by Jaxhawk


This morning as I ritually do every day. I was perusing web sites for interesting and sometimes controversial stories as fodder for my daily blog. It didn't take long for me to find a New York resident opining on how President Bush could salvage the mess he has made in Iraq. A Mr. Dan Friedman wrote a piece for "The American Thinker" that I believe is worthy of my rebuttal. The following is an excerpt from today's published opinion of Mr. Friedman. [1] Instead of putting first things first, namely, mounting an occupation modeled on our WW II successes in Germany and Japan, then sealing Iraq's borders, declaring martial law, preparing for a long-term American regency, restricting movement within the country, and disarming the entire populace, Mr. Bush flew off-course. He parachuted in battalions of bureaucrats and constitutional lawyers, staking all on a rapid handover of power to his Iraqi designees and delivering "democracy" to an ancient people with no corresponding word in its language. In a part of the world where theology is the motive force, and the name of the only religion translates to "submit" in English, the president's jejune goodwill and misplaced egalitarianism signaled a willingness to replace a hard fist with an open hand. And that's when the bad guys in the Islamic world, conditioned by the laws of war found in their Quran, looked at each other in utter disbelief and shouted with glee, "last one to Iraq is a rotten egg!" A well-executed allied occupation would have blunted the rise of today's lethal insurgency, kept al Qaeda, Iran and Syria on the sidelines, and cost far fewer Americans (and Iraqis) their lives. Also, ironically, it would have given Bush's political goals in Iraq a better chance to be realized than the remote possibility which exists for them now. That's all 20-20 hindsight, sure, but it never hurts to know how we got from there to here -- especially when it exposes a dangerously naïve institutional mindset that's still in place across the entire political spectrum. One that's balefully clueless about the nature of the Islamic enemy we're still battling within a struggle that's going to take many more difficult years to win. That's why it must be noted that virtually none of the "public intellectuals" on the right have owned up to the mistakes the administration has made in Iraq, and even fewer have owned up to their own benighted prognostications and Pollyannaish advice. There are exceptions - George Will is one. For the most part, though, the Krauthammers and the Podhoretzes of this world are content to blame the media, the frenzied Left and the Democratically-controlled Congress for the avoidable problems we are facing in Iraq. But those are the effects, not the causes, of the President's previous failures. At the outset, the media was gung-ho, begging to be "embedded" and ride shotgun with our troops, the Left is always in a frenzy, and it was his conduct of the war that cost Bush the Congress in '06. Now for the good news. All the damaging consequences of all the blunders the President has committed to date in Iraq are reversible in 48- to 72-hours - the time it will take to destroy Iran's fragile nuclear supply chain from the air. And since the job gets done using mostly stand-off weapons and stealth bombers, not one American soldier, sailor or airman need suffer as much as a bruised foot. Let's look downstream the day after and observe how the world has changed. First and foremost, there's this prospective fait accompli -- and it changes everything. The Iranians are no longer a nuclear threat, and won't be again for at least another decade, and even that assumes the strategic and diplomatic situation reverts to the status quo ante and they'll just be able to pick up and rebuild as they would after an earthquake. Not possible. The logic is so flawed that I will not be able to address all points in this piece of tripe.

But I will begin with the premise he makes about the willing media that he claims was behind the President from the beginning of the war. He claims that because the media asked( demand in fact) to embed journalists in the Iraq war zone show their commitment to the War. Stuff and nonsense at the very least!

Ever since Vietnam the media has used the "embedded Journalists" to highlight all the negatives about he war. Particularly the deaths of our troops and the "atrocities caused by the troops against Iraq populace. Negative Journalism is the hallmark of the coverage spoon fed to the American public in a dedicated trust to destroy the President and the war effort since the Iraqi Republican Guards were defeated.

His answer to how we win in Iraq is to destroy the Iranian nuclear supply line using stealth bombers and with "stand off weapons".I suppose he means missiles fired from ships and submarines into the nuclear facility.

Yes, massive bombardment of Iranian nuclear facilities might delay or even stop their production of nuclear arms, but doesn't he realize that by the time President Bush attacks Iran the weapons would have already been moved as were the "WMD" that Saddam had before we telegraphed our intentions to invade Iraq via the media and the UN numerous delays before we decided to go it alone with only token help from our so called allies?

The second and probably most ridiculous premise is that we should have occupied Iraq as we did Japan and Germany in World War II. The situation in Japan and Germany at the time of occupation was one of complete devastation caused by nuclear bobs in Japan and both day and night bombing in both Countries that left them in rubble. It is easy to occupy a country that has been devastated by incessant bombing. But would today's American bleeding heart Liberals have stood by silently and supportive of such an effort? I strongly believe they would not!

Thirdly, the premise that a single or multiple strike on Iran's nuclear plants would end their program is speculative at best. They have had years to dig deep into the Iranian earth to bury their facilities for fabrication of nuclear devices that have been assisted in their construction by both Russia and China. To the point that they may be impregnable without entering the with ground forces and actually setting explosive charges to destroy what ever is found inside.

Lastly, Mr. Friedman excoriates the "right wing radicals" for not ever admitting that mistakes were made in the planning and execution of the war in Iraq by the Bush Administration.

Obviously this pea brain has never done any research on the tragic consequences of World War II. Market Garden, Saipan, Iwo Jima, Battle of the Bulge,Tarawa and the D-Day invasion were all well thought out, but in each case something unforeseen happened and thousands of soldiers and marines died as a result. Wars are not fought like "board Games", and the best plans do fail. The ability to sustain the war effort with the complete backing of the American people and the media does help.President Bush and the troops have had very little of this. The greed for power and control of the government has made the media and the Democrat party complicit in OUR enemies fight against our valiant troops!


Posted by BILL at Saturday, September 22, 2007 0 comments Links to this post  

From The Opinion Wiki, a Wikia wiki.

From The Opinion Wiki, a Wikia wiki.

Ad blocker interference detected!

Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers

Wikia is not accessible if you’ve made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected.