Iraq

2 Comments Posted on Iraq

there’s an interesting idea

interesting perspective by ralph peters on our treatment of terrorists. the overall idea is that we should kill them in battle instead of capturing them. it makes a lot of sense. excerpt here.

Violent Islamist extremists must be killed on the battlefield. Only in the rarest cases should they be taken prisoner. Few have serious intelligence value. And, once captured, there’s no way to dispose of them.Killing terrorists during a conflict isn’t barbaric or immoral – or even illegal. We’ve imposed rules upon ourselves that have no historical or judicial precedent. We haven’t been stymied by others, but by ourselves.

The oft-cited, seldom-read Geneva and Hague Conventions define legal combatants as those who visibly identify themselves by wearing uniforms or distinguishing insignia (the latter provision covers honorable partisans – but no badges or armbands, no protection). Those who wear civilian clothes to ambush soldiers or collect intelligence are assassins and spies – beyond the pale of law.

i’ve never understood the inclination to give terrorists the same rights as prisoners of war. the rules of engagement have changed. we can’t apply the same rules in this case. not only that, but as peters points out, the enemy we face does not fit the description of prisoners of war laid out in the geneva conventions. i’m not an expert in international law, but i do think that modification of this and similar treaties is necessary to deal with the current threat we are facing with terrorists and those affliated with terrorists.

i’m not suggesting that there should be no guidelines for terrorist treatment. there should be a clear idea of what is acceptable and what is not in interrogation of enemy combatants, terrorists, or legitimate prisoners of war. we just can’t get into this politically correct mentality where we don’t take the threat to our country and to other countries seriously. we are getting to the point where we are looking to international law to determine what the united states is allowed to do.

this bothers me. the increasing dependence on international law to determine the actions of the united states, a sovereign nation, is a disturbing trend. the responsibility of the united states government should first be to its citizens, and its primary duty is to ensure america’s safety and security. if the UN or the EU or any foreign body makes treaties or laws that threaten to take away our ability to defend our country from our enemies, the united states shouldn’t be obligated to sign on to any such treaties. i’m not sure what is so hard to accept about such a proposition.

we can set guidelines for interrogation, but we also must keep in mind the nature of the enemy the world faces today. we may need to modify existing treaties and our current laws to effectively deal with the terrorist threat. we just can’t allow those who are confirmed to be terrorists back into iraq and afghanistan to cause more chaos. it’s hard enough for us to win in those two countries as the situation stands right now.

Technorati Tags: , ,

6 Comments Posted on Editorials, Iraq

patriotism

yesterday was a great day. july 4th is worth celebrating. there’s something totally right with the way america celebrates independence day. we eat food that wouldn’t be the first choice of any legitimate medical professional, we recognize the outstanding job our military men and women have done and are doing now, and we shoot off big, noisy, pretty explosives. some of us are even lucky enough to watch some live baseball games. 🙂 what’s not to love about that? if you want to be cynical and adopt the predictable connection the left would make with the fireworks, and the explosives going off in iraq right now, go ahead. however, i believe that the left’s opposition to the way we celebrate july 4th is about more than just being against the war in iraq. it is about seeing patriotism as blind support of everything our country does and says. that’s not what patriotism means.

why is that it has suddenly become popular to oppose patriotism? is it such a crime to believe that the united states is the best country in which to live and that it is a country that gives its citizens the best opportunity for happiness and prosperity? is it so terrible to show respect to the men and women of our military, whether or not we agree with their mission? that’s what i would consider patriotism. we can have an overall positive view of the united states without whitewashing the flaws we do have as a country. there can be dissent. there’s nothing wrong with objecting to the policies of the bush administration on various subjects. many of us do. the problem is that what may have started out as honest, principled disagreement has turned into america-bashing.

here’s the difference between dissent and america-bashing. dissent says, “i disagree with this policy for reasons x, y, and z. here’s what we should do instead.” america-bashing is something that has now become chic for the elite enlightened leftists. the message generally expressed is less of a constructive criticism and it is primarily designed to make an emotional appeal to the conspiracy theorists.

here’s a good example of what i’m talking about, from our favorite pro-peace advocate, cindy sheehan.

The star-spangled banner, which I can now see whipping in the wind outside of an airport terminal where I am writing this from does not fill me with pride: it fills me with shame and that flag symbolizes sorrow and corruption to me right now. The flag represents so much lying, fixed elections, profiting by the war machine, high gas prices, spying on Americans, rapid erosion of our freedoms while BushCo literally gets away with murder, torture and extreme rendition, contaminating the world with depleted uranium, and illegal and immoral wars that are responsible for killing so many. A symbol which used to represent hope to so many around the world now fills so many with disgust.

i am probably going to catch a little flak for writing this, but I sincerely believe that there are some on the left who are rooting for america to fail in iraq. they keep bringing up vietnam as an example for how we should handle iraq. we lost in vietnam. do we really want to adopt a strategy based on a war that we lost? it’s one thing to say that we need to look at whether we have made enough progress in iraq at this point, or whether we need to re-adjust our strategy to deal with the current status on the ground. the goal should be to finish the job. the strategy should focus on the best way to do that.

you can disagree with the bush administration on iraq. you can be violently opposed to some other policy decisions he’s made. the freedom to speak out against any of these bush policies is a freedom that was bought and paid for with the lives of the united states military. that’s why we need to respect their sacrifice, regardless of our feelings about their current mission. we need to make sure they have the resources they require to finish the job in iraq. once that happens, both sides will get what they want – the troops will start coming home.

Technorati Tags: , ,

10 Comments Posted on Democrats, Iraq, Republicans

suggestions for republicans

iraq is not a black-and-white issue. that’s something i think both republicans and democrats should keep in mind in all of their election prep work, whether it’s for the november election this year or the presidential election in ’08. i’ll get to my suggestions for republicans in just a minute, but i want to address this first, because i think that the democrats may be misreading the mood of the american people on iraq.

there is a very comprehensive pew research poll here that has mixed results for the bush administration on the views of the american people on the iraq war. while the american people may disagree with bush’s handling of the war, a small majority of them generally believe that we should stay until iraq is stabilized. i realize that public opinion is split on whether we are winning in iraq or not, but i’m fairly certain that most of us would agree that we should win. that’s why even though bush’s iraq strategy isn’t terribly popular, the democrats’ calls for withdrawal from iraq are even less popular. the american people see those calls for withdrawal as some kind of admission of failure in iraq, and that’s something that most of us don’t want to accept.

i don’t believe that withdrawing troops at this point in the war is the best strategy. others may disagree. that’s fine. let’s have the debate, but let’s have an honest one.

keeping this in mind…i offer the following suggestions to my fellow republicans for november ’06:

  • don’t run from iraq. if you voted for the war, admit it. don’t waffle. point out some of the good things happening there, ie. elections, death of zarqawi, completion of new iraqi government. the thing to remember is that whether we agreed or disagreed with the war, the future of iraq is what we have to be concerned about now. we need to finish what we started there.
  • acknowledge mistakes but don’t dwell on them. the voters may forgive you for those mistakes or they may not. it will depend on (if you’re an incumbent) your overall record.
  • if you are in the senate and you voted against the senate immigration bill proposing amnesty to illegal immigrants, make sure to point this out. illegal immigration has become a huge issue, especially in border states. those who are concerned about this issue want to know that their representatives are taking this seriously and that they will put a higher priority on border security than on temporary worker programs.
  • any support of the house immigration bill should be emphasized as well. border security, not rewarding those who break the law, etc, are phrases that will resonate with people. if we really value the american worker, we should always give them the first opportunity to get any available job here in this country. we must hold employers accountable to only hire workers who are legally able to work in this country, and punish the ones who disobey the law.
  • know your audience. find out the important issues to the voters that you will be representing. be able to articulate why you believe what you believe, whether you have a sympathetic audience or not. focus on areas where you can agree with the view of that audience.
  • values, values, values. this is the main difference between republicans and democrats right now…not that democrats are all heathen hell-bound folks, because they are not. it’s fair to say, however, that on issues of concern to social conservatives and christians, they can find more common ground with us than with the democrats. i don’t think i have to spell out what those common values are.
  • always be positive about america, the state you want to represent, and the future of both. sell yourself as the best choice, not as the alternative to a bad choice. constant negativity is a turn-off to voters. we want to be positive and optimistic about where our country is going. give us that opportunity.

that’s my advice. if karl rove gives you different advice, then please listen to him instead. 🙂

1 Comment Posted on Democracy, Iraq

that’s a good question

what is more important to iraq and iraqis as they look toward their future: liberty or democracy? one doesn’t automatically equal the other. while it’s true that democracy is generally preferable to other systems of government, it may not produce desired results in other areas. it may not produce the free society that we all want for the iraqis. in his attempt to simplify the message, president bush has distorted it. you can have liberty without democracy, but you won’t always have both.

maybe we should shift our focus from one to the other. we have elections there, and that’s great, but without removing the restrictions on individual rights, will the iraqis notice much of a change? their new constitution suggests that there will be more freedoms for the iraqi people. we shall see how well that constitution is enforced.

Technorati Tags: , ,

2 Comments Posted on George W. Bush, Iraq, Tony Blair

unbelievable

Every day we hear of the death toll through the fomenting of civil strife, a campaign of murder and kidnapping and brutality, all of it designed to stifle Iraqi democracy at birth, and al-Zarqawi was its most vicious persecutor. The death of al-Zarqawi is a strike against Al Qaeda in Iraq, and therefore a strike against Al Qaeda everywhere. But we should have no illusions. We know that they will continue to kill, we know that there are many, many obstacles to overcome. But they also know that our determination to defeat them is total, their methods, their ideas, their extremism that seeks to infect the overwhelming desire of the overwhelming majority of people, whatever their religion and whatever their nation, to live together in peace and harmony.

So I do not minimise the enormous challenges that remain in Iraq and elsewhere, but the election of the new government and its full formation today shows a new spirit to succeed, and our task obviously is to turn that spirit, that willingness and desire to succeed into effective action. If we are able to do so then we will have accomplished something that goes far beyond the borders of Iraq.

—british prime minister tony blair —

zarqawi is dead. this is a very positive development in the war in iraq. iraq’s government is now complete with the appointment of the last three cabinet members. we can also rejoice in that positive step. we still have a long way to go in iraq, but these two developments are certainly something the american people can look at as positive news from iraq. while we are not quite ready for the “mission accomplished” sign, we still should acknowledge the positive when we see it.

others are not so convinced that zarqawi should be dead, however. this blew my mind when i heard the father of nicholas berg, the guy zarqawi beheaded, basically say that it shouldn’t have happened. it’s one thing to forgive the guy that killed your son, but zarqawi was a terrorist and he got what was coming to him.

this was an exhange between charlie gibson of abc and michael berg. (h/t- newsbusters)

Charlie Gibson: “I wonder as you watch this now happening in repetition, if there are feelings of a desire in you for revenge?”

Michael Berg: “I would like these people to be stopped, I would like them to be arrested, I would like them to receive justice. I would not want to see any of them killed and I don’t want revenge. I don’t want to personally attack those people.”

wow. zarqawi was not simply a murderer, he was also a terrorist. being arrested and receiving justice in a court of law is not an appropriate punishment for the many crimes zarqawi has committed against not only nick berg, but others as well. he did receive justice, and that kind of justice was exactly what zarqawi deserved.

iraq was about more than WMDs, although that was part of the case for the invasion of iraq. andy mccarthy makes the case here.

The American people vigorously support, and have always vigorously supported, the deployment of our military for the purpose of capturing and killing terrorists in promotion of American national security—taking the battle to enemy so we don’t need to fight them here. That is the Iraq mission we have always stood behind—more than finding Saddam’s WMD, a lot more than grand democracy-building initiatives, and a whole lot more than crafting new governments that establish Islam as the state religion.

Of course we must support the long-term goals of the democracy project. But we must be realistic that they are long-term goals. Democracy in the Islamic world is a matter of cultural upheaval over years, not just a few elections. Whether the project can ultimately succeed is debatable. One thing, however, is surely indisputable: Like the U.S. national security it is intended to promote, the democracy project cannot be sustained unless the enemy is first defeated.

It was not democracy that killed Zarqawi. It was the United States military.

We began the war on terror with the clear-eyed understanding that Islamic militants cannot be reasoned with; they have to be eradicated. Winning the war on terror will require the resolve to let our forces do their job—despite occasional vilification from fair-weather allies who bask in the protection of American power while shouldering none of its burdens.

Today reminds us that we have the power to get the job done. The remaining question is whether we have the will.

that’s a hard question to answer. when all that we see on the news about iraq seems to be bad news, it’s hard for anyone to believe that there is progress being made there. that doesn’t mean that nothing positive is happening there. the death of zarqawi and the completion of the new government are positive developments for iraq, but will this be enough to convince the american people that it’s worth completing the mission in iraq? i’m not sure that it is.

Technorati Tags: , ,

10 Comments Posted on Editorials, George W. Bush, Iraq

we were right to get rid of saddam (part 2)

(continued from part 1)

i have a question for my democratic friends who agree with me that we had to get rid of saddam. let’s say that the united states decided not to invade iraq, but that we still wanted to kick saddam out of power. how do you propose that we accomplish this goal? do we continue pushing the UN to keep an eye on saddam? do we make more threats? do we encourage the UN to pass more scary resolutions? WWJKD? (what would john kerry do? the world will thankfully never know.)

i have heard the argument that saddam was no more evil than dictators of other countries who treat their people worse than dogs, and that the united states doesn’t interfere militarily in all of those countries. i disagree with the first part, and acknowledge the second part. there are a few reasons why the united states doesn’t interfere militarily in every case of human rights violations or oppressive governments. for one thing, even though we have the best and most capable military in the world, there’s not enough of ’em to deal with all people struggling against their governments. saddam hussein’s iraq supported terrorism, which made it a top priority of previous and current presidential administrations. this made saddam a threat to the security of the middle east and also to the security of the united states. any links to al-qaeda are still to be conclusively proved in the minds of many. however, there are other groups associated with saddam that were involved in terrorist activity, as i’ve mentioned before.

for those who opposed the war in iraq from the beginning, and for those who oppose it now, that ship has sailed, ladies and gentlemen. what’s done is done. saddam is out of power. that’s a good thing. iraq is slowly progressing toward becoming a country friendly to democracy. the process is not as quick as we would all like to see, but there is no other alternative to seeing iraq through its current struggles.

ok…i’m ready now…bring on the violent disagreement. 🙂

Technorati Tags: , ,

Posted on Editorials, Iraq

we were right to get rid of saddam (part 1)

saddam is no longer ruler of iraq, and that’s a huge step in the right direction for the future of iraq. we did the right thing by getting rid of him. he was a threat to us and to neighboring countries. bush said that saddam had chemical and biological weapons because he did have them in the past, and it was reasonable to believe that he still had them. of course, with saddam not fully co-operating with the UN weapons inspectors, there’s no way to have concrete proof that the US and the UK and others got it wrong. all saddam had to do to stop the invasion, if no WMDs were present, was to allow full access for the weapons inspectors. two possibilities exist. either saddam had a death wish, or he had something he was hiding from us. do you really think saddam was stupid enough to risk invasion of iraq just so that his neighbors could still have the illusion that iraq was armed with WMD? i guess it’s possible. after all, saddam was never known for his great military strategy.

based on what we knew about saddam’s history, isn’t it logical to err on the side of caution? ask yourself what would have happened if bush was right and saddam used those WMD’s. imagine the political fallout from that decision to do nothing about saddam. dubya was screwed either way with this decision. either he lets a guy with a known history of being evil to his own people and starting wars with other countries keep on breaking the rules and potentially acquire WMD, or he uses military force to remove saddam as a threat. what a tough decision.

there are many good reasons why saddam had to be replaced. that’s what the president was arguing — that saddam was a threat who needed to be dealt with. his press people were not on message when they responded affirmatively to the questions about saddam being an “imminent threat”. that’s just a matter of semantics, i guess, because even though the President didn’t use those exact words, he did emphasize the urgency of dealing with saddam sooner rather than later.

i don’t want the US to be the world’s policemen. i don’t want the US to be constantly bailing out countries that should be handling their own business. in an ideal world, the UN would be handling these international affairs and enforcing its own regulations against rogue members. this world can never, and will never, exist. the UN has too many of its own internal problems to effectively handle the problems and concerns of its members. that’s why i’m not convinced that even if the UN is reformed, it will ever meet our expectations.

(to be continued–comments return after part 2 is posted)

Technorati Tags: , , ,

Posted on Iraq, Moonbats

unholy alliances and george galloway

“You may very well ask, why so many people wanted to come in here and watch and listen to two British guys debating in the United States of America about a war far away. I think the reason is this: our two countries are the biggest rogue states in the world today. And it is therefore vitally important that those who oppose the crimes of our governments, on both sides of the Atlantic, link hands, link arms, stand shoulder to shoulder, until we’ve rid the world of George W. Bush and Anthony Blair, once and for all…”

british MP george galloway–during a debate with fellow brit chris hitchens

my favorite moonbat george galloway (british MP, iraq war opponent, etc,etc) was voted out of the celebrity big brother house (UK edition). he has had a rough go of it recently. labour MP steve pound is quoted here as saying:

“He’s gone from imitating a cat to wearing a catsuit. Next he’ll be advertising cat food. I actually feel sorry for him because that’s the only future he’s got.

“When he returns to the House of Commons there is going to be such a chorus of ‘Meow’. He’ll have a saucer of milk waiting for him and a litter tray.”

heh. indeed. that’s a great quote, and it would definitely be must-see video if that actually happened in the house of commons. if only humiliation in front of many british citizens were his only problem. if you thought that the pictures of bush and abramoff were incriminating, at least our president has never been photographed with one of saddam’s evil sons. unfortunately for “gorgeous george”, the same cannot be said for him. there’s another unholy alliance just begging for space on this blog. michelle malkin’s got all the info in this post.

i wonder what galloway and the other iraq war critics would have to say if there was confirmation those WMDs were moved somewhere else before the invasion. more on that in a future post.

for more on galloway and his opposition to the iraq war:

(from this blog)
britain’s hard left vs. tony blair
george galloway is a loon…and other obvious truths
galloway is a loon…part II

other blogs:
Coleman, The Cat Who Laughed Last–captain’s quarters
Galloway Booted From Big Brother— video at the political teen

Posted on Democracy, Iraq

do we really want iraq to be like the united states?

think about that question.

while it’s true that the united states is an outstanding model, in most measures of the concept, for the way freedom and democracy should work, there are some areas where we don’t have all of the answers. this country is a relatively young one, compared to some of its neighbors in the world community. so it’s understandable if we haven’t exactly gotten the balance between an extreme authoritarian state like iran and the permissiveness of the netherlands quite right just yet. iran’s government has some major problems, one of which being that the head guy is a loon. i’m not excusing any of what iran’s dictators say or do in the interest of smacking down the slightest offense against sharia law. they are absolutely wrong about pretty much everything, and i really oppose them having nukes. don’t misunderstand what i’m going to say next.

we are generally a tolerant and permissive society of people here in america, sometimes to a fault. we are so concerned about offending other people that we make extreme concessions to the smallest group with a nervous tic about anything. there are so many gray areas in what’s permissible that this gray has become the new black.

in fact, we tolerate too much in this country. is it something to be proud of that two of our main exports in the culture arena include raw hip-hop and britney spears? americans have also been the creators of trash tv and tv shows that ask “who’s the father of this baby?”. there are many things about our culture that we shouldn’t export to other countries. many of our current tv shows fall into this category, especially the reality tv on mtv and vh1.

we should also keep female pop star-inspired fashions confined to this country, and not inflict that indecency on the good citizens of iraq. modesty has gotten a bad rap because of the extreme interpretation of what that means under islamic law. there’s something to be said for leaving something to the imagination. that doesn’t mean that i think women should be covered head to toe. i just don’t think that copying the style of britney, christina, gwen stefani, or lil’ kim will get them the respect and advancement they are looking for in society.

the iraqis will benefit from the adoption of a more democratic government in their country. women and minorities will benefit from the change as well. their version of a democratic society may differ somewhat from the american version, and that’s ok. even though we have a pretty good handle on democracy here in america, that doesn’t mean we have all the right answers on everything else.

Posted on Democrats, George W. Bush, Iraq

bush to dems: get used to disappointment

here’s some of the highlights of the president’s iraq speech sunday night. read the whole thing at nro.

This work has been especially difficult in Iraq — more difficult than we expected. Reconstruction efforts and the training of Iraqi Security Forces started more slowly than we hoped. We continue to see violence and suffering, caused by an enemy that is determined and brutal — unconstrained by conscience or the rules of war.

our enemies don’t have any interest in following international law when dealing with their captives. their cruelty to those they have captured doesn’t show the restraint the geneva convention requires, and yet there’s no outrage. why? this doesn’t mean that the united states should abuse prisoners, and those who have have been disciplined for it. i just see a double standard here. if you’re going to criticize abuse, don’t leave out the terrorists and insurgents in that criticism.

Some look at the challenges in Iraq, and conclude that the war is lost, and not worth another dime or another day. I don’t believe that. Our military commanders do not believe that. Our troops in the field, who bear the burden and make the sacrifice, do not believe that America has lost. And not even the terrorists believe it. We know from their own communications that they feel a tightening noose — and fear the rise of a democratic Iraq.

john murtha said that the war couldn’t be won militarily. the president disagrees. our military men and women also disagree. more importantly than that…the terrorists also have shown signs that they share the president’s view of our progress in iraq.

The terrorists will continue to have the coward’s power to plant roadside bombs and recruit suicide bombers. And you will continue to see the grim results on the evening news. This proves that the war is difficult — it does not mean that we are losing. Behind the images of chaos that terrorists create for the cameras, we are making steady gains with a clear objective in view.

and…

In all three aspects of our strategy — security, democracy, and reconstruction — we have learned from our experiences, and fixed what has not worked. We will continue to listen to honest criticism, and make every change that will help us complete the mission. Yet there is a difference between honest critics who recognize what is wrong, and defeatists who refuse to see that anything is right.

the president acknowledges that mistakes were made in iraq and that changes have been made to address what has gone wrong there. will his critics give him credit for this admission (that they never expected him to make)? i doubt it. he is right when he says that there is a difference between honest criticism and “defeatism”. mistakes were made. that doesn’t mean that iraq is a quagmire, or unwinnable on a military basis, as some are saying.

Defeatism may have its partisan uses, but it is not justified by the facts. For every scene of destruction in Iraq, there are more scenes of rebuilding and hope. For every life lost, there are countless more lives reclaimed. And for every terrorist working to stop freedom in Iraq, there are many more Iraqis and Americans working to defeat them. My fellow citizens: Not only can we win the war in Iraq — we are winning the war in Iraq.

It is also important for every American to understand the consequences of pulling out of Iraq before our work is done. We would abandon our Iraqi friends — and signal to the world that America cannot be trusted to keep its word. We would undermine the morale of our troops — by betraying the cause for which they have sacrificed. We would cause tyrants in the Middle East to laugh at our failed resolve, and tighten their repressive grip. We would hand Iraq over to enemies who have pledged to attack us — and the global terrorist movement would be emboldened and more dangerous than ever before. To retreat before victory would be an act of recklessness and dishonor … and I will not allow it.

there’s your case right there. i believe that it’s convincing. you may not.

the president addresses the anti-war crowd.

I also want to speak to those of you who did not support my decision to send troops to Iraq: I have heard your disagreement, and I know how deeply it is felt. Yet now there are only two options before our country — victory or defeat. And the need for victory is larger than any president or political party, because the security of our people is in the balance. I do not expect you to support everything I do, but tonight I have a request: Do not give in to despair, and do not give up on this fight for freedom.

Americans can expect some things of me as well. My most solemn responsibility is to protect our Nation, and that requires me to make some tough decisions. I see the consequences of those decisions when I meet wounded servicemen and women who cannot leave their hospital beds, but summon the strength to look me in the eye and say they would do it all over again. I see the consequences when I talk to parents who miss a child so much — but tell me he loved being a soldier … he believed in his mission … and Mr. President, finish the job.

I know that some of my decisions have led to terrible loss — and not one of those decisions has been taken lightly. I know this war is controversial — yet being your President requires doing what I believe is right and accepting the consequences. And I have never been more certain that America’s actions in Iraq are essential to the security of our citizens, and will lay the foundation of peace for our children and grandchildren.

this speech was not memorable for its rhetoric…it was memorable for its tone. this is the kind of speech we should have been hearing from the president frequently during this time of war. while it may be true that the authorization of military action originates in D.C., it is the american people whose support will determine the success or failure of any war effort. i am glad that the president is making the effort to get their support.

related:

THE BUSH SPEECH: NO CUT AND RUN–michelle malkin
Reaction to President Bush’s Speech–sfgate.com
Sunnis say they want to work with US–pajamas media