Iraq Study: Some Good, Some Bad Ideas

The Iraq Study Group has done it's job and has released it's recommendations. It will obviously take some time to read it all. However, some of the ideas which have been brought out via the media are good ideas, while others are very, very bad ideas! The worst being the suggestion to "talk" with Iran and Syria about Iraq!

Establishing timetables for withdrawal isn't a good idea, either. President Bush has mentioned that fact many times. However, it sounds like a good idea to get the Iraqi government moving faster and have the Iraqi soldiers do most of the work in the combat areas. Training needs to be stepped up. But realizing that new Iraqi officers needed to be trained explains why this particular portion of the mission has taken so long.

What is good to hear is the fact that President Bush has been correct all along. A rapid exit from Iraq (a failed "strategy" that would be encouraged by the likes of Pelosi, Murtha, Schumer, etc.) IS A VERY BAD IDEA AND WAS ENTIRELY REJECTED BY THE STUDY GROUP!

In her latest article, Ann Coulter had the best analogy:

The "bipartisan" Iraq panel has recommended that Iran and Syria can help stabilize Iraq. You know, the way Germany and Russia helped stabilize Poland in '39.*

[*Note: See comment below that explains the historical significance of this statement.]

In her commentary, Ann discusses how in a broadcast on the fifth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, NBC's Matt Lauer pestered President Bush by aggressively questioning him about the possible use of "waterboarding" against terrorists like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks.

You need to read the entire article, but these excerpts give you an idea of how ridiculous the left's constant harping on revealing any terrorist interrogation techniques really is:

President Bush refused to discuss techniques used on terrorists, saying, "We don't want the enemy to adjust." But Americans "need to know," he said, "we're using techniques within the law to protect them."

While normal people would be happy if we were using cattle prods on the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, Lauer was testy about the possible use of waterboarding against him. "I don't want to let this 'within the law' issue slip," he said.

"I mean, if, in fact, there was waterboarding used with Khalid Sheikh Mohammed -- and for the viewers, that's basically you strap someone to a board, and you make them feel as if they're going to drown. You put them under water. If that was legal and within the law, why couldn't you do it at Guantanamo? Why'd you have to go to a secret location around the world?"

In point of fact, we strap people to wooden boards and make them feel like they're drowning all the time in this country. Mostly at theme parks like Six Flags.

[Log flume ride? Wheee! Heat the water, though!]

Bush again said he wasn't going to talk about techniques. But Lauer's relentless grilling was getting to him. If he'd been at Gitmo, at this point Bush would have demanded a lawyer, another copy of the Quran and a couple of chocolate eclairs.

Lauer continued to pester the president, demanding to know whether these "alternative techniques you use ... if they are used, are you at all concerned that at some point, even if you get results, there's a blurring the lines of -- between ourselves and the people we're trying to protect us against?"

Hey, I forget: When did Khalid Sheikh Mohammed use aggressive interrogation techniques against a known mass murderer in an effort to thwart another 9/11-style attack on thousands of innocent civilians?

There are few better examples of how out of touch liberals are. They go right to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and expect Americans to be outraged that he may have been waterboarded.

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was the principal architect of the 9/11 attacks and is believed to have played a role in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, the Bali nightclub bombings, the filmed beheading of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl, a thwarted 2002 attack on a bank tower in Los Angeles, and Operation Bojinka, a plot to blow up 11 commercial airliners simultaneously. Oh, and he took home the coveted "world's craziest terrorist" prize at al-Qaida's end-of-season office party last year.

I think waterboarding should be a reward for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed: OK, you've been good, Mohammed, we're only going to waterboard you today. Let's get you out of those cold electrodes and onto a nice, warm waterboard, OK?

Now that they're our new best friends, how about we turn to Iran and Syria for help on our interrogation techniques?

There are 127 comments about the article. Here are a few really good ones:

Marc of CA writes: Thursday, December, 07, 2006 12:00 AM
Fools in Charge
Today it was confirmed that the Iraq Study or Survey Group tells us, and the World, we need to 'engage' Iran about Iraq security.

How stupid can we get? My goodness these people are idiots!

Now Iran can boast that the US cannot control the violence in Iraq, we will not support Iraq until they gain strength and most deadly; Iran must come to the rescue! Iran is more powerful and wise than America! The Infidel is Inferior! Allah Is Great!!

IRAN MUST SAVE US?

IRAN WANTS TO KILL US!

What planet are we on here?

Bush made mistakes in Iraq, (not that he was elected to be the great war hero in the first place), but he is correct in the main focus; getting an indepentent government in the middle of the Middle East who does not hate democracy, in particular, the U.S..

And again I bring up the point that the revenue from the Iraq oil fields could finance terrorism for a lifetime and can certainly afford to buy Nukes.

If we abondon Iraq we should fulfill the wacky claims of the Leftists that we did this for the oil. Control the oil fields and sales and give the money back to the Iraqi people for whatever they want, except WMD's.

*******

badbassplayer writes: Thursday, December, 07, 2006 1:54 AM
Surrender This!
It is nothing less than criminal that the dems are advocating our surrender and defeat to a third world country the size of California. Apparently they have everyone convinced that we can't defeat some pissant little sewer in the desert.

Is that how far that they have gone destroying our military, national security, patriotism, and most of all, our pride in being a strong and free country? Obviously dem control of education has left a generation with no knowledge of history.

Treasonous is too kind of a description for this behaivior.

Maybe we should send a big dem delegation over to Iran on a Friday afternoon to try to negotiate with these savages that they support and wish to surrender to..

*******

jerubaal writes: Thursday, December, 07, 2006 5:37 AM
Not That You ALL Didn't Know This
*But in 1939, Hitler and Stalin signed a secret agreement called the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. It defined the spheres of territory that Germany and the USSR would own after a succesful Third Reich conquest of Poland, and it included a bit more than just Poland, namely, the Balkan states. All non-German inhabitants in the German area were expelled to the Soviets.

*******

MacZed writes: Thursday, December, 07, 2006 5:43 AM
Bipartisan
Means sacrificing your moral ideals for the sake of a moddled mediocrity and failure that we can hold as a new moral imperative in the Politically Correct Media Kaleidescope of insanity.

We will call this muddled mediocrity "The Public Opinion"

And we will hold our Presidents and Politicians to these Gray goals of irrationality developed with zero education and even less intel on reality of world affairs.

When we decide to cop out to Death...this Civilization makes the Roman Civilization look like survivors extraordinaire.

Note, this Bipartisan Commission is just a study group...nothing more - the President is a Lame Duck now - he will not give a rat's testes for the opinions...why should he? They are absurd...

Talk to Syria? Right, sure. To what, sellout Israel by trading The Golan Heights and Jerusalem for a year of Peace? Dust off the Nobel and wait for the Atomic Fallout over Damascus and Tehran...that is, don't hold your breath.

Talk to Iran? To what, figure out how far over the couch we need to metaphorically bend to take the Islamic Phallus of Oil Raping for a decade? Are we just hoping for $5 per gallon gas?

Are we hoping for a 3,000 point drop in the stock market in a one month span of time?

These men of this bipartisan commission are the most deluded dolts of archaic history ever to be dug up since Jimmy Carter was somehow unmuzzled at the beginning of the Hezbollah conflict this summer to tag team Bush with Colin Powell and the McCain Warner betrayal...quick, someone Muzzle that crazy sob.

The Soros Gambit to end the War on Terror is rapidly being realized...

Phase 1) Destroy the Moral Highground of the United States, the most philanthropic, freedom fighting country in the history of the Planet...

Phase 2) Deprive America of a Wartime Leader. Bye Rummy...Hello Gates...

Get ready for the Impeachment of Cheney - it can't miss...Pelosi will be VP by Default by November Elections of 2008 mark my words.

We are now officially in the Downward Spiral of Fascism's venemous pull.

[Whew! That was scary!]

*******

jerubaal writes: Thursday, December, 07, 2006 5:44 AM
Francis
"Bravo, Ann. Not only are we at war; we're at war with a fundamentally cowardly enemy that has disavowed the rules of war between civilized states."

And that's just the DEMOCRATS! Wait till you see the terrorists we have to fight!

[Well...not ALL Democrats! We still have some patriots like Joe Lieberman around...]

*******

moses writes: Thursday, December, 07, 2006 7:20 AM
syria and iran are enemies not friends
doesn't anyone see that syria and iran are enemies and not friends of either democracy or the US. engaging them is like saying " let's just hold hands and sing kumbaya and we'll all feel better and be friends." sorry not everything is like a Disney movie. this is just sheer stupidity.
let's face it. it appears that the only way that the Left will be happy with war is if no one gets hurt, including feelings. can't have anyone have their feelings hurt or lose their self esteem.
if we want to win, we need to focus on those that are out to kill us, iran and syria. we need to stop the rearming of the insurgents from these countries.
it appears that the new congress and the ISG are willing to surrender now so that the situation gets worse (iran gets nuclear weapons and takes out israel) so that we have real casualties in our military. the democrats never liked the military anyway. best way to exterminate them is in a nuclear conflict with iran. oh and of course a democrat would not retaliate in kind with nukes. that would be lowering ourselves to their level. if we did that, (gasp) we would actually win a war. we can't have that.

[The nuke idea might be going a bit too far...but if Iran succeeds in completing enrichment and we just "let it happen," it might be necessary some day...but I hope not.]

*******

Mr. Right writes: Thursday, December, 07, 2006 7:55 AM
The libs scare me
Allen, Kimberly, Red Tooth, hosekuervo and others scare the crap out of me. What we have in the Middle East is a group of radicals whose only goal is to destroy Western Civilization. You cannot negotiate with them, you cannot reason with them. You can only destroy them. Which negotiating tool would be effective with an enemy for whom death is a promotion? The only thing this enemy understands is total humiliation and destruction. That is required to get their attention and only after that can you begin to talk to the survivors. Democracy will work in the Middle East but only if coupled with Free Market Capitalism.

In the meantime, in this country we have libs whose only enemy seems to be Bush and the conservatives. Apparently someone telling you that abortion is murder while allowing clinics to perform abortions under the auspices of the Supreme Court is more dangerous than someone slitting your throat for not having your wife and daughter shrouded in a burka. The lack of rational thought scares me. The lack of focus on who the enemy is and what constitutes a real threat to our country and way of life is terrifying. Yes, our troops are in harm's way and it is terrible that any of these fine young men and women are lost in any war. But we have trained them and equipped them to kill people and destroy evil and then sit back here in the safety of our coffee shops and wonder if they haven't committed a war crime by being too harsh when we don't have a clue what they are facing. We do need to change course in Iraq. We need to commit every troop over there to a search and destroy mission to clean out every terrorist cell. Their destruction needs to be complete and humiliating so that little tinpot dictators in Syria and Iran and Hezbollah understand the result of trying to destroy freedom and freedom-loving people. We need to unleash Israel (whose greatest crime in terms of the Middle East is properity and freedom for its citizens) and allow her to destroy Palestinian opposition to the already generous offers that have been made. Complete and utter victory is the only solution in the Middle East.

[The libs are a misguided bunch...to say the least!]

*******

Icedog writes: Thursday, December, 07, 2006 8:22 AM
What history?
Libs do not like comparisons to WWII (or any historical events whatsoever) because they are incapable of comprehending that we can actually learn from our past.

In order to be a liberal you must awaken each day as if it is the first day of human existence.

Only someone with absolutely no memory of yesterday (liberals) would believe:

- Appeasement of our enemies is a successful strategy
- Giving everyone equal rewards regardless of effort (socialism/liberalism) is good for society
- The amount of money you take from your citizens is directly proportional to the success of the economy
- Milder criminal sanctions leads to less crime
- Unlawful discrimination can be eliminated by increasing legal discrimination
- Eliminating all values and ethical standards leads to a better society

History has demonstrated repeatedly – usually with tragic and horrendous results – that these are all failed philosophies.

To be a liberal you must be so egotistical as to believe you are smarter than the previous hundreds of generations and billions of people – or you have to be stuck in some bizarre and twisted version of the movie “Groundhog Day”.

[Serious points on serious subjects. But I just had to laugh at the "Groundhog day" comment...heh heh]

*******

eon writes: Thursday, December, 07, 2006 8:28 AM
And just for points
People like Mondamay (nice Zelazny ref, there!) may be irritated by comparisons to World War Two, but unfortunately such comparisons are in fact the only ones which are valid.

World War Two was a global conflict fought by democracies (and, after June 1941, one dictatorship) against enemies with a militaristic, collectivist, anti-reason, anti-Semitic and anti-Western Enlightenment philosophy. (Germany wanted a return to mythic Germanism; Italy wanted a return to mythic Romanism; and Japan wanted a return to mythic imperialism under the Shintoist faith.) All of the three fully intended to conquer and rule vast sections of the world, wherein they would treat the natives as little more than slaves, forcing them to work for and/or pay tribute to their new rulers. Unless the locals were Jewish, Romany, black, or Christian (especially in the Far East); such "inferiors" were to be eradicated.

The present war is essentially the same thing, against an enemy with almost precisely the same philosophy and objectives. (If you don't believe the Islamists are racist toward Africans, and hate Christians as much as they do Jews, I'd suggest you don't look too closely at Darfur. Your eyes might not like what they see. Oh, and BTW, they don't like animists, either.)

The fundamental difference between World War Two and World War Three (which is now underway) is that this time around, the enemy has spent more time preparing. There are still some gaps in their TO&E, mainly in the area of strategic weapons and delivery systems, but they are working very hard to rectify this. (And unlike the [people you are not supposed to mention in these debates] they are not turning up their noses at nuclear physics on the grounds that it is "Jewish science".) So far, their unconventional (asymmetric) warfare tactics have provided them with a less-than-satisfactory substitute; they can, and have, inflicted casualties, but so far, they have yet to defeat their enemies (us) decisively. Anywhere.

What is going on now equates to a peculiar cross between the "Phony War" of October 1939-May 1940, with overtones of the period of the "anschluss" and Munich(1936-38) in Europe, and the Japanese conquest of Korea and Manchuria (or "Chosen" and "Manchukuo" as they insisted on misnaming them) in the 1932-37 time frame. As yet, the primary enemy states (Iran, Syria) and their non-governmental allies (various Islamist groups) have yet to take the field in open warfare. (Mainly because for the last half-century, every time they have, they've been defeated in no uncertain terms.) The logical conclusion is that they will not do so until they have a trump card that will prevent or dissuade the enemy (us) from committing conventional forces against them.

Nuclear weapons are such a trump card. And they are openly pursuing their development.

Once they have them, all bets will be off.

Should we negotiate with Iran and Syria? Not at this juncture. We would simply be repeating the colossal stupidity of the European powers (England and France) in 1936-38, and the United States in the Far East in 1937-41. Negotiations will only be appropriate if, as, and when we have the aforementioned regional powers in the position we had Germany and Japan in in 1945. At which point, our demands should be reduced to two words; unconditional surrender.

But so far, I have seen no evidence that anyone in the halls of power, in any party, has grasped the seriousness of the situation. I find myself wondering how many casualties we will have to suffer, and what kind, and where, it will take for them to recognize the reality of the threat we face.


eon

[I think that Bush does get the reality of the threat we face. Trouble is, many of the RINOS and the liberal Dems don't! Hopefully, the more moderate to conservative "freshman" Dems do get it! How refreshing that would be!]

*******

There are probably many more good ones that I could list, but eon's comment is a good one to end this post!