web analytics

THE DRUM BEAT OF SURRENDER…

By ATWadmin On April 27th, 2007

dhimmis.jpgYou see it doesn’t really matter that all eight of the Democrat Democratic contenders for the United States presidency have attacked President Bush’s policy in Iraq, beat the drum of surrender and vie to see which amongst them can put forward the quickest run away policy for the US military.

Al Queda has declared Iraq its central front in the war against the Great Satan and IF we pull out as all eight Democrat contenders wish, than Al Queda will follow us back home. And the car bombs will not go off in downtown Tehran, but in downtown New York, or Washington, or San Francisco. These Dhimmi’s believe surrender is a sustainable policy and if nuanced in media soundbite terms such as "getting the boys back home" they can sell to the majority of the US people. Maybe this will be true. But just because a section of the leftard US political elite closes its eyes and hope that Al Queda will go away does not mean this will happen. They will come for us – they have made it clear they will come for us. And by handing them victory in Iraq (undoubtedly  followed by victory in Afghanistan) we will invite them to come and get us. 9/11 appears to have faded away from the minds of these eight dhimmis who blather about Bush’s failed policies but only offer surrender as their alternative.

14 Responses to “THE DRUM BEAT OF SURRENDER…”

  1. Another attack along the lines of 9/11 may well change Democrat minds. From where will they then withdraw soldiers?

  2. David the entire sorry Iraq adventure has been an unmitigated disaster. There was never any more justification for the Iraq invasion than there is invading Zimbabwe. The entire post-military conquest has been a sick joke and hundreds of US & British troops have lost their lives and limbs in an entirely hopeless cause. That’s before we attempt to quantify the immense suffering of the Iraqi people, the horrendous financial cost and the damage to the standing of the US worldwide.

    At this stage of the debacle, with no possible end in sight other than more carnage, the only feasible strategy is withdrawal and concentration on the Afghan situation.

  3. Ahem, Iraq wasn’t responsible for 9/11. The Democrats in this debate range from the mainstream to the far left. The mainstream candidates don’t believe in surrender (the transcripts will show they called for military action when appropriate). They recognize that the present situation in Iraq is doing us no good and correctly called the Bush Administration’s handling of the war as incompetent.

  4. Mahons,

    Agreed Iraq wasn’t behind 9/11. But AQ are there now, it is their self declared frontline, so the question is; do we run away? What message do you think our retreat will have on the Jihadi? I’m thinking white flag spells danger….

  5. David – you and I agree on the Iraq -9/11 lack of connection. I also don’t believe in an immediate withdrawal. But the pretending has to stop, and the present American Adminstration is incapable of that (the former Bush CIA Director’s book is coming out next week. It appears to demonstrate petty incompetence at the highest level).

    A solution? Let the Iraqis slug it out among themselves while withdrawing to designated areas could result in a Rawanda like massacre. Withdrawing completly would seem to result in the same bloodbath. More troops are not coming, and the opportunities lost early are lost and gone. It seems to me a partition is the only solution with an timeline turn over of responsibility to the Iraqi forces. Democracy as we understand it seems impossible to impose in Iraq.

    Any other solutions? I am open to suggestion.

  6. DV,

    wrong way of looking at things.

    The two most importants elements in warfare are surprise & initiative.

    AQ are quite happy with the "frontline" being in Iraq, and they are making tits of the US & GB forces/policy. Even you agree that as it stands the situation is a disaster.

    So, what do you do ? Stay in the trenches and not budge, or take the initiative of a new strategy ?

    Ohh … and it would be some surprise to everyone (including AQ) if The Shrub changed his strategy. They’d be off-balance for quite a while, trying to second-guess what the hell is going on.

    So to be honest, whatever the rights & wrongs of the situation (& I believe the Yanks & Brits where WRONG to go in in the first place [Afghanistan is a different story]), the current strategy is not working and I humbly forecast that in 10 years time things will only have got worse.

    Believe me, this is going to be far far worse than Vietnam for the US.

  7. David you claim to be a business man so lets approach it strictly as a business enterprise.

    You have started a business the first 6 months were great guns you accomplished your goals and you were well on your way to success.

    But then things started souring and instead of providing resources it started swallowing them on an ever increasing volume

    The business has already consumed more than your original investment all your reserves and ,ost of your capital

    do you keep throwing money at it or do you accept that its an unworkable enterprise and let it go down the drain hole?

  8. Mahons,

    Yes, it’s a complex issue and certainly requires careful thought. I guess my own instincts are that we need to focus on the enemy – AQ – and have a strategy that wipes them off this earth. That’s why DNOF has a point, though not quite as he suggests. We should indeed choose where we fight, and how we fight. I think that nation-building plays into AQ hands as they can destroy, that’s all they are good at. So a calibrated strategy focued on destroying AQ would be my preference and I wish that there was more debate on that.

  9. Mahons,
    I think David has a point when he asks what message a possible American retreat will have on the global war on terror. And here, sad to say, Bush seems to have chosen the better part. Run away now and you’ll have a nuke delivered on your doorstep in record time, financed by Iraqi oil revenue.

    No. America’s only choice is to stay on and make a second Vietnam out of this. No way Iraq’s going to stabilise in the next 3 Presidencies, irrespective of whether the White Army stays put or not.

    To be frank, there is another alternative but in many ways one that will be less acceptable than even another Vietnam. That is to let Iran intervene and sort matters out. Iran is the only country with sufficient credibility within Iraq (among the majority Shias at least) to help set things right. But Iran doesn’t have the resources and would need American funding to achieve anything.

    Which is why I would say that potentially even more disastrous than the Iraq invasion is the West’s war of words with Ahmedinejad.

  10. Mahons,
    You can’t let Iraqis slug it out like Rwanda because of all the natural resources there. Let me remind you of Paul Wolfowitz and his agenda:

    His words: Look, the primarily difference — to put it a little too simply — between North Korea and Iraq is that we had virtually no economic options with Iraq because the country floats on a sea of oil.

  11. They got a number 3 in Al-Quaida

  12. Yup, Percy. I too find it strange that these arrests almost always happen when Bush is facing some political difficulty or the other. I’m sure he’s going to mention this arrest (and the 170 AQ guys in Saudi Arabia and the one more in Pakistan – all no doubt unplanned arrests that just happened to come at the right time) in his next address.

  13. AHA!
    I was right after all.
    The arrest was made last December or so.
    The only thing that needed to be timed was the announcement.

  14. Adrian: Bush would have to make an announcement a day if that were the case.