state it openly, as you have done, rather than trying to fight a “coded”, “undermining” fight with all these fake distractionary issues.
Comment by Calarato — November 18, 2005 @ 11:30 am - November 18, 2005
#30
Let’s see:
Andy’s Plan A calls for failure. His Plan B calls for failure.
Bush’s plan doesn’t.
Hmmmmmm. Which one should we choose?
Comment by ThatGayConservative — November 18, 2005 @ 2:29 pm - November 18, 2005
Actually, I love it when liberals try to use the “lesser of two evils” argument; by any stretch of the imagination, that would have involved removing Saddam from power and taking the consequences, rather than keeping him there.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 18, 2005 @ 6:34 pm - November 18, 2005
LOL…..there’s two problems with that logic, Pussy.
1) As vote returns show, the US armed forces are overwhelmingly Republican; thus, Republicans ARE doing the bulk of the fighting.
2) You and your fellow Democrats aren’t running to enlist to fight in Afghanistan, which you allegedly support.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 19, 2005 @ 11:01 am - November 19, 2005
The exit strategy is, and always has been:
The Iraqi people win, and we (America) win….by having a secure democratic government in Iraq.
Comment by Calarato — November 19, 2005 @ 11:15 am - November 19, 2005
Ah, Pussy……:-) Iraq had successful elections for a constitutional convention last January…..They recently had a successful referendum, approving the new Constitution….and they are about to have their first elections under that new Constitution, in December……producing Iraq’s first genuine democratic government……
…..and every day, more and more Iraqis are stepping up to defend their country……which will enable 2006 reductions/withdrawals of U.S. troops, as planned by the Bush administration……..
……What will you do, Pussy, when it finally becomes so obvious that Iraq is a success that not even you can evade it any longer?
Will you melt? Kill yourself? Or possibly learn something?
While there’s life, there’s hope….
Comment by Calarato — November 20, 2005 @ 10:02 am - November 20, 2005