Father Time and Fly on Iraq
President Bush has just completed an address to the nation outlining his plan for a change in strategic direction in an effort to bring Iraq under control. The plan calls for a surge of more than twenty thousand troops, most of which will be deployed to Baghdad in order to support continuing efforts to secure the most violent area in Iraq. Four thousand such troops will be deployed to al Anbar province, the home turf of al Qaeda's forces in Iraq, in an effort to cut off support for the anti-Shi'i/anti-American Sunni insurgency, which is in turn causing the rise of Shi'i militias and death squads. The plan also calls for the relaxation of rules of engagement for Coalition and Iraqi forces (particularly those securing Baghdad and al Anbar), stricter requirements for the Iraqi government with regard to meeting political and security goals, and the introduction of more American reconstruction crews. The goal is to give American and Iraqi forces the resources and capabilities they need in order to clear terrorists from neighborhoods, secure those neighborhoods once they're clear, and rebuild them once they're secured.
Father Time and I have discussed the Iraq War a number of times, and each and every time we have agreed to disagree on a number of points. It's an interesting juxtaposition: I'm the expert in tactics, strategy, and Middle Eastern culture and history; while Father Time has the benefit of experience and sage wisdom from a lifetime of living and observing the world. We decided recently that it would be productive, both for us and for our readers, if we had a frank, respectful, and honest debate on the issue of Iraq.
I have stated, continually and unequivocally, that I supported the invasion in 2003 and I have supported the mission ever since, to the degree that I currently support the mission as a full-time job. I believe that stopping our mission with nothing more than a victory in Afghanistan would have demonstrated short-sightedness and ignorance, and I believe that Iraq was the logical next step. In my recent Iraq FAQ, I outlined why I feel the Iraq War was justified at the time, and why I believe that President has been vindicated by the (largely un-reported) finds since the invasion.
Without embarking on a lengthy and verbose strategic and/or political treatise, I feel that the Iraq War has proven more challenging than anyone could have realistically anticipated. I believe that the key to a solid, decisive victory lies in the following major points:
Complete and total border security - particularly on the Syrian, Iranian, and Saudi borders
Civil affairs - turning citizen-soldiers into citizen-soldier-diplomats
More extensive recruiting and implementiation of special forces and intelligence personnel
A federal system giving relative autonomy to the Kurds, the Shi'is, and the Sunnis
An unwavering commitment to stay the course until Iraq is ready to stand on its own, without equivocation, regardless of the American political climate
There are obviously more items, and more specifics, but these are the most glaring problems in Iraq as far as I can tell.
I am tired of Congresional Democrats, who spend more time wetting their fingers and raising them into the wind to determine the political climate than they do concerning themselves with the real requirements of our national security. Ever since President Bush was elected, Congressional Democrats have had no more tangible platform than to oppose everything President Bush has attempted to accomplish. Their criticism of President Bush has lacked one crucial element: any trace of an alternative plan, save for those who call for an immediate surrender (which is what a withdrawal would essentially signal). For lack of a term more perfect than the one I'll use, Congressional Democrats have pursued a political agenda that is completely and totally masturbatory. I was not convinced in 2001, nor have I been convinced at any other time in the intervening years, that Congressional Democrats understand or appreciate the threat to America, Western Civilization, or civilization in general.
These things having been established, and with many more things that could be said, I will establish the following points that I believe Father Time and I must agree on (or, otherwise, discuss further) before any further debate can occur.
A threat to our very way of life exists from militant Islam.
Ignoring the problem will not make it go away.
What has happened up to this point can not be undone, so we should focus on the future, not dwell in the past.
These things having been established, I shall fire my first shot by inquiring of my distinguished friend and colleague: if President Bush's solution to the continued challenges in Iraq is incorrect, what is a better solution?
Father Time's responses will appear on his blog, while my responses will appear here at TSTF. I eagerly await his initial response.
Father Time and I have discussed the Iraq War a number of times, and each and every time we have agreed to disagree on a number of points. It's an interesting juxtaposition: I'm the expert in tactics, strategy, and Middle Eastern culture and history; while Father Time has the benefit of experience and sage wisdom from a lifetime of living and observing the world. We decided recently that it would be productive, both for us and for our readers, if we had a frank, respectful, and honest debate on the issue of Iraq.
I have stated, continually and unequivocally, that I supported the invasion in 2003 and I have supported the mission ever since, to the degree that I currently support the mission as a full-time job. I believe that stopping our mission with nothing more than a victory in Afghanistan would have demonstrated short-sightedness and ignorance, and I believe that Iraq was the logical next step. In my recent Iraq FAQ, I outlined why I feel the Iraq War was justified at the time, and why I believe that President has been vindicated by the (largely un-reported) finds since the invasion.
Without embarking on a lengthy and verbose strategic and/or political treatise, I feel that the Iraq War has proven more challenging than anyone could have realistically anticipated. I believe that the key to a solid, decisive victory lies in the following major points:
There are obviously more items, and more specifics, but these are the most glaring problems in Iraq as far as I can tell.
I am tired of Congresional Democrats, who spend more time wetting their fingers and raising them into the wind to determine the political climate than they do concerning themselves with the real requirements of our national security. Ever since President Bush was elected, Congressional Democrats have had no more tangible platform than to oppose everything President Bush has attempted to accomplish. Their criticism of President Bush has lacked one crucial element: any trace of an alternative plan, save for those who call for an immediate surrender (which is what a withdrawal would essentially signal). For lack of a term more perfect than the one I'll use, Congressional Democrats have pursued a political agenda that is completely and totally masturbatory. I was not convinced in 2001, nor have I been convinced at any other time in the intervening years, that Congressional Democrats understand or appreciate the threat to America, Western Civilization, or civilization in general.
These things having been established, and with many more things that could be said, I will establish the following points that I believe Father Time and I must agree on (or, otherwise, discuss further) before any further debate can occur.
These things having been established, I shall fire my first shot by inquiring of my distinguished friend and colleague: if President Bush's solution to the continued challenges in Iraq is incorrect, what is a better solution?
Father Time's responses will appear on his blog, while my responses will appear here at TSTF. I eagerly await his initial response.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home