Hatfields & McCoys Feud With Revisionist Democrats Asking The Wrong Questions

Steve Chapman has an article posted on Real Clear Politics wherein he tries to legitimize the Democrat's plans for retreat from Iraq by comparing those plans to what he claims were similar Repulican moves to retreat from hostilities in the past. He even manages to work in a "Mission accomplished" cheap shot. For her part, Hillbilly Politics has an excellent point by point refutation, clarifying the history as posited by Mr. Chapman.

I am only writing to add that, if you look at Chapman's article, you'll note he stays away from any assessment of the consequences of retreat from Iraq. Even if Mr. Chapman were correct in his every assertion that today's Democrats are no more craven then Republicans of days past, it is meaningless. The consequences of disengagement, in every instance cited by Mr. Chapman, do not even begin to compare with the consequences of disengagement from Iraq.

The bottom line, you can argue about whether we should have gotten into this war, but that question is wholly academic now. You can beleive Bush lied if you like, but that is a question for partisans. To quit Iraq for that reason would be wholly infantile. It would be making a decision on personal feelings today rather then on any sort of inquiry into the possible and likely consequences of the decision. And for those who give short shrift to the question of consequences, it is worth noting that such a tremendous "failure of imagination" is precisely what the 9-11 Commission identified as being at the heart of our failure to assess the threat of al Qaeda to begin with. The greatest single issue facing us today is the one no Democrat will touch. What are the costs and consequences for leaving Iraq?

Why our MSM does not ask about the consequences of retreating from Iraq with every far left Democrat they interview - and I include, Reid, Pelosi, Murtha, Boxer, Obey, Clinton, Obama and Edwards in that group - is beyond me. They are doing a disservice to the nation. And I find the failure of the conservatives and moderates in Congress to demand that this be the center of debate incomprehensible. They should be asking that question before every microphone they can find on a daily basis.

I guess that I need to add just a bit more, given that Harry Reid declard our military defeated. Our military cannot be defeated on any battlefield in Iraq. I defy anyone to identify an engagement we have lost in Iraq when a platoon or larger element of our soldiers was involved. It hasn't happened.

When Harry Reid claimed our forces defeated, he was making a purely political statement devoid of any military reality. The truth is that defeat will not happen at the hands of radical Islamists on the battlefield. Given support from Congress and the Executive, we will succeed in securing Iraq.

In 2005 and 2006, we pulled our military back into large cantonements so as to minimize our footprints. At the same time, we turned over security to Iraqi forces. The Iraqi forces ultimately proved to be not up to the task. That strategy was a mistake, and the effect of that mistake was magnified exponentially when al Qaeda was able to bomb the Mosque of the Golden Dome.

Such mistakes are common in war. Study WWI, WWII, the Civil War and the Korean War and you will find the early history of those wars riddled with such errors. For example, the failure of Generals in WWI to adapt their strategy to new weapons led to carnage on an unheard of scale. On July 1, 1916, Sir Douglas Haig ordered his men forward in a frontal assult on German lines at the Battle of the Somme. By days end, his strategy had resulted in 57,000 British solders dead, wounded and missing. Over a four month period, his offensive saw British casualties rise to 420,000. Fortunately, most mistakes of strategy are not that costly.

We are following a different strategy in Iraq now. One that is aggressive and maximizes our efforts. The question is not will it work, but how long will it take, and whether Congress will provide the funds and manpower for sufficient time to allow the mission to be completed. Which brings us back full circle to the penultimate question. What will be the consequences of retreat from Iraq?

Read More...

Summary only...

Fred on Our First 14 Year War With Islamists

Fred reminds us that, after the Revolution and the adoption of our Constitution, our very first war lasted fourteen years. It was against the Barbary pirates of the Ottoman Caliphate, who justified their acts of war and brutal enslavement on the Koran. Our early government tried appeasement. It didn't work. It wasn't until the Marines and Stephen Decatur went to "the shores of Tripoli" and decisively defeated the radical Islamists that there was finally peace.

. . . The very first line written for the Marine Corps Hymn, about the shores of Tripoli, refers to America's first foreign war. After the Revolution, U.S. ships were sailing the world in search of trade without British protection. With no real navy to protect our merchants and travelers, American vessels and citizens were being targeted for looting, enslavement and ransom. The enemy was the so-called Barbary pirates -- agents of the North African provinces of the Ottoman Caliphate.

Ransom and protection money were demanded and paid. Stories of terrible treatment of American men and women in the dungeons of North Africa were well known. Behind it all, the country was having a pro- and anti-war debate.

On the one hand were those who took the "no blood for trade" approach. They had legitimate concerns about the cost and political impact of maintaining a standing military. They favored negotiations and payments rather than fighting. For a long time, their side was winning the argument. In 1786, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams even went to London to negotiate directly with the envoy from Tripoli.

Several historians and writers have reminded us recently of the ambassador’s nearly forgotten answer. Fortunately, Jefferson prepared a written report for the government and left other records of the incident. Here’s a description from The Atlantic Monthly in 1872:

“Disguising their feelings as best they could, they ‘took the liberty to make some inquiries concerning the ground of the pretensions to make war upon nations who had done them no injury.’ The ambassador replied that it was written in their Koran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave.” He claimed every one of their guys who was “slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise."

This answer may have helped sway the debate to the side of those who favored military response over further attempts at diplomacy. Some believe it had a personal impact on Jefferson himself, though higher and higher ransoms probably helped too. Congress finally acted, creating the US Navy in 1794. This included approval for the construction and manning of six frigate warships, including the USS Constitution -- which is afloat and commissioned to this day.

Still, though, congress refused to act directly against the Barbary pirates for years. Eventually, between 10 and 20 percent of U.S. revenues would be paid annually without ever buying actual safety for Americans. In the end, Thomas Jefferson acted on his own, sending forces into harm’s way. America entered into its first and protracted foreign war. From beginning to end, in fact, the conflict lasted approximately 14 years. I couldn’t tell you, by the way, if the Barbary wars were ever described as a “quagmire” or "lost."

I won’t describe here the taking of Tripoli by courageous American soldiers. And I sure don’t have time to talk about America's eventual victory over the forces of that era's religiously justified terrorism. I would though encourage you to read about it for yourself. It's a great story and it holds an important lesson about the nature of the world.

Sometimes folks around the world mock Americans for not having more of a sense of history. They might be right, but I think it is often for a good reason. Americans are a people who look to the future instead of the past. We hope and believe that things can and will get better. We are more than willing to forgive our old enemies and move forward together in peace. So we tend to forget the bad things we left behind.

Unfortunately, some of our enemies feel differently. They neither forgive nor forget. Listening to the messages of al Qaida's leaders, you understand that they see their old defeats in very personal and contemporary terms. They are in a “long war” against us, even if we don’t know it. And they’re committed to winning it.

Read the entire article here. Unless Fred and others of his ilk begin speaking up and do so quickly, I am afraid we will have come full circle as a nation, now surrendering to the forces of radical Islam. And just as appeasment did not work two centuries ago, it will certainly not work now. But, we will have peace in our time, right Harry? Or at least peace through the next election cycle.

Read More...

Summary only...