Skip to main content

The Enemies of Victory

...are the friends of our enemies.

I'm sorry but I cannot try to be politically correct here. This Senate resolution just smacks of aiding and abetting our Islamofascist enemies in Iraq. It demoralizes our troops in the field now and those on their way to the front in Iraq. This is wrong, dead wrong.

I have no problem with politicians expressing their opinions on strategy; however, this amounts to a vote of no confidence in wartime and sends a clear message to our enemies that this nation is no longer willing to strive for victory.

I don't understand why we cannot put politics aside for once this millenium and start acting as a unified people -- people who understand what is at stake here, people who want to be victorious in a cause that help secure not only the interests of our nation but the interests of all people who seek freedom. Patience and fortitude are virtues not liabilities!

This simply sickens me. America is headed for defeat and this world will be a much scarier place as a result.

Comments

M. Sheldon said…
Look throughout history, Dawn; certain segments of the population have always hypothesized that "The enemy of my enemies is my friend".
Unfortunately, these people always seem to find themselves in positions of power. Look at the Taliban during the Russian invasion, Hell, we even helped usher Saddam into power in some respects.
Anonymous said…
Dawn, Your link did not take me to the proposed strategy.

The Taliban have been plotting against america since at least the late 70's. They were centered in Afghanistan at that time.

Once the Iranians took the US Embassy in 79 - the Taliban in Afghanistan got pumped up and caught fire to our headquarters in Afghanistan & killed a lot of US FBI men/woman.

Those two simultaneous events seem to be the pivot point for the "enemies" of the US to band together.

The sick part is, at that very same in Afghanistan US was actually helping the Taliban fight the Russians. Hmm ...

I know it's a tough situation and a hard problem to solve because there are so many layers of hatred toward our country.

The world sure is a scarier place - no doubt.
Anonymous said…
You people cannot get your heads around the facts. We won in Iraq. We defeated the Iraqis and removed Hussein. But now we're stuck fast in the m iddle of a civil war in which we aren't a party, only collateral targets and damage. Defeatists believe America is headed for defeat, but we aren't on the run - it's a civil war with no front, thus we have people who are surrounded. The Iraq Resolution is perfect to communicate to that dense and thick lame duck named Bush that something other than his surge which is more stuck on stupid stay the course crap isn't acceptable. Time for a real strategy. For those of you who might want to smear me with the 'pacifist' or 'anti-war' tag, note I have NEVER criticized our involvement in Afghanistan. I do criticize the failure to invest more of our people there were the enemy really is, however. And I have absolutely NO respect for George W. Bush whom I consider the worst president in American history, and I include Jimmy Carter there as a close second.
Anonymous said…
Thank you, scott, but I don't think Pelosi or Reid have switched. With the so called 'surge' Bush puts in 21K troops - however, that's still 3500 LESS troops than we had in country last year. I was for sending in more troops - but 21K isn't enough. We either get in with 200,000 more men and subdue that nation (never should have gone there in the first place, but Bush was too stupid to listen) or we partition or we leave. More of the SOS and we just let people die for nothing and we spend billions of dollars for nothing.
Rena Bernard said…
Anon 8:01am, thanks for bringing the link to my attention. I've corrected that and the link now points to the resolution, not a story about it! Sometimes I just have too many windows open to get the right URL into the right place!

M., I am one of those who believes that, in wartime, if you share a common enemy with another country, you should certainly join forces to help defeat that enemy. So, "enemy of my enemy is my friend" is a phrase that makes sense to me. Even though it is part of the reason Hussein came to power in Iraq, he was an ally against Iran for us for many years. Iran was our mutual enemy. The US failed to realize how his strategy was changing and he eventually became dangerous to us and to his more peaceful neighbors.

Anon, I think your facts are a little lopsided... the US certainly aided the Mujahidin in Afghanistan when they resisted the Soviet invasion. Bin Laden was a part of that resistance movement and was, during that time, a friend to the United States for our assistance there. We did not put the Taliban in power in Afghanistan. The Taliban were not a part of the Soviet resistance. Most of them were in Pakistan at the time that war was going on. The Taliban did not come to power in Afghanistan until 1990s. They took advantage of all the sectarian violence and made their move. While Afghans were trying to stabilize a new government and had gone through a number of changes in leadership -- check out the State Dept's website for a good history of events there: http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/5380.htm

Afghanistan after the Soviets left was in a situation very much like the situation in Iraq now. There were factions still at war with each other in an effort to claim power after the Soviets pulled out. That gave rise to many who wanted to rule there and the eventuality was that the Taliban came to power in the 1990s.

Do we want another Taliban in power in Iraq? I think not. There was a political and power void after Hussein was overthrown in Iraq. The people of Iraq came out and voted for a transitional government, a constitution, and finally government officials based on their new constitution. That didn't happen in Afghanistan and the Afghans were in bad shape because of it. The Iraqis have made much more headway and pulling out or showing a lack of support while Iraqis finalize and stabilize their current structure would be a huge mistake.

This Senate resolution does nothing to help resolve the problem of stabilizing Iraq's governmental and social infrastructure; it only shows the Iraqis that Americans have no backbone and no willingness to see this rightly through.

If you think the world is a scary place NOW, Anon. Hang tight, buddy. Should the US pull out of Iraq and hope that the Iraqis can get stable on their own, you ain't seen scary!
Rena Bernard said…
Amen, Scott! I couldn't agree with you more. You're absolutely right; if we lose in Iraq is will only be because people like you and I didn't speak out and let it happen. The hate-America-first crowd has worked hard to have their voices overpower the facts and many well-meaning Americans have begun to believe that we are losing and that there's nothing to do but pull out. I can't believe it, frankly. I know way too many smart people who have let the din of anti-Americanism drown out the good that is being done over there every day.

Bill, who are you talking about when you say "you people?" Interesting generalization. I agree with you; we definitely achieved our primary objectives in Iraq. I wish you would continue telling EVERYONE that! Absolutely, we won that war. We are now responsible for ensuring that we do not leave a power void in Iraq that will be easily toppled by extremists (like what happened in Afghanistan in the 90s). We took out the biggest threat but we have to bat clean-up now. That's just the way it is.

As for thinking 21,000 more won't do the job then you are also disagreeing with the Senate resolution that I am complaining about. Why do they need to say they don't agree? Why don't they adopt a strategy position that is more positive than simply showing their arses by disagreeing? Do you realize what their "strategy" actually is? It's to pull all our troops back and watch Iraq fall into chaos. This is exactly what we don't want to do. No one with any sense could imagine that would be a good shorter term strategy!

I would like to see more troops in as well -- don't know about 200,000 but I do know that we could certainly use more in Baghdad and in the Ankara province. I believe there is more to the President's plan than meets the eye. We have been talking with Saudi Arabia and Egypt recently. I don't think we're surging these troops in solo. I wish everyone would stop and think more about this as not just OUR war. There are many countries with security at risk. They are not sitting idly by.

As for tagging you a "pacifist," that's not possible since you advocate more troops to get the situation under control. If you agreed with going into Afghanistan, you are definitely not "anti-war." However, I think it's silly to draw the line at Afghanistan and feel so confident that you are supporting the "right war." This war will take us many places, Bill. Rightly so because our enemy has no nation state to call home. If you don't support the Iraqi front but do support the front in Afghanistan, would you only have supported the US at war in the Pacific but not our troops who fought in Europe?? Makes no sense to me. This war is huge and will be fought on more fronts and for more years than any of us would like to believe. Geopolitical events are dynamic; we win on one front only to find the enemy on another. It's a mistake to assume the war is only won on one front.
Anonymous said…
"Why don't they adopt a strategy position that is more positive"

The ISG made valid proposals s to diplomatic action;
Joe Biden proposes the partition of Iraq - that's my choice in the mix, too - and partition is the ONLY viable alternative today because, though I'd love to resolve this problem CREATED by George W. Bush with overwhelming force, the sad truth is 6 years into his administration and 4 years into his Blunder in Iraq we can't back up that tactic. And make no mistake, Dawn and Scott - Iraq is a pottery barn we broke it we bought it situation to you by George W. Bush.

Proposals have been made, strategies suggested -- and George W. Bush remains stuck on stupid with stay the course, Dawn. I know that recently Bush and Cheney say no alternatives to their failed strategy have been presented - but I've demonstrated they're wrong. Sadly, Bush and Cheney are starting to go through meltdown - I can hear them now, "My generals have betrayed me" and sending in non-existent forces. All they need to complete the scenario is a bunker.
Anonymous said…
"Victory"...you don't even know what it means. Is it what Cheney, Bush, Limbaugh, Hannity, Ingraham, Malkin, O'Reilly, Fox, Clear Channel, et al tell you it means? Sure sounds like it.
Rena Bernard said…
Yes, Bill, the ISG report contained some valid and constructive suggestions that are actually a part of Bush's change in strategy (look into it) as announced in his State of the Union speech last week. However, negotiating with Iran and Syria for "help" resolving the internal political conflict in Iraq is like asking the fox to guard the henhouse. Iran and Syria are on the list of terrorist states... why in the heck would we ask terrorists to help fight a war against terrorists?!

As for George W. Bush creating the problem, my friend, it might behoove you to take the "I Hate Bush" blinders off long enough to take a clear-headed look at the situation historically and today.
Rena Bernard said…
Anon 10:05pm, it is obvious that you are not a regular reader of this blog; if you were, you'd know better. This blog is for people who think for themselves, who gather their data from all kinds of sources outside the mainstream, and who don't readily jump to labels and stereotypes. It's obvious from your "thoughtful" comment that you're not ConservaChick material. Thanks for stopping by.

Popular posts from this blog

Louisville Tea Party -- July 4, 2009

Help us make it known to Comrade Obama and his goons on Capitol Hill that July 4th is INdependence Day , not COdependence day! Louisville's patriots are throwing a TEA Party on Saturday, July 4th in Jefferson Square (6th and Jefferson) from 11am - 2pm. Hope to see you there!!

Friday Night with Hugh and Friends

The consummate Conservative host, Hugh Hewitt, and yours truly! Shameless of me to post this, I know; however, I'm too jazzed to care. :-p What a wonderful way to spend a Friday night! After an hour or so wandering through some of the exhibits at the Frazier Historical Arms Museum, I then got to spend three hours with Hugh Hewitt and 599 other fans of his show. I absolutely MUST say that not only was Hugh wonderful and the live show very entertaining, but his fans are absolutely the nicest people! I've seen other radio talk show s done live and mingled with fans of those shows. Hugh Hewitt's fans are the nicest, most down to earth, friendly people I've ever met. It's quite a credit to Hugh that he draws such a fan base. If you haven't been to the Frazier Historical Arms Museum here in Louisville, it's a must-see. The museum shows an amazing artistry with the exhibits and places them in the context of the times in a very entertaining and educationa

As the Blog Turns...

Gee. I have found myself fascinated by the soap opera unfolding in the comments section of this blog since last night. One little mention on a controversial Democrat's blog and it's High Noon on ConservaChick! (Yes, I'm laughing while I type this.) For those of you who have no idea what's happening in the ever-expanding comments section , join the club! Here's what I know about Mark Nickolas from bits and pieces I've read on his blog, and from a local news report: Nickolas likes to sneer at Republicans and call them snide little nicknames as he provides his "Unfiltered and Candid Look at Politics, Politicians and the Media in Kentucky;" he raised a ruckus within the Democrat party here in Kentucky by filing a suit against the chairman of the party , Jerry Lundergan; and he will be appearing on the same panel with yours truly on Thursday night. That's about it. You now have the benefit of my not-so-extensive knowledge on this subject. Nickolas poste