The State of the War
Tags: Government, History, Iraq Campaign, terrorism, World War Two.
Click here to get Caucus of Corruption: The Truth About The New Democratic Majority by Matt Margolis and Mark Noonan.
At the end of 2007, it is worthwhile to review where we’ve been and where we’re going – and Victor Davis Hanson expertly does that vis a vis the War on Terrorism over at NRO. Its a great article, and I recommend reading the whole thing – but this part really grabbed my attention:
There is no longer serious doubt that by any fair measure the situation in Iraq has radically improved by the end of 2007. All markers point to some degree of improvement — fewer civilian and military lives lost, violence lessened, essential services improving. It is difficult to know exactly why and how this change came about, as it is so often hard in military history to chart exactly when and why such frequent turnabouts occur.
Tens of thousands of now mostly unknown American soldiers took a frightful toll on insurgents and terrorists between 2003-2007, to such an extent that many enemy groups were increasingly incapable of continuing. (emphasis added)
It is symptomatic of the lousy reporting of the war as well as the entirely unrealistic view of the critics that this aspect of it is almost entirely left out of the debate. The critics shed crocadile tears for our dead troops and accuse us of killing anywhere from 500,000 to 1,000,000 innocent Iraqis (entirely bogus numbers, by the way), but no one – not even supporters of the campaign – really notes that the most lethal warrior in Iraq is a young American soldier, sailor, airman or Marine. The military does not publish totals of enemy dead because, wisely, the military wishes to avoid the sort of absurd arguments over body counts there was in Vietnam – no more will the debate of the day be over whether 20 or 25 enemy were killed on a particular day. But this does cut both ways – by not reporting the enemy dead, the military does allow the perception to grow that only Americans, Iraqi civilians and solo suicide bombers are dying in Iraq. Not so. Not at all.
The only advantage an irregular fighter has over his better trained and equipped regular enemy is his ability to fade into the background – the problem for the regular soldier is to try and differentiate between irregular fighter and non-combatant. This is even more pronounced when the regular soldier is an American who is under very strict orders to spare civilians as much as possible, even at great risk to himself and his comrades. Lost in all the political hullabaloo about the Iraq campaign is just how good our troops have become at this sort of thing – learning from early mistakes and adapting quickly to changing circumstances, our troops have now set up a situation where it is the irregular fighter who looks over his shoulder, wondering which of the locals might be sending a message to an American and/or Iraqi reaction force which will soon drop on him like a ton of bricks. We don’t know how many of the enemy have been killed but there is one thing we can rely on – there isn’t an endless supply of people who will want to tangle with the superbly trained and equipped American and Iraqi soldiery.
I know – one of the criticisms is that “we’re creating more terrorists”. This is true – but not in the really rather stupid sense that the critics mean. Think of it like this – when we went into World War Two, we created more German soldiers; in response to our entry, the Germans put more men in uniform, and so by 1943 we actually had a larger German military establishment to deal with than we had in 1941. But, of course, the Germans also created more American soldiers – our military in 1943 was vastly larger than the military in 1941. So, too, with the war on terrorism – both sides are drawing upon their reserves and putting ever more power into the fight. We’ve made more terrorists, they’ve made more American soldiers – and given the normal ratio of American to enemy dead in these sorts of wars, the enemy needs more American soldiers like they need a hole in the head (and, given that those soldiers give them the hole in the head, its a real lose/lose situation for them). The test in this type of war is primarily one of endurance – who will stick it out the longest. We have far more men, material and money than the enemy – as long as we don’t lose heart, we win.
We’re grinding them down – all along, their only hope is that we’d quit. Our magnificent men and women of the United States armed forces are more than equal to the task of defeating these ragged terrorists – and the results coming through in Iraq are proof of this. The question now before us is whether or not in 2008 we’ll elect a government committed to victory, or committed to handing victory to the terrorists.
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.
114 Responses to “The State of the War”
Caucus of Corruption
LiberalT,
Like Diana, you simply have not read the back up documents of your linked article – I have. And, once again, if we sold arms to Iraq, which arms? Point to the arms that went into Saddam’s arsenal by US agency.
You’re just being stupid, now – denying what has been clearly and unchallengably brought before your attention.
No No NO Mark – I did read the documents but you conviently left out some key aspects of the documents. But we knew you would do that as you always do – ignore facts that you simply don’t like see bellow. Got any more lies?
* A U.S. cable recording the December 20, 1983 conversation between Donald Rumsfeld and Saddam Hussein. Although Rumsfeld said during a September 21, 2002 CNN interview, “In that visit, I cautioned him about the use of chemical weapons, as a matter of fact, and discussed a host of other things,” the document indicates there was no mention of chemical weapons. Rumsfeld did raise the issue in his subsequent meeting with Iraqi official Tariq Aziz.
* National Security Decision Directive (NSDD) 114 of November 26, 1983, “U.S. Policy toward the Iran-Iraq War,” delineating U.S. priorities: the ability to project military force in the Persian Gulf and to protect oil supplies, without reference to chemical weapons or human rights concerns.
* National Security Decision Directive (NSDD) 139 of April 5, 1984, “Measures to Improve U.S. Posture and Readiness to Respond to Developments in the Iran-Iraq War,” focusing again on increased access for U.S. military forces in the Persian Gulf and enhanced intelligence-gathering capabilities. The directive calls for “unambiguous” condemnation of chemical weapons use, without naming Iraq, but places “equal stress” on protecting Iraq from Iran’s “ruthless and inhumane tactics.” The directive orders preparation of “a plan of action designed to avert an Iraqi collapse.”
* U.S. and Iraqi consultations about Iran’s 1984 draft resolution seeking United Nations Security Council condemnation of Iraq’s chemical weapons use. Iraq conveyed several requests to the U.S. about the resolution, including its preference for a lower-level response and one that did not name any country in connection with chemical warfare; the final result complied with Iraq’s requests.
* The 1984 public U.S. condemnation of chemical weapons use in the Iran-Iraq war, which said, referring to the Ayatollah Khomeini’s refusal to agree to end hostilities until Saddam Hussein was ejected from power, “The United States finds the present Iranian regime’s intransigent refusal to deviate from its avowed objective of eliminating the legitimate government of neighboring Iraq to be inconsistent with the accepted norms of behavior among nations and the moral and religious basis which it claims.”
LiberalT,
You have some great pre-war articles that discuss how the US and US oil companies could profit from an invasion.
Once again, you have established a motive but no evidence of a crime. When looking around to see how much of the Iraq oil is now controlled by US companies, I could find anything. The 5 year anniversary of the invasion is coming up soon. Why have we not started taking control of the oil?
In fact, the Iraq government still controls the oil. If you refer to “Business Week”, you will notice that the Iraq government still controls the oil and is opening up bids to all international drilling companies. Here is one quote: “The oil ministry on Wednesday also asked international oil companies to submit by Jan. 31 all necessary registration documents to allow them to bid for participation in the development of Iraq’s oil fields.”
Also, “Global Chemical Network” reports in April of 2007 that “Iraq issued invitations for 15 Arab, Asian and American firms to drill 100 oil wells in the country’s south as part of efforts to boost production, the oil ministry said earlier this month.”
Finally, from the Associated Press:
“The Oil Ministry has invited all international petroleum companies willing to work in Iraq to register by submitting required documentation,” Jihad said in a statement.
The ministry said only registered and qualified companies would be allowed to bid for oil field development projects.
“Registration of companies in the Republic of Iraq is a necessary step to enable them to take part in any round of production licenses that the ministry is intending to issue,” he said.
Iraqi oil officials said recently they hoped to issue tenders to develop the country’s vast oilfields at the beginning of 2008. They said the oil ministry was preparing contract models for the first group of oilfields.
Wow….we invaded for oil, but we then decided to let Iraq’s new government control it. In addition, we allowed the “American Regime” in Iraq to allow non-US oil companies to bid on the drilling. Still waiting for proof that we invaded for oil.
Jones
Yep – things haven’t quite worked out how they wanted them to. They would have liked things to be going much better by now. But they have still made a huge amount of money off it.
Now seriously you don’t think that US oil companies benefit from having a friendly government in Iraq – one that is completely dependent upon the US to hold the country together. Wouldn’t you say that gives them a huge advantage in negotiations?
How many billions in war contracts have companies like Haliburton made in post war contracts? Billions and billions.
How much will the war cost the American people – who knows – its already many billion and could be trillions.
Jones,
Yes, things haven’t worked out too well. Do a google search for New Iraqi Oil Law.
http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=new+iraqi+oil+law&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8
The war architects including the neoconservatives wanted, wished, hoped, and insisted this would be a “cakewalk”. That we knew where the weapons were (rummy said this). That it would only take six days, six weeks, six months at the most (rummy said this). That would we be greeted as liberators (cheney said this).
But it didn’t work out. Now the blood is on their hands. They sold it to us. Then had to re-work the marketing when things didn’t work out. The Freudman Units (or F.U.s) keep coming. Just wait another six months.
Well, I think what we did was underestimate many different aspects of this including that their democratic leadership does not want us to control their oil unless they have a say. That their leadership does not need us to stay their permanently with permanent bases as this would be political suicide for said leadership. The people don’t want us there and the leadership will wants us gone as soon as the security situation is better.
Mark,
No one hear is even mentioning the secret Cheney Energy Task Force. Was the Iraqi invasion a product of this Task Force?
Document Says Oil Chiefs Met With Cheney Task Force
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/15/AR2005111501842.html
Cheney energy task force documents feature map of iraqi oilfields
Commerce & State Department Reports to Task Force Detail Oilfield & Gas Projects, Contracts & Exploration…
Saudi Arabian & UAE Oil Facilities Profiled As Well…
http://www.judicialwatch.org/printer_iraqi-oilfield-pr.shtml
I think some people here are in denial. The admission of this war being about oil places a heavy weight on those who support Cheney and Bush. Because I dare you to go tell the troops that this is a resource war they are fighting. Especially those who are National Guard whos home state has suffered natural distaters and they were unable to assist as their mand power and equipment was outsources to Iraq for a resource war that American Energy companies payed a lot of money for in the form of campaign contributions.
LiberalT,
But those documents don’t say what you think they say – I believe you are reading the summaries, not looking at the actual documents.
And, finally, I’ve exploded the “war for oil” myth and the actual weapons in Saddam’s arsenal show he didn’t recieve military support from the United States, and that explodes that “we armed Sadddam” and “Saddam was a US client” myths. If you really want to continue down this path, then when I get home I’ll link you to the data showing that Saddam’s WMD programs were backed by Russia, France and Germany, and that will explode your “US helped Saddam’s WMD program” myth.
Really, LiberalT, all of the facts of the case are in direct contravention of your views – perhaps you should start looking at the facts, and modify your views to fit them?
Mark – you obviously have not read the documents. If you had you would see that you they indeed do support the conclusions. The simple fact of the matter is that Saddam indeed got US support during the 80s.
http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/medsearch/FocusAreas/riegle_report/staff_report/staff_report_index.htm
for example , the above links.
I don’t understand how you can dispute something which is a simple matter of historical record. You didn’t explode anything – you just refuse to see the truth. The only thing you exploded was your continued at total denial of basic facts.
Ahh, I see. Interesting.
ah – even better – delete things you don’t like. Hmm isn’t that what the CIA is in all this hot water for. DOH!
LiberalT,
Interesting….losing the debate since you have no facts so you decide to mention Haliburton.
First of all, throwing Haliburton into this is irrelevant. Secondly, you missed the main point. Quite a few oil companies that are not US owned are in the bidding. Plus, this is just for the drilling. The Iraq oil industry is still owned by the Iraq government. The US government has had many opportunities to take control of the oil and rewards various oil companies.
Finally, if your reference to “things haven’t quite worked out how they wanted them to” is a reference to the violence in Iraq, I don’t think that would have stopped the oil companies if you are correct. They operate in Nigeria even after oil workers are kidnapped and murdered.
You still have no proof. You still have a motive without a crime. Show me where US oil companies have made major profits off Iraq (do not say Haliburton). Or, if you cannot do that, show me where the US oil companies are going to win all of the bids since the US government is pressuring Iraq to award them as such. Finally, if you can show me proof where an oil executive pressured the White House to invade, that would be great. Until then, you have no facts!
Until you can demonstrate that the “war for oil” myth has any actual facts to support it, it still just a myth. Since you like believing myths, maybe it was Dick Cheney, Loch Ness Monster, Halibuton, and Bigfoot who all decided to invade Iraq.
ah – don’t actually mention the companies who have made a profit off of Iraq. Nice try Jones – look Haliburton, Blackwater, etc. Its not irrelevant because its part of the military industrial complex that continues to make profits of the Iraq war.
Look we have motive, opportunity, and the tax returns of Chenney which show how many millions he made from Haliburton in the last 5 years. Would it stand up in court? Maybe – maybe not – but its right there in plain view
LiberalT,
But you are changing the subject….we have been discussing oil profits. We have been discussing oil being a motive. Nice try LiberalT! Typical ploy….when in doubt mention Haliburton. If you want to discuss Haliburton’s & Blackwater’s profits from the war, that is fine. But do not use them as some sort of “rope-a-dope” to prove you are right about oil being a motive for the way.
well – my general point is that PROFIT – was a major motivation for the war. The most direct and short term profits are from those firms which are contracted for the rebuilding of Iraq. The oil companies will make the real money in time by having a pro American government in Iraq which is supported by the US military presence in Iraq. Its not a ploy it is just stages…
LiberalT,
Your most recent link is to a Congressional report about how US troops may have been exposed to chemical agents during the 1991 Gulf War…I fail to see how that has anything to do with an alleged US role in backing Saddam – can you clarify?
Meanwhile – the basic facts remain: there is no evidence that we supported Saddam and your continued insistence that we did in face of clear facts contravening you shows that your views on Iraq are informed more by prejudice and hatred than thought.