White_Male_Canada
01-25-2007, 07:54 AM
BULLSEYE 8)
A Tangled Webb
INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY
Posted 1/24/2007
State Of The Union: Amid signs the "surge" is already working, President Bush embraces Ronald Reagan's strategy for winning the Cold War. Meantime, Democrats embrace Neville Chamberlain in their response.
When asked what his strategy was for dealing with the Soviet Union, Reagan said it was simple: "We win. They lose." President Bush, noting in his State of the Union address that "the consequences of failure would be grievous and far-reaching," presented a similar plan for Iraq with "the goal of victory."
"Victory" isn't a word you find in the Democratic lexicon these days, and it wasn't in the Democratic response by freshman Sen. James Webb of Virginia. It wasn't on his lips when he cited President Eisenhower speaking of the stalemate in Korea: "When comes the end?" Webb opined that Eisenhower took "the right kind of action" by "ending" the Korean War.
But if Korea ended with a successful peace, why do we still have tens of thousands of troops there, and more based in Japan, and on Okinawa? Does Webb suggest we withdraw from Japan and South Korea until these countries "step up" and defend themselves?
Think about that Korean analogy for a moment. Gen. Douglas MacArthur advised that there was no substitute for victory. But we settled for less, and now face a North Korea that has starved millions of its people to develop nuclear weapons and the missiles to deliver them. Pyongyang is now working closely with Iran as Tehran develops the means to nuke Israel.
For the Democrats, it's about ending the war in Iraq, not winning it. Webb didn't mention Somalia, where the withdrawal of U.S. forces by Hillary Clinton's husband had "grievous and far-reaching consequences." Osama bin Laden saw it as a confirmation of American weakness as he planned 9/11. How would abandoning Iraq be perceived?
When Webb spoke of "the lost opportunities to defeat the forces of international terrorism," was he thinking of Somalia? Was he thinking of the missed attempts to kill or capture bin Laden in the Clinton years, or our failed responses to the attacks on our African embassies, Khobar Towers or the USS Cole?
Interestingly, the "surge" plan that Bush proposes and Democrats condemn as "escalation" seems to be working. A military intelligence officer has confirmed a report that, in preparation for reinforcements, al-Qaida in Iraq is, uh, redeploying its forces.
The Iraqi paper al-Sabah reports that Abu Ayyub al-Masri, who replaced Abu Musab al-Zarqawi when we achieved a victory in the war on terror by killing him, has ordered his forces to withdraw to Diyala province, north and east of Baghdad, with the order saying that to remain in Baghdad would be a no-win situation.
( http://www.hungangels.com/board/viewtopic.php?t=14461 )
Last Friday, Muqtada al-Sadr, whose Iranian-subsidized militia, the Mahdi army, has been an instigator of violence and an impediment to stability, ordered the 30 lawmakers and six cabinet ministers he controls to end their boycott of the government.
As correspondent Jack Kelly reports on RealClearPolitics.com, Mahdi army militiamen have stopped wearing their black uniforms, hidden their weapons and abandoned their checkpoints.
Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has dropped his protection of the Mahdi army, consenting to the recent arrest of Abdul Hadi al-Durraji, al-Sadr's media director. Some 400 of al-Sadr's supporters have been arrested in recent days.
Tactics change in the middle of wars. Just ask Abraham Lincoln. There are surprises and things that don't go as planned. Ask Ike after the Battle of the Bulge. Patton didn't ask, "When does this end?" All we and President Bush are asking is give victory a chance.
http://www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp?secid=1501&status=article&id=254535734285940
A Tangled Webb
INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY
Posted 1/24/2007
State Of The Union: Amid signs the "surge" is already working, President Bush embraces Ronald Reagan's strategy for winning the Cold War. Meantime, Democrats embrace Neville Chamberlain in their response.
When asked what his strategy was for dealing with the Soviet Union, Reagan said it was simple: "We win. They lose." President Bush, noting in his State of the Union address that "the consequences of failure would be grievous and far-reaching," presented a similar plan for Iraq with "the goal of victory."
"Victory" isn't a word you find in the Democratic lexicon these days, and it wasn't in the Democratic response by freshman Sen. James Webb of Virginia. It wasn't on his lips when he cited President Eisenhower speaking of the stalemate in Korea: "When comes the end?" Webb opined that Eisenhower took "the right kind of action" by "ending" the Korean War.
But if Korea ended with a successful peace, why do we still have tens of thousands of troops there, and more based in Japan, and on Okinawa? Does Webb suggest we withdraw from Japan and South Korea until these countries "step up" and defend themselves?
Think about that Korean analogy for a moment. Gen. Douglas MacArthur advised that there was no substitute for victory. But we settled for less, and now face a North Korea that has starved millions of its people to develop nuclear weapons and the missiles to deliver them. Pyongyang is now working closely with Iran as Tehran develops the means to nuke Israel.
For the Democrats, it's about ending the war in Iraq, not winning it. Webb didn't mention Somalia, where the withdrawal of U.S. forces by Hillary Clinton's husband had "grievous and far-reaching consequences." Osama bin Laden saw it as a confirmation of American weakness as he planned 9/11. How would abandoning Iraq be perceived?
When Webb spoke of "the lost opportunities to defeat the forces of international terrorism," was he thinking of Somalia? Was he thinking of the missed attempts to kill or capture bin Laden in the Clinton years, or our failed responses to the attacks on our African embassies, Khobar Towers or the USS Cole?
Interestingly, the "surge" plan that Bush proposes and Democrats condemn as "escalation" seems to be working. A military intelligence officer has confirmed a report that, in preparation for reinforcements, al-Qaida in Iraq is, uh, redeploying its forces.
The Iraqi paper al-Sabah reports that Abu Ayyub al-Masri, who replaced Abu Musab al-Zarqawi when we achieved a victory in the war on terror by killing him, has ordered his forces to withdraw to Diyala province, north and east of Baghdad, with the order saying that to remain in Baghdad would be a no-win situation.
( http://www.hungangels.com/board/viewtopic.php?t=14461 )
Last Friday, Muqtada al-Sadr, whose Iranian-subsidized militia, the Mahdi army, has been an instigator of violence and an impediment to stability, ordered the 30 lawmakers and six cabinet ministers he controls to end their boycott of the government.
As correspondent Jack Kelly reports on RealClearPolitics.com, Mahdi army militiamen have stopped wearing their black uniforms, hidden their weapons and abandoned their checkpoints.
Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has dropped his protection of the Mahdi army, consenting to the recent arrest of Abdul Hadi al-Durraji, al-Sadr's media director. Some 400 of al-Sadr's supporters have been arrested in recent days.
Tactics change in the middle of wars. Just ask Abraham Lincoln. There are surprises and things that don't go as planned. Ask Ike after the Battle of the Bulge. Patton didn't ask, "When does this end?" All we and President Bush are asking is give victory a chance.
http://www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp?secid=1501&status=article&id=254535734285940