"COMPLETE VICTORY" in Iraq ?

http://online.wsj.com/article_email/...TQwMDExWj.html


'Complete Victory'
December 1, 2005; Page A16

Our reading of history is that the American people will accept
casualties in a war, even heavy casualties, as long as they think their
leaders have a strategy to win. So we were glad to see President Bush
yesterday begin what the White House says will be a consistent effort
to counter the defeatism toward Iraq that has lately taken over so many
American politicians and elites.

Mr. Bush addressed the U.S. Naval Academy, and his aides released a
strategy document called "Victory in Iraq." Not subtle, we know, but
war demands Presidential repetition more than nuance. And a victory
strategy is the only antidote to the rush to the exits that more and
more Members of Congress are seeking as they look at the opinion polls.

The speech had Mr. Bush's familiar, albeit even more forceful, pledge
"that we will never accept anything less than complete victory." (The
Middies loved that line.) And it also laid out the stakes for Americans
if we did withdraw too soon and leave Iraq a mess. "If we were not
fighting and destroying this enemy in Iraq," he said, "they would be
plotting and killing Americans across the world and within our own
borders."

Or as military analyst Andrew Krepinevich put it to us yesterday,
whether Iraq was a "war of choice" or a "war of necessity" at the
beginning, it certainly is the latter now. Our adversaries the world
over -- from North Korea to Syria's Bashar Assad to Iran's mullahs --
are watching to see if America has the will to win in Iraq.

But yesterday's speech was most notable because for the first time in
months Mr. Bush dug into the details of the U.S. military strategy,
especially the training of Iraqi forces. There are now more than 120
battle-ready Iraqi police and Army battalions "in the fight" and ready
to assume more responsibility as long as there is a stable Iraqi
government to lead them, he said.

And he justifiably pointed to the early fall offensive that cleaned up
Tal Afar and allowed its residents to vote in the October
Constitutional referendum. Iraqi forces led that fight, and they have
stayed as part of a "clear, hold and build" strategy that is sure to be
repeated in other parts of the Sunni Triangle. While no Iraqi
battalions "owned" their own battlespace in mid-2004, some 33 do now.
This includes the units patrolling Haifa Street and other once
troublesome neighborhoods in Baghdad.

None of this is to deny that Iraqi forces continue to have sectarian
and loyalty problems. But there is every reason to believe that the
Iraqi government to be elected later this month can work those out over
time. In fact, getting Iraqi battalions to complete operational
independence certainly won't happen until there are stronger ministries
of defense and interior to facilitate their supply chain. The current
bottom line, however, is that about 45 Iraqi battalions of about 750
men each are able to lead combat operations on their own.

Mr. Bush was also candid in admitting that the U.S. changed strategy on
Iraqi security force training in 2004 after several missteps. "Progress
by the Iraqi security forces has come, in part, because we learned from
our earlier experiences and made changes in the way we help train Iraqi
troops," he said.

This puts him ahead of a press corps that still focuses on past
failures. In the latest issue of the Atlantic Monthly, for example,
James Fallows purports to explain "Why Iraq Has No Army." But the
public affairs office of the Multinational Security Transition Command
in Iraq (or "Min-sticky") says Mr. Fallows not only didn't visit but
didn't even contact them while reporting the article or at anytime
during at least the past nine months.

Min-sticky commander General Martin Dempsey told us from Baghdad
yesterday that not a single Iraqi Army or police unit has folded in
battle this year the way some did during the spring 2004 violence. He
added that about 4,000 former Iraqi officers have responded to a recent
recruitment drive, a sign that they see their future residing with a
democratic Iraq and not their old Baathist masters.

One area that could still use improvement is procurement policy. This
was hampered by apparent corruption during the 2004 interim government.
But the Coalition may also have relied too much on second-rate weaponry
from the old Warsaw Pact members that have joined NATO over the past
decade. While this may make sense in some cases, the U.S. doesn't view
such other regional allies as Jordan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia as unable
to operate our advanced weaponry.

As the "central front in the war on terror," as Mr. Bush puts it, Iraq
should have top-of-the-line U.S. equipment whenever possible. One idea
would be for U.S. forces departing next year to leave behind some of
their Humvees, which would probably be retired in any case and which
provide far better protection than the pick-up trucks that many Iraqi
Security Forces now use.

The larger story here is that there are reasons for optimism in Iraq.
Current U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad leads the best diplomatic team
since the liberation in 2003, Iraqi forces are getting into the fight,
all ethnic groups are participating in the democratic process, and
Iraqi political leaders are emerging who can lead a newly elected
government. As Democratic Senator Joe Lieberman wrote Tuesday on these
pages, for America to leave now would be to abandon free Iraqis just as
they are beginning to stand up.

The car bombs will continue, of course, as will the kidnappings. And
there will be further American casualties. But this is all the more
reason for Mr. Bush to stay engaged with the American public in making
the case for the war, explaining both the progress and the setbacks,
and never failing to lay out the path to victory. If we can make one
more immodest proposal: How about a Presidential visit to address the
new Iraqi Parliament early next year?

66fourdoor wrote:
http://online.wsj.com/article_email/...TQwMDExWj.html


'Complete Victory'
December 1, 2005; Page A16

Our reading of history is that the American people will accept
casualties in a war, even heavy casualties, as long as they think their
leaders have a strategy to win.
snip propaganda

"Our" reading of history is wrong. We need to learn from history and
those who fail to learn from it repeat the same mistakes. The history
of accepting heavy casualties is just that, history. As we grow as
humans, we realize that it doesn't have to be the way it was. No amount
of right-wing propaganda is going to convince intelligent people that
the war in Iraq is a just cause, being fought for freedom, a matter of
national security or any other bull**** excuse.

Your blind following of Bush is as pathetic as it is laughable. I don't
know if it's pride or ignorance that keeps you from admitting his
policies and actions are unacceptable. It's as if you are not capable
of thinking for yourself.

I voted for Bush twice. I will admit it was a mistake. I am a
republican but I'm not a blind follower of the republican party. I
think for myself based on logic and what is right and wrong. The war in
Iraq is wrong.
Bush is wrong.

Every poll shows the majority of Americans disapprove of Bush's job
performance.

http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm

Compare Bush's performance and approval to Clinton's.

http://www.pollingreport.com/clinton-.htm

In light of all Bush's lies, in light of his administrations lies and
deceit, in light of our men and women dying in and for a country that
does not want them there and for a cause that doesn't exsist, you keep
supporting the man, why?

On 1 Dec 2005 12:59:00 -0800, "R. White"
wrote:


66fourdoor wrote:
http://online.wsj.com/article_email/...TQwMDExWj.html


'Complete Victory'
December 1, 2005; Page A16

Our reading of history is that the American people will accept
casualties in a war, even heavy casualties, as long as they think their
leaders have a strategy to win.
snip propaganda

"Our" reading of history is wrong. We need to learn from history and
those who fail to learn from it repeat the same mistakes. The history
of accepting heavy casualties is just that, history. As we grow as
humans, we realize that it doesn't have to be the way it was. No amount
of right-wing propaganda is going to convince intelligent people that
the war in Iraq is a just cause, being fought for freedom, a matter of
national security or any other bull**** excuse. snip

Noodles slavishly follows the neocon excuses for the "war for oil"
because he hasn't the intelligence nor the ability to garner
information, even via the press, about the world situation. Like many
unintelligent right-wing nutbags, he'd rather have some far-right
poppinjay do all his thinking for him...that way, he doesn't wind up
with massive headaches.

Your blind following of Bush is as pathetic as it is laughable. I don't
know if it's pride or ignorance that keeps you from admitting his
policies and actions are unacceptable. It's as if you are not capable
of thinking for yourself. snip

Exactly.

I voted for Bush twice. I will admit it was a mistake. I am a
republican but I'm not a blind follower of the republican party. I
think for myself based on logic and what is right and wrong. The war in
Iraq is wrong.
Bush is wrong.

Every poll shows the majority of Americans disapprove of Bush's job
performance.

http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm

Compare Bush's performance and approval to Clinton's.

http://www.pollingreport.com/clinton-.htm

In light of all Bush's lies, in light of his administrations lies and
deceit, in light of our men and women dying in and for a country that
does not want them there and for a cause that doesn't exsist, you keep
supporting the man, why? snip

My new bumper stickers on all my vehicles:

"You're right...it's all about character:
IMPEACH BUSH NOW!"

It sure ****es off the "nudoheads"! I love it!