Wrong Way
Genocide-preferring NYT ed board, noting that Britain’s slow exit from Basra has left serious problems in its wake, takes a firm stand for a more responsible rush to abandonment. Aptly headlined “Wrong Way out of Iraq” is short, sweet, and utterly chilling in its cold willingness to relegate U.S. troops to encircling Iraq and watching the mass murderfest, with a mandate only to lob bombs at questionably identifiable targets:
As Americans argue about how to bring the troops home from Iraq, British forces are already partway out the door. Four years ago, there were some 30,000 British ground troops in southern Iraq. By the end of this summer, there will be 5,000. None will be based in urban areas. Those who remain will instead be quartered at an airbase outside Basra. Rather than trying to calm Iraq’s civil war, their main mission will be training Iraqis to take over security responsibilities, while doing limited counterinsurgency operations.
That closely follows the script some Americans now advocate for American forces in Iraq …
If anyone outside the White House truly believes this can work — that the United States can simply stay in Iraq in reduced numbers, while ignoring the civil war and expecting Iraqi forces to impose order— the British experience demonstrates otherwise. There simply aren’t reliable, effective and impartial Iraqi forces ready to keep the cities safe, nor are they likely to exist any time soon. And insurgents are not going to stop attacking Americans just because the Americans announce that they’re out of the fight.
… The clear lesson of the British experience is that going partway is not a realistic option.
The United States cannot walk away from the new international terrorist front it created in Iraq. It will need to keep sufficient forces and staging points in the region to strike effectively against terrorist sanctuaries there or a Qaeda bid to hijack control of a strife-torn Iraq.
But there should be no illusions about trying to continue the war on a reduced scale. It is folly to expect a smaller American force to do in a short time what a much larger force could not do over a very long time. That’s exactly what the British are now trying to do. And the results are painfully plain to see.
NYT offers up false statements such as “If anyone outside the White House truly believes this can work … ” that ignore the facts of the counter-insurgency strategy for Iraq and the resulting progress. It is quite likely the NYT ed board here is reacting in panic to its own newsroom’s report on the weakening of the surrender camp’s line.
Ironically, NYT ed board comes close to recognizing its own deadly folly, for a moment, with fragmentary phrases such as “The United States cannot walk away … ” and “It will need to keep sufficient forces and staging points … ” But those are just figleafs of responsibility meant to cover naked indifference.
Anyone have any thoughts on the history of effectively suppressing terrorism remotely? I’d suggest a look at the U.S.-al Qaeda experience in the ’90s and the Israeli-Palestinian-Hezbollah experience, just about any time. The former of course is capped by the 9-11 attacks. The latter has veered between suicide bombing and missile campaigns on one side, military invasion on the other, and for the moment has culminated in walling off entire cities, allowing them to turn into chaotic murder zones. Multiply that, and think about what will start happening in those currently somewhat peaceful surrounding nations where our troops, theoretically be poised to strike, will become the most attractive target in the region. Also, think about the ability of a self-humiliated, self-hamstrung United States to influence what goes in or comes out of Iraq via its borders with Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia.
So, there’s responsible abandonment and acceptable genocide, as advocated by the New York Times. Or, as others are beginning to recognize, there’s winning.
Uh oh … major attacks down 50 percent …
Surber here, re NYT.
Welcome Surberistas, Memeorandizers, Pajamas, etal, good to see you. It’s Monday, slow up for a minute, get your bearings. No point in Roving aimlessly. Stop and read the IMs. Never forget that America is a great country. But Africa has its moments, too.
Posted by Jules Crittenden at 8:06 am on Monday, August 13, 2007
21 Responses to “Wrong Way”
Leave a Reply
Trackback URLYou must be logged in to post a comment.
August 13th, 2007 at 10:42 am
Web Reconnaissance for 08/13/2007
A short recon of whats out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day…so check back often.
August 13th, 2007 at 11:00 am
There may be little progress on political goals crafted in America, to meet American concerns, by politicians who have a cushion of 200 years of democracy. Washington might as well be on the moon. Iraqis don’t respond well to rules imposed from outside their acknowledged authorities, though I have many times seen Iraqi Police and Army of all ranks responding very well to American Marines and soldiers who they have come to respect, and in many cases actually admire and try to emulate. Our military has increasing moral authority in Iraq, but the same cannot be said for our government at home. In fact, it’s in moral deficit because many Iraqis are increasingly frightened we will abandon them to genocide. The Iraqis I speak with couldn’t care less what is said from Washington but large numbers of them pay close attention to what some Marine Gunny says, or what American battalion commanders all over Iraq say. Some of our commanders could probably run for local offices in Iraq, and win. To say there has been no political progress in Iraq in 2007 is patently absurd, completely wrong and dangerously dismissive of the significant changes and improvements happening all across Iraq. Whether or not Americans are seeing it on the nightly news or reading it in their local papers, Iraqis are actively writing their children’s history.
http://michaelyon-online.com/wp/three-marks-on-the-horizon.htm
VIA
http://www.instapundit.com/
August 13th, 2007 at 11:59 am
Hey Jules,
The Dem Cong already pushed strategy for lobbing bombs from over the horizon called “Pull and Strike”. It was crafted by fresh faced Iraq war veteran and Pensylvannia Freshman Rep.Patrick Murphy who voted to cut funding.
This article is by Jonathan Alter–an angry dem with no concept of counterinsurgency warfare or how lobbing bombs will create collateral damage on a much larger scale and all the unintended consequences it will bring.
“How Dems can exit Iraq”
War critics desperately need a new bumper sticker, a way to commit to withdrawal without looking like surrender monkeys.
By Jonathan Alter
“…History can help. In 1993 and 1994, President Clinton developed a policy called “lift and strike” in the Balkans—lift the arms embargo against Bosnia and strike Serbian positions to prevent ethnic cleansing. The approach was inconsistently applied, which hindered its effectiveness. But at least it was a policy.
Now, Democrats should embrace what I like to call “pull and strike”—pull forces from the streets of Baghdad, but strike hard at Qaeda positions in the Sunni areas and in Afghanistan, mostly from air bases outside Iraq. In other words, saying no to the folly of intervening in a civil war between Iraqi Sunnis and Shiites isn’t enough. Critics must also say yes—loudly—to calling in airstrikes on foreign fighters, who are increasingly being identified by friendly local sheiks determined to chase them out of their country.
The idea behind pull and strike isn’t new, but its predecessor catchphrase—”strategic redeployment”—lacked a certain muscular quality and never caught on. Whatever it’s called, the logic is clear. Pinpointing the whereabouts of Qaeda strongholds requires beefed-up intelligence, which has little to do with the large-scale presence of American ground forces. In fact, when we leave, and remove a major source of irritation, intelligence on the true terrorists will likely get better…”
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19263101/site/newsweek/
How is intelligence going to get better with no boots on the ground?
And again the “civil war” canard.
And how did our soldiers get the Sunni Sheiks to come over to our side? They won over the sheiks by giving four years of blood, sweat, and tears on the streets of their villages, walking the beat. Not by lobbing bombs from over the horizon. The Iraqis were watching to see who was the stronger and more trustworthy horse. Our soldiers proved they were by being there in person everyday, treating the Iraqi people with dignity. Cruise missiles can’t do that. Cruise missiles and smart bombs will relegate us back to a “paper tiger” status quickly. Its manpower matters in the twenty first century. Cruise missiles will have there place but not the way the dem cong think.
And we, the US, will surely get played by rival factions with bogus intel to drop bombs on one another creating all sorts of made for TV collateral damage. Schools, powered milk factories blown to bits all on al Jazeera. Weeping grandmothers holding babies on every TV in the Mideast because we were stationed in Kuwait.
August 13th, 2007 at 12:27 pm
The Doomicrats didn’t care what damage they did to the war effort with their posturing, but they are starting to realize how badly they’ve damaged themselves in the eyes of the voters. So now they’ll (reluctantly, grudgingly, and only partially) start to “support” the war effort. But in that case, I predict Iraq will completely disappear off the pages and newscasts of the MSM, just as Afghanistan did when it successfully drove out the Taliban. If the Taliban come back in strength (especially with Pakistani help), or Iraq collapses into total civil war, then we’ll start to see more reporting of the usual kind, but you can bet there won’t be any celebratory crowing about success.
August 13th, 2007 at 12:49 pm
[...] UPDATE: Jules Crittenden rips the NYT. [...]
August 13th, 2007 at 2:18 pm
The editors expose themselves for the ethical poseurs they are. They certainly are not altruists of any stripe, although they like to pose as such, nor can they be said to adhere to any kind of rational self-interest, neither their own nor the country’s. They seem more like unschooled children who flail around looking for some kind of out for themselves that will deflect all responsibility or blame. At least a child has the excuse of being a child.
August 13th, 2007 at 3:06 pm
Great link Cid,
This summer break should give the Iraqi parliament a chance to speak with their constituents. They should use the increased security to visit more areas they wouldn’t have in the past. Not spend the time having lavish dinner parties like Al-Jafari to plan Iranian subversion.
William Kristol just visited Iraq and had some similar things say about our soldiers:
“Now that Petraeus and Odierno are pursuing a real counterinsurgency strategy, their subordinate commanders and officers are spending a lot of time engaging the local population in security, political and economic efforts. It’s clear from the briefings by colonels and lieutenant colonels at various forward operating bases that they have internalized Petraeus’ counterinsurgency doctrine… ”
“The rule in Iraq is that brigade and battalion commanders–and even captains and lieutenants–are also taking on responsibilities as diplomats, politicians, development consultants, educators…”
“My traveling companions (military experts Fred Kagan and Kim Kagan) and I walked around the Haifa Street market in Baghdad with Colonel Bryan Roberts, commander of the 2nd Brigade Combat Team of the 1st Cavalry Division, and watched him coordinate reconstruction efforts and deftly manage the political-economic interactions with local shopkeepers and citizens. We accompanied Colonel John Charlton, commander of the 1st Brigade Combat Team of the 3rd Infantry Division, to a meeting with the mayor of Ramadi. In these and other instances, I witnessed sophisticated political-military leadership.
What does this imply? That the soldiers who have done well in Iraq will be major figures in American life for the next couple of decades. These men and women are no less suited to national leadership than are entrepreneurs, lawyers or local community leaders. In fact, they’ve had to show more courage, they’ve had to operate in a more fluid and volatile environment–and they’ve risked their lives for their country. Just as John F. Kennedy, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford and George H.W. Bush benefited from their experience as young officers in World War II–and from the high regard in which their experience was held–so the Iraq vets will have every chance to rise to the top of American public life.”
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1651505,00.html
August 13th, 2007 at 3:11 pm
“…History can help. In 1993 and 1994, President Clinton developed a policy called “lift and strike” in the Balkans—lift the arms embargo against Bosnia and strike Serbian positions to prevent ethnic cleansing. ”
LOL.
As soon as we pulled out and handed the dump over to the U.N., the Muslims began their own campaign of murder and intimidation (with Serbs being gunned down in the streets right in front of the eyesof the eyes blue helmet boys) and the Albanian jihadist version of “ethnic cleansing” has resulted in the destruction of the Serb population in Kosovo. The only Serbs left in Kosovo are living in armed compounds. Bang-up job there, Slick Willy. Way to help the muslim fanactics drive the Serbs out of Kosovo. Just what we needed.
Btw, it’s nice of the media to keep the whole Dem disaster in the FRY out of the public eye.
August 13th, 2007 at 3:43 pm
“The United States cannot walk away from the new international terrorist front it created in Iraq.”
why would we want to? It’s the perfect spot to kill and apture terrorists.
That’s one of the reasons we invaded in the first place.
August 13th, 2007 at 4:36 pm
Leftists and genocide are like peas in a pod.
August 13th, 2007 at 4:41 pm
The Right Way To Leave Iraq
First the writer shows an incredible ignorance of why the British left Basra to begin with. Lets look back to the statements made at the time, back in February of 2007.
August 13th, 2007 at 4:50 pm
The NYT is such a joke. I thought they wanted us to pull out of Iraq, the sooner the better. Now they say, hold your horses.
Maybe they should just shut up for awhile.
August 13th, 2007 at 5:51 pm
Yes, the NYT should keep quiet. Might as get advice on how to navigate the Mid East from Jimmy Carter.
For a good laugh read
“The Audacity of Shallowness
What would the Democrats do?”
by Reuel Marc Gerecht
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/013/977xoyri.asp?ZoomFont=YES
“Among certain Arab elites, there is considerable interest in how a Democratic administration would differ from the eight years of George W. Bush. It’s a good question. Most Democrats, at least those running for president or sitting in Congress, have spent more time attacking Bush than explaining what Democrats would do if they were making foreign policy. But the Middle East seriously wounded, if not disgraced, the last two Democratic presidents. The candidates’ reticence on the subject is understandable. Yet sooner or later, Hillary Clinton and company have to tell us what they think about Islam, Sunni Islamic extremism, al Qaeda, the religious dynamics of Iraq, clerical Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan, rendition (Bill Clinton, if we recall, established the practice), close intelligence liaison relationships with torture-fond foreign security services (again, President Clinton had no insurmountable problem with this), and the appropriateness of preemptive U.S. military strikes against terrorist targets…”
August 13th, 2007 at 6:32 pm
Foolish myths about al-Qaida in Mesopotamia.
By Christopher Hitchens
Snippet…
If I am right about this, an enormous prize is within our reach. We can not only deny the clones of Bin Ladenism a military victory in Iraq, we can also discredit them in the process and in the eyes (and with the help) of a Muslim people who have seen them up close. We can do this, moreover, in a keystone state of the Arab world that guards a chokepoint—the Gulf—in the global economy. As with the case of Afghanistan—where several provinces are currently on a knife-edge between an elected government that at least tries for schools and vaccinations, and the forces of uttermost darkness that seek to negate such things—the struggle will take all our nerve and all our intelligence. But who can argue that it is not the same battle in both cases, and who dares to say that it is not worth fighting?
http://www.slate.com/id/2172152/
via…..
http://www.instapundit.com/
August 13th, 2007 at 6:34 pm
Thank you 4Iraq
Another good one…as soon as Jules’s gerbils get off their breaks..:).
August 13th, 2007 at 6:35 pm
Should be soon, thought I heard the break whistle sound off. That or it was my pressure cooker.
August 13th, 2007 at 7:53 pm
[...] commentators of note: Jules Crittenden Don [...]
August 13th, 2007 at 9:29 pm
Thanks for Hitchens link.
Hitchens and Gerecht are triangulating on the glaring contradictions and holes in the dem cong’s logic with respect to terrorism. You won’t find two better minds anywhere.
For Obama and the rest of their field it’s all about a “clean pedigree”. OBL has a clean pedigree so they feel good about fighting him in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Iraq is the “dirty war”. Absurb.
From Gerecht:
“Al Qaeda in Central Asia and the subcontinent has, for the senator, a cleaner pedigree, traceable directly to Osama bin Laden. But what in the world do the circumstances of birth have to do with counterterrorism?”
August 14th, 2007 at 12:19 am
[...] many dare to say it, as the inimitable Jules Crittenden reports: Genocide-preferring NYT ed board, noting that Britain’s slow exit from Basra has left serious [...]
August 14th, 2007 at 3:05 am
If “Wrong Way Out” was writ by the same pen as “The Road Home,” they’ve got a freakin’ schizophrenic running the NYTimes asylum.
August 14th, 2007 at 3:22 am
I don’t know about schizophrenic, but the irrationality couldn’t run more rampant at Bedlam.