The Logic Lifeline

A logical approach to sorting out world events. Where logic, opinion and speculation are combined to produce a reasoned, but entertaining reading experience. The unofficial hometown conservative blog of Woodridge, Il

Saturday, November 12, 2005

Best sign yet things are going well in Iraq

I have commented on this blog and elsewhere many times that the world must bear much of the responsibility for the extension of the insurgency in Iraq. Because UN leadership including Annan and much of the security council had so much invested in opposing action in Iraq, they felt after the fact that their purpose was an "I told you so approach". Certainly the WMD find being limited and below the expectation of stockpiles allowed them to be quite smug as the insurgency developed and challenged the coalition forces. Knowing that there were documented stockpiles of WMD and knowing that Saddam refused to provide proof of complete destruction of said stockpiles did nothing to wipe the smirk off their face while pockets of both coalition forces and Iraqi citizens died day by day. The attitude was thick as liquid from the UN and world body that the US had "made their bed and now they must sleep in it".

After the fall of Iraqi forces and the capture of Saddam Hussein, the UN and world body had an opportunity to step in. With the caveat that they disagreed with the US invasion, they could have claimed the world needed to come together to support the people of Iraq in their quest to become a free people and to create free elections. When the insurgency was created, instead of joining the mindless chanting of "the occupiers brought this on" they should have denounced them as the thugs and terrorists, greedy for power and control, that they are.

The blood of innocent Iraqi citizens and coalition forces is on the heads of those who instead chose to give aid and comfort to terrorists for the sake of political gain. Those in this country who saw a chance to score big points against George W. Bush share in that guilt. With critics across the globe and in our own country, Bush was left to "stay the course" alone.

Now we have had two successful elections and the stage is set for a triple crown. We have just completed a successful joint military effort with trained Iraqis in rooting out a nest of insurgents in a town bordering Syria, and it seems now is the time for Kofi Annan to jump in and try to take credit for the final lap. The linked story shows Annan is preparing for a trip to Iraq to appeal for reconciliation. In a move resembling the antics of Jesse Jackson, Annan seems to sense the time is ripe to move in, demand an end and take the credit when it happens.

Well, the goal is success in Iraq. If Annan is the last Kofi bean to tip the scales, I will be happy. The bottom line is that the most important point in Iraq is that our troops come away with a successful victory instead of what happened in Vietnam. There with great sacrifice they fought to save those people from communism and stop its spread, only to be pulled back and watch them get slaughtered. A victory in Iraq will be a powerful message to the entire world, but so would a retreat. Which message do you want to send?

7 Comments:

  • At 9:25 AM, Blogger jayeye said…

    Looking through your posts I came across this one. Since no one really reads these things except people like you and me, I figured I would give you another comment.

    I served in Viet Nam. It does not seem as though you are old enough to remember Viet Nam judging by your various comments so let me at least give you a perspective from someone who experienced that war.

    They were saying the same thing about Viet Nam. We are there so we have to stay and "win". Sorry pal but it was not a war to be won. It was a political stand against Russia and China. Russia mainly but we did find Chinese weapons and radio equipment being used as well.

    When we interrogated the North Vietnamese army regulars they had Russian watches, Russian weapons, and etc. Some of the radio equipment was Chinese. We never found any Russian personnel involved in the fighting though. They stayed up near Hanoi.

    Anway, because of the nature of the war we could never say we "won" the war. Once we realized that fact, our armed efforst had to pull out as best we could. Once we pulled back from the north, their army poured in and headed south. That is why we had to get out post haste at the "end".

    They were insurgents. The Viet Cong were insurgents that could never be defeated because they simply "disappeared" into the population. They could be right next to you, talking and joking around, and you never knew they were the enemy. They could strike at you and then disappear again.

    An impossible enemy to defeat.

    The same thing is evident in Iraq. You have no idea who your enemy is. They strike and then disappear back into the population.
    We will never be able to claim "victory" unless we do it like we did in Viet Nam. And if you listen to the rhetoric of the politicals again now, you will hear something like we heard in Viet Nam. Maybe we can get out just by training their personnel and trying to stand up their army so we can leave. No victory, just leaving...

    We never won the Viet Nam war but isn't it curious that Viet Nam is now our "most favorite status" trading partner and we can travel freely to that country. We did not have to lose over 56k citizens in that war after all. We could have allowed the north to take over the south and they would have become trading partners anyway. So what was the reason for that war? And what is the reason for this one as well? It is not what they are telling you. Get used to that fact.

    Jayeye

     
  • At 1:24 PM, Blogger All_I_Can_Stands said…

    Jayeye,

    Thanks for both your service in Vietnam and your perspective. You are right, I was young during the Vietnam years and am at the mercy of historians. I have heard many perspectives from historians and from those who served. I won't criticize your perspective on this.

    I will disagree to the point that because of the relations with Vietnam today, we did not need to fight it then. We never get to see how things turn out on the other path from what we choose. If we did not challenge communism in Korea or in Vietnam at all, it may be the expansion would have been worst. Even though we came home from Vietnam without a victory, we may have delayed or weakened the expansion enough to have a good result today.

    Though there are differences, we could question what would have happened if nobody resisted Germany in WWII? We can't know that. We can only speculate with the best information possible.

     
  • At 11:35 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    56,000 dead American soldiers and countless damaged Vietnam vets wandering our streets is a great result. Thanks for reminding me. Let's cut some more funding for the VA tomorrow. Hey look, Bush has proposed $910 million in cuts to the VA in his 2006 budget. Now that's a president who really appreciates and honors our veterans.

    2070 and counting. Almost 16,000 wounded.

    Why haven't you signed up?

     
  • At 6:33 PM, Blogger All_I_Can_Stands said…

    Anon said
    "We never won the Viet Nam war but isn't it curious that Viet Nam is now our "most favorite status" trading partner and we can travel freely to that country. We did not have to lose over 56k citizens in that war after all. We could have allowed the north to take over the south and they would have become trading partners anyway. So what was the reason for that war?"

    AICS responded with
    Even though we came home from Vietnam without a victory, we may have delayed or weakened the expansion enough to have a good result today.

    Anon then forgetting what he first said responded with
    56,000 dead American soldiers and countless damaged Vietnam vets wandering our streets is a great result.

    summary
    Either anon forgot he spoke of a good result in Vietnam first, then accused me of claiming a good result. OR anon wanted to score a cheap point, hoping nobody would catch it.

    Nice try.

     
  • At 1:42 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    AICS, you must need to get some sleep or something. Anon didn't make the first post you are attributing about Vietnam. That post was by jayeye.

    Yep, somebody caught it.

    Nice try.

    Awww, I can't be that mean when it was just an honest sloppy mistake, right?

    But it certainly did pull us off the $910 million in Bush's cuts to the VA for a second, didn't it?

     
  • At 6:39 AM, Blogger All_I_Can_Stands said…

    ok, it was a sloppy mistake. My apologies. However, since you referenced the 910 million in the other post I inquired about it there. Perhaps you can respond to that one.

     
  • At 12:41 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    So our loyal readers can follow, this is what I posted in response to the $910 million question on the other topic about Bush supporting the troops.

    If you had bothered to follow the link I provided, you would find that the information was coming from numerous sources such as the Army Times, Washington Post, The Hill, Associated Press, OMB, VA, etc.

    To answer number 1, they are all very reliable sources. Not blogs. Not Newsmax or Drudge.

    As for number 2, the budget always comes from the White House first, then is put through Congress. To stay on point, your point is that Bush honors troops. His initial budget offering is a reflection of his values. Do you disagree? Are you going to try to give him a pass on that?

    Next, you need to bear in mind that the budget does not exist in a vacuum. It exists in relation to inflation and many changing variables. As regards the VA, these variables can and will shift radically when you have 150,000+ troops engaged in active combat. This gets to your third question. Realize that part of the 2006 funding supposedly being given to the VA is in the form of mandatory payments and prescription charges paid by the very vets who need help. That is unconsciounable. Bush's initial budget was extremely callous. It will no doubt change as it continues heading through Congress, and has already been rebuked by Congress, but what this post is about is how Bush actually does not honor veterans or the troops he has sent to war judging by his actions. Words are cheap and often empty from him and his staff. How else do you respond to this administration sending them to fight without adequate armor despite the fact they could have had it all along?

    Still, have some more to wade through.
    First and foremost, the Veterans of Foreign Wars
    More Washington Post
    The SF Gate
    Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
    Medical News Today
    Senator Conrad, ND
    AFSCME

    I expect you to criticize any and every news source that provides info you don't like as being untrustworthy. You've done it many times on your blog. I expect you to nitpick at budgetary minutae to try to defend Bush, which will always be baffling to me. The man avoided active duty in VN, miraculously jumping over people in line ahead of him for the Guard post. Then he goes on to criticize actual real VN vets like John McCain and John Kerry who were there serving their country. His RNC gives out purple bandaids at the 2004 convention in open mockery of wounded vets of every war. Instead of minimizing tax cuts for the wealthy, he proposes cutting imminent danger pay and benefits for veterans. It was also really inappropriate for him to make such a politicized speech on Veterans Day. Instead of making the day about them, he made it about trying to defend himself, and sent Cheney to go do what every president in modern history has always done. Go to Arlington and show some grace and gratitude.

     

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home