Friday, January 12, 2007

Widening the War?

There is growing buzz and increasing concern that the President's Iraq speech Wednesday night may have signaled an important and - in my view - incredibly troubling stage in the Iraq War (even beyond the "surge"). Steve Clemons reports significant speculation in the capital that Bush recently "sent a secret Executive Order to the Secretary of Defense and to the Director of the CIA to launch military operations against Syria and Iran."

There was some discussion of this question (i.e. whether American troops would begin engaging in cross-border activities in Syria and/or Iran) in hearings before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee yesterday (of which Clemons has excerpts), and American actions against the Iranian consulate in Irbil will almost certainly serve to add fuel to the fire. If true, and further actions against Iran and Syria have begun/are about to begin, it can be counted as a near certainty that the 21,500-troop increase that Bush announced Wednesday is but the tip of a very large iceberg.

Of course actions must be taken to protect our forces and ensure that they're able to do their jobs as effectively as possible. But if this conflict is to widen, such a drastic escalation must have the support of the American people and their representatives in Congress. The debate must happen, and should not be hidden behind secret orders.


At 12:42 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The outrage that the President “Threatened Iran and Syria and would widen the war” is typical of how the defeatists work to make their predictions of “quagmire and certain defeat” a self fulfilling prophecy.

During the Vietnam War, Lyndon Johnson refused to bomb the resupply facilities in Haiphong harbor for fear of killing Russians or Chinese officials aiding the North Vietnamese in their efforts against us. This assured our defeat. And so now, even though the tentacles of the insurgency reach into Syria and Iran, the newspapers strive to protect this flow of fighters and explosives that kill American soldiers without end. It is this concept of “limited war” which boils down to tying our hands and prohibiting America from operating from its strengths.

Rather than respecting our restraint, our enemies consider it a foolish sign of irresolution and weakness. When you consider the world wide scope Jihadi activity, such as in Indonesia, Somalia, London, and upper state New York to name a few, to compartmentalize the struggle to Iraq is an abject denial of fact. It also renders null and void the George Soros notion that “fighting the war on terror is what’s causing it”, and that withdrawing from Iraq would in any way bring back a pre 9/11 “peace”.

Dave Petteys
Roxborough Park CO

At 4:01 PM, Anonymous Bob J Young said...

I was watching the history channel last night. It was talking about the WWII Tunisia Campaign. Over 275,000 German and Italian troops were taken as prisoners of war, including most of the Deutsches Afrika Korps.

Unfortunately, in Iraq, we are the Afrika Korps.

A recurring mistake Hitler kept making was to tell his solders to “stand and die”. He threw away an entire army rather than retreat. It was a stupid move, based more on Hitlers ego that the reality of the situation.

If you are in an untenable situation you retreat, regroup, then attack. Simply standing and dieing is not sensible.

He should have read SUN TZU ON THE ART OF WAR, and so should bush.

“24. The general who advances without coveting fame
and retreats without fearing disgrace, whose only
thought is to protect his country and do good service
for his sovereign, is the jewel of the kingdom.”

At 9:19 AM, Anonymous gettysberg said...

sun tzu had nothing on general u. s. grant, who did exactly that...but alas, that was in the days when there were men...


Post a Comment

<< Home