Comments on: Containing Iraq’s Civil War Is Not the Answer

By: Patrick Mulligan

Patrick Mulligan — Thu, 08 Mar 2007 09:12:51 +0000

“After the United States withdrew military forces from Lebanon during the Reagan administration, anti–U.S. attacks from the Shi’ite group Hezbollah sharply declined.”

And Osama Bin Laden has publicly credited the American retreat from Lebanon with inspiring him to use “hit and run” tactics to demoralize the “great satan” and force retreat. Hence the first WTC bombing in 1993 and the African embassy bombings in 1998. But hey, at least we made Hezbollah happy for a spell, right? Appeasement strategy will only work with an Islamic enemy when it results in unconditional surrender. I’m sure you’d be more than happy to negotiate the conditions of American subjugation to Islamic Shari’a, but not everyone shares your enthusiasm for that plan.

It’s amazing, but for having the “most aggressive military in the world since WWII”, we sure can’t fight a war worth a damn can we?

All you need is love. Love is all you need. Love, Love, Love…

Peace, man!

By: Mickey G

Mickey G — Wed, 07 Mar 2007 14:45:43 +0000

I don’t think that Winston Churchill would have agreed with the premises put forward in this article although Mr Appeasement Neville Chamberlin would have. It is clear, however, that the author has never been in harms way, not planned either strategic or tactical operations, and obviously never been shot at. Beyond these minor issues there is a clear misunderstanding of an area that has been in turmoil since the British created Iraq. Is there a simple solution? I think not. Is the current process working? Yes, although not well. As a Vietnam veteran I see some parallels in the two arenas…waffling politicians, idiotic protestors chanting slogans with no understanding of their meaning (eat your heart out John Kerry), and rules of engagement that protect the enemy but not our forces. I have been a student of history, both in formal education and personal efforts, and in years of research have not found a negotiated peace that has lasted or even been lived up to when reviewed against the agreements.

Try analyzing the situation without the obvious bias and academic viewpoint. And in particular keep your opinions to areas where you have some expertise e.g. flower growing or avoiding taxes.

By: WolvenBear

WolvenBear — Wed, 07 Mar 2007 01:46:17 +0000

It’s all about oil, the war is lost, Israel has their fingers in it…have I missed any of the common anti-war assertions you’ve made that have no grounding in fact? If you remove the baseless rhetoric…this articles only a couple of sentences long.

I’ve gotten so sick of rebutting the same arguments over and over that I think it’s about time to write an article debunking all of the common anti-war PC claptrap on this site.

But until the long version, here’s the quick debunking of this:
1.We’re not losing in Iraq. We won the Iraq war long ago, and while things aren’t spectacular, we continue to make progress.
2. American interests in the region include the bases and soldiers we have in the Middle East. Pulling out emboldens al Quida to take Iraq for themselves and attack our other bases in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. American Interests are not key words for oil.
3. Partitioning is a really bad solution which just gives part of the area to Saudi Arabia, part to Iran, etc.
4. Withdrawing from Iraq isn’t a solution or plan, and it’s time we stop pretending that people who put that on the table know what they’re talking about (or that they’re even bringing anything to the table).
5. This has nothing to do with Israel.
6. And just in case I forgot to mention it, we’re not losing this war.

I’ll try to have the long version by friday.