How We Won in Iraq
Tags: President Bush, terrorism.
Click here to get Caucus of Corruption: The Truth About The New Democratic Majority by Matt Margolis and Mark Noonan.
Over at Blackfive, in the form of a tribute to the late Captain Travis Patriquin. They have a YouTube video of Cpt. Patriquin’s powerpoint presentation of what strategy we needed to win – and, as it turns out, the strategy we used to win.
Its really quite simple – even the lefties here can understand it. They won’t accept it, nor credit a command structure including President Bush which was clever enough to take a great idea when it came along, but the lefties will understand it.
Captain Patriquin was killed in battle against the enemy, but his ideas live on – and there can be no better tribute to Captain Patriquin and his fallen comrades than a free, prosperous Iraq allied with the United States against terrorism.
UPDATE: Michael Yon’s latest from Iraq - al-Qaeda has lost all credibility in Iraq.
Thank you for visiting Blogs For Victory. If you enjoy our content, please consider making a donation to help us cover the costs of our servers.Mark Noonan is co-author (with Matt Margolis) of Caucus of Corruption: The Truth About The New Democratic Majority. He also blogs at Nevada News and Views. Follow Mark on Twitter.
182 Responses to “How We Won in Iraq”
Caucus of Corruption
Uh, Roberta, what do any of these have to do with my response about the battle of Iraq, the central front in the war against Islamofascists? And your comment: “Yup. Oil and because those who made the decision have strong financial ties to the war profiteers,” is more baseless propaganda, fed to you by your handlers over at DailyKooks Hate-AmericaBlog, and MorOn.nutjobs. Try again, girlfriend. And btw, you misused “checkout.” In the context you intended, “check out” is two words. Geez, don’t they teach writing in grade school anymore?
Throwup, please. We all know you’re a kook, a lefty, a nutjob. And Diana? She goes ga-ga over Fuss Reingold, one of the premier nutjobs in the Senate. But Diana’s safe, having presented many more moderate thoughts. Sarah’s dismissal was warranted; hell, Diana’s probably Sarah reincarnate, only smart enough to have learned to ease up a bit on her kookiness. We all know that you kooks love it here so much, that if you get banned, you come back under a new IPA. The problem is, none of you are creative enough to hide who you were when banned, so you’re usually “outed.”
And Throwup, you define a free-thinker as anyone who hates Bush, so leave it out, dumbass. There are very few trolls here who can think for themselves, and you ain’t one of them, pal. Diana, otoh, has shed a few thoughts that made sense, and I don’t see, nor do I advocate, her being banned, just because she likes Fuss Reingold. We all have our flaws, some more than others. You possess the lot, and would be better off if you were banned.
Why do you come here anyway, Throwup?
I come here to be informed and amused Dimwitted4Life, which is one reason your act is so tired. You are Don Rickles on crack. There is no humor in your insults. I don’t think I have ever encountered a person who uses the term “I hate” in reference to fellow humans as much as you do, and I can only assume you mean it. If your persona is anything similar in reality to the caricature you offer here, you are somewhere between dangerous and pitiful.
For reference, I define a free thinker as one who changes opinions based on new information and experience. One reason I continue to read this blog is that occasionally happens to me here. I have had my opinions changed in a few cases, and have gained a better understanding of the political extremes in this country by watching the debate evolve. I expect that if this country ever comes back together, evidence of that movement will be left here for reflection.
Huck,
Well, thanks for the sort-of compliments. I don’t know who Paramedic Sarah was (is) but I’m only me.
Thrower,
Thank you also for the compliment and your observations about why you visit here. It’s similar to my own motivation.
The title of this post, How We Won in Iraq, assumes that something has been won in Iraq. What, exactly? Don’t get me wrong, I think that we’ve accomplished much in Iraq:
-Saddam is gone and, in his place, an elected and constitutional government,
-Muqtada Al Sadr is not gone from the scene but he has definitely taken a sabbatical from creating chaos and fomenting anti-American hatred and the members of his militia that remain loyal to him appear to have ceased their killing,
-the violence against the multi-national forces and against Iraqis has gone way down,
-awakenings of insurgents have taken place and those who once fought the Iraqi police and military and multi-national forces are now working with us against Al Qaeda affiliates,
-I even saw a story about Muslim Iraqis attending a mass with Iraqi Christians,
-the Iraqi parliament is working at passing laws that many deem necessary for the eventual peacefulness of Iraq –
all of this is to the good and General Petraeus, Bush and all of our troops and command are to be commended for their efforts but doesn’t anyone here, not labeled a liberal and threatened with being banned from here think that “we won in Iraq” might be a mite premature? After all, a post above has the Iraqi government’s interior ministry saying that Al Qaeda in Iraq has been 75% defeated. Well, doesn’t that mean that there’s still about 25% left? The same post points out “sharp falls in the numbers of assassinations, kidnappings and death squad murders” but not that they have ceased. Again, the post indicates that infiltration by militants has “slowed” but not stopped. They are pursuing Al Qaeda forces but have not yet caught them all. Kidnappings are down 70% but they are still occurring.
I guess my question is, is the title an example of intentional exaggeration or is it intended to indicate that, in the author’s opinion, victory is assured at this point, even if not totally accomplished or what?
It does seem to me that declarations of victory in Iraq are still somewhat premature. For example, although Muqtada Al Sadr has called off his militias for a six month period, he could still get back into the killing game again. As we know, it only takes a small number of people intent upon killing and creating chaos to kill and create chaos. Once the troops that comprised the surge have been withdrawn at the end of their tour and not replaced, violence could once again tick upwards. Turkey and Iran could still play hell in Iraq. Kudos to Bush and Petraeus and all but, in my opinion, this thing isn’t over yet.
Robert,
Sorry I have not responded to your posts about Mr. Romney’s business practices earlier. I was running errands and exercising with my lady friend (i.e., wife).
Did Mr. Romney commit any crimes? Not likely. I doubt his actions are even actionable in civil court. Sometimes companies fail. The investors are usually first in line to get paid from the sale of any assets. Mr. Romney is a businessman who happens to be in the business of making money. He seems to have done extremely well and is probably the most successful business person running for either party.
Am I going to vote for him in the primary? No way. That story about him driving with his dog strapped to the top of his car (the dog was in a carrier) really creeps me out. What kind of douche bag thinks it is okay to put the dog on top of the car and drive at freeway speeds? I have dogs and those actions are deplorable. And I am pretty far from being a hippy PETA freak. I am just a man who loves his dogs (and wife).
Huckster,
I don’t read Kos, MoveOn, etc., but if they write the same things I write, it couldn’t possibly be true (LOL)
I hope those sites don’t think 2+2=4, because that’s what I think.
BTW, do you know ANYTHING about the war profiteers? Do you know how much money the Carlyle Group has made off the war started by the son of one of the Board members?
Checkout the stock price gains Halliburton has garnered thanks to no-bid Billion dollar contracts associated with the war started by their former CEO.
My charges aren’t “baseless”. Perhaps you are confusing my charges with those about Saddam’s WMDs and his AQ ties.
>Nope, not always – the Germans kept fighting for nearly two years after they were decisively beaten in WWII.
That’s a fascinating and novel way of looking at that war, a rather unique opinion one I’ve not heard of before.
As your other examples one could say with the benefit of historical hindsight that the losing side was already finished before anyone had fired a shot.
But that is nether here nor there because this is a different war in a different country with different aggressors, cultures, politics and motivations being fought with different tactics and different rules of engagement with a different enemy.
So what has happened in Iraq? Doesn’t really apply.
And if you insist on such comparisons, let’s look at the other hand:
You cannot find a day in a Iraq where something someplace has blown up.
Can you say the same of Germany after Hitler killed himself?
After the nuking of Japan?
How long before they were settled and rebuilt? More or less than the time spent in Iraq?
How about cost? Want to adjust for inflation and see how they graph?
Maybe you didn’t know this but America was very popular after WWII in the world, now, not so much, why do you think that is?
But my main point stands; you know the war is over when things stop being blown up. Craters? Bits of pieces of people spattered all over a market square? These are clues that let even the most obtuse of observers know that there’s a war on.
Curious that you can’t understand that.
The cost of WWII was around $288 billion in 1945 dollars. Accounting for inflation, that is around $3.36 trillion dollars in present dollars.
Sources, http://www.ddaymuseum.org/education/education_numbers.html
http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl
The total running cost of the war in Iraq? Around $480 billion.
Source,
http://nationalpriorities.org/cms/costofwar
Those numbers are for the actual cost of both wars to the U.S. If you factor in the loss of lives, etc., the delta grows even larger.
While you are making irrelevant comparisons, compare military casualties.
During WWII, the U.S. lost just over 450,000 soldiers.
Source,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_World_War_II_casualties_by_country
The current Iraq war casualties for the U.S. are just under 4000.
Source,
http://icasualties.org/oif/
That makes today’s war a pretty bloodless affair.
If you want another comparison, do some homework and look at the civilian casualties of both wars.
Salvage,
At the latest, the Germans lost any capability of winning WWII after Stalingrad/El Alamein. They lost any ability to have a negotiated peace after Kursk/Orel (in other words, they lacked sufficient power to make the cost of forcing a dictated peace more expensive than the cost of fighting to a negotiated peace). Kursk/Orel was fought in the middle of 1943 – the war was over for the Germans, and yet they kept on fighitng.
For the Japanese, it was even worse – after the Battle of Midway in June of 1942 they lost any ability to win the war, and yet it was August of 1945 before they quit.
And as for our being popular after WWII – ROFL!!! The world despised us – wanted our money, wanted us to defend them, wanted us for everything, but couldn’t stand the sight of us. The Ugly American was a post-war phenomena. The most powerful nation in the world will always be hated – its just in the nature of Fallen Man to hate what his higher or stronger. Only those infused with humility can praise the glory of the good and powerful.
Mark,
I am watching the Ken Burns documentary about WII on DVD. It is very interesting. For the U.S., WWII was a complete quaqmire when we entered. We were ill-prepared, ill-equipped, and ill-trained.
i am sure that the dead soldiers and their families will take great comfort in the fact that “only” 4000 died in this war. I am sure it brings them great comfort to know that you consider it bloodless. Shame on you – you are despicable – I wonder if you would feel the same if that was your brother, your son, your father who was one of those 4000
Ahhh., the power of the markets.
Every good conservative knows things can be judged by the power of the markets.
Let’s compare WWII to the War in Iraq (since that is what has been done comparing casualties and costs of both wars).
Can one of you internet research geniuses find me some numbers comparing the number of America citizens who volunteered for the “great war” (WWII), v. this war in Iraq (the comparable war against our greatest enemy)?
I’m curious to know how what “the markets” say about comparing these 2 great wars. Considering that anyone not ready to fight the existentialist fight for our freedom against the great Islamic threat to mankind has been compared to Neville Chamberlain, I wonder what the great “power of the market” shows.
I assume the numbers of military volunteers is comparable, since the existential threat is about the same (or probably more so v. the great Islamic threat).
I look forward to the response.
“i am sure that the dead soldiers and their families will take great comfort in the fact that “only” 4000 died in this war.”
Probably not, but then he wasn’t playing a pastor on the internet, comforting the families of the fallen in Iraq; he was making a point about the fact that, to date, deaths of U. S. soldiers amount to fewer than one percent of the dead in WWII. I’m not sure how your point weakens his.
I would think that a stronger argument would be that WWII was seen by people in this country as a war in which they were willing to make much greater sacrifice than is the case in Iraq. Why?
People felt great anger over Pearl Harbor, as they did over the events of 9/11. The problem is, whereas in WWII there was a direct connection between Pearl Harbor and the Axis powers, there is no connection of any note between Iraq and 9/11. Hence, while saddened by the loss of nearly half a million soldiers in WWII, we saw that as a necessary sacrifice and would have sacrificed yet more to take down the Axis while since we found there were no active WMD programs and found no stockpiles of WMD [just some old leftover stuff from years past, much degraded as well as some precursor material that could be made into some pretty nasty stuff], Americans in decreasing numbers think that even a win in Iraq, defined in the most advantageous terms, was worth the sacrifice of fewer than 4,000 soldiers and the concomitant costs. Yes, our invasion of Iraq did draw foreign jihadis like excrement draws flies and many of those jihadis allied themselves with Al Qaeda but that doesn’t really change the fact that Iraq was a distraction. If we hadn’t invaded Iraq, those same jihadis would have been drawn to our continued efforts in Afghanistan and wherever UBL decided to hide. We didn’t need to invade Iraq to turn it into jihadi fly-paper.
That is to say, in short, Iraq isn’t Nazi Germany or the empire of Japan or fascist Italy and Iraq hadn’t perpetrated the equivalent of Pearl Harbor on America.
I wasn’t a Kerry fan and didn’t vote for him in 2004 but he made a valid point about the Iraq war, I think: it was an unnecessary distraction from our war against those who DID perpetrate the equivalent of Pearl Harbor on us. In my opinion, diverting our attention away from the effort to get UBL to deposing Saddam was a mistake.
liberalT,
Obviously, you cannot argue the facts, so you choose to attack me with your vile comments. You know nothing about me, but you choose to take a few words out of context to call me despicable. When I see news about our soldiers dying, I weep. When I meet a soldier who is serving our country, I thank him. I do not like war, but I see it as a necessary evil. If you actually knew me, you would probably like me. If not, know this: you would not make such ignorant comments to my face.
Those of your ilk on the left are quick to make broad comparisons between the present conflict in Iraq and WWII (e.g., the Iraq war is lasting longer than WWII). However, when you get into the details, there is no comparison. WWII was a horrific worldwide conflict in which nearly 55 million people died worldwide.
Instead of hurling insults, argue the facts.
Robert,
During WWII, just over 11.5 million Americans were drafted into military service. 6.3 million Americans volunteered to join the military. My grandfather re-enlisted in the Marines on Monday, December 8th, 1941. He had previously served from 1933 to 1937.
Source,
http://www.ddaymuseum.org/education/education_numbers.html
Today, since there is no draft, every soldier volunteered to join the military (about 1.5 million active duty and 1.5 million reserves). I am not sure if one can find detailed numbers regarding those soldiers that volunteered to go fight in Iraq.
It’s neat how you do that, just step over the points that you can’t spin as if they were never there.
Yes, with hindsight we can see the beginning of the end of the Axis Powers, very good, your skill at calling already fought wars is impressive. Why one would almost suspect you can read history books or at the very least have the History Channel as part of your digital TV package.
Alas we are talking about your claim that the current war is won when clearly it is not.
Aside from the fact that the terrorists are still bombing daily I also can’t help but notice that the Pentagon, White House and State Department have not joined you in re-hanging the “Mission Accomplished” banner. What do you know that they don’t I wonder?
As for “ugly American” post WWII that simply isn’t true. I know your kind likes to wallow in victim-hood but the fact is America was at one point so trusted that the French government once said in regards to the Cuban Missie Crisis:
On October 21st, ExComm, and President Kennedy decided that a quarantine was the best course of action. The administration called it a quarantine, because the term “blockade” would symbolize war. Then they began the rigorous task of alerting U.S. allies of the White House’s decision. Dean Acheson, the former Secretary of State, was sent to inform Charles De Gaulle, the leader of France. When Acheson offered to show De Gaulle the photographs of the missile sites, the French leader brushed them aside and said, “A great country such as yours does not act without evidence. You may tell your President that France will support him”. Meanwhile the Press was getting closer and closer to ascertaining the big news that was keeping the White House up at all hours. To keep the media down, President Kennedy himself called the publishers of The New York Times and The Washington Post and request that they don’t extensively talk about the current situation. They both agreed.
Now after your Dear Leader’s minions swore to the world that not only did Saddam have WMD but that they knew where they were why the hell should the world trust or even like the current American government?
But you howling that the world has always hated America gives you leave to ignore that reality and that’s why you cling to it. More lies to justify more lies.
Fact is you’ve made statements like this before, I suspect if I were to bother Googling we’d find you’ve declared Victor in Iraq Day on more than one occacion and I have no doubt you’ll be doing it again.
Unless a Democrat wins next November, then you will suddenly notice all the things wrong with Iraq and will giber endlessly that it was just about won but those Democrats screwed it all up!
Bullet Tooth Tony made an observation about your type.
Salvage,
Yes, that same DeGaulle who pulled France out of NATO a few years later because he didn’t want France tied to the United States…real friendly. As to why he backed Kennedy over Cuba – because Kennedy wasn’t proposing to actually do anything about it. Had Kennedy done the right thing – invade – DeGaulle would have been out front in opposition.
I know you guys would like to have our foreign policy governed from Paris, but that isn’t in the best interests of the United States, or the world.
Thanks eric.
That’s sort of what I suspected.
There is no comparison between the evils we fought in WWII and the evils of Saddam’s Iraq. By virtue of the numbers of fighters and volunteers in each war, it looks like the American public knows this too.
So all that happy horsecrap about those against the war being appeasers like Chamberlain is all a bunch of crap as well. Who knew?
BTW, i responded to your post #157 yesterday (thanking you for your civility and concurring with the evilness of the Mitt’s dog story) but it never made it through the monitoring system.
Robert,
You’re welcome. Also, thanks for the kind words. I prefer to keep any discussion civil. Sometimes I fail, but I try as best I can.
Have a great New Year.
We won? Really?
Then why is my little brother still in Baghdad? Why haven’t I seen him in almost a year? Why is it hard for me to sleep, knowing he’s over there?
I hope you, and many others, will one day awaken.
Schoolgirl Spanking Schoolgirls Schoolgirl Pussy
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
Pee Public Pee Public Pissing
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
wwe video clip
Man i love reading your blog, interesting posts !
Pee Female Pee Pee Hole
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
Jack
Such a fun and informative blog! Please visit my site when you can.
Friend of the Rugs
[...] in relation to the war again, without being laughed at. Or horse-whipped. . Besides, Gen. Petraeus, we’ve already won, doncha know! Posted by Mona @ 10:08 pm, Filed under: Main « « One — and Only [...]
Hot Garden Fountain Freak
I love that to, but my hubby doesnt want it, that is really to bad.
Jack
This is real good info. Thanks for sharing.
Eric
This is real good info. Thanks for sharing.
queer as folk dvd
Bankruptcy Laws For Nh
Interesting – because that is the same thing I found out last Thursday.