 |
 |
 |
Will America suffer from premature evacuation?
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.israpundit.com/mt-tb.cgi/11630
Comments
1
.
david tripp
said:
Ted,
There are multiple reasons why I do not feel that comparing Vietnam to Iraq is a fair comparison. Except the fact that the left in this country is attacking this war as hard as they attacked Vietnam. They are shameless in pushing their agenda by not covering any good news in Iraq , and covering bad news as much as possible. The main stream media that is dominated by the left as far as I see it hates America , and wishes to see us fall and our authority diminished.
We can win this war in Iraq . Even with all the foreign fighters and other nations against us. Yet even Osama Binladden admitted that he needed to win the political war , and that he could not defeat the US military might.
That is why I stick by my claim that the majority of the left is anti-american and we need to fight them politically here , and that is one of the most important things we can do to support their hard won efforts in Iraq.
Posted by: david tripp on December 12, 2005 01:48 AM
2
.
kuhnkat
said:
Mr. Belman said:
"I remember when the US was in Vietnam and losing badly, they wondered how they could get out without losing more than they could bear. They were finally forced to just get out and bear the cost."
and that is one of the saddest things about the Vietnam war. The lefties tlaked us out of our win. Even the Vietnamese General, in his memoirs, states they were militarily BEATEN after the Tet offensive. They won a Propaganda victory though which our own traitors turned into a complete victory for NV. It took them several years and our stopping all aid to South Vietnam before the North could gather enough military might to destroy the South Vietnamese army even though Russia never stopped their support of North Vietnam.
That is what the Dhimmicrats are AGAIN trying to accomplish. First we must defeat them, then we might have a chance of defeating the Islamofascists.
Posted by: kuhnkat on December 12, 2005 03:53 AM
3
.
Ted Belman
said:
Referring to Iraq, it all depends opn your definition of "winning". I never looked at the invasion of Iraq as a stand alone thing. Iraq was part of a larger war, a war to defeat those who would attacxk us at home or abroad and those that would support them. Now the whole issue is to create a democracy which can defend itself or almost defend itself. I am sure we can do that but believe it will be to no avail. The Sunnis and the Shiites will continue to fight over Iraq and the best we can hope for is that some strong man will establish himself enugh to reign supreme. We don't know if he will be friendly or not. I don't believe that such a victory is a victory in the larger war. We got a bloody nose and arfe less likely to go forward with the larger war.
Posted by: Ted Belman on December 12, 2005 04:32 AM
4
.
BobW
said:
To respond to Ted's question whether the US will win the battle but lose the war requires looking at a couple of examples.
The Shah of Iran was not exiled because of an earthquake. The indicators and warnings were present and reported.
Khomeini was being held in reserve in Paris. Paris is in France. The rest is recent history. "Desert One" should refresh memories. After the Shah's fall, other countries, similiarly situated, adjusted accordingly by adopting new policy positions.
After the Tet Offensive in South Vietnam, American public opinion supported additional action in furtherance of the war. This large suport was eclipsed by a small but powerful public relations barrage by a specifically identified bloc. The pollsters used what's now a permanent term in the US lexicon when they plotted the hostile category against LBJ. It is designated the "Jewish sub-group". The final dissolution of South Vietnam is identified with this "Jewish sub-group". Countries that were similiarly situated to the complexion of South Vietnam adjusted acordingly by adopting new policy positions.
Only fools and sages make predictions. It's not a prediction to say US withdrawal will leave a vacuum and the vacuum will not be filled by Buddist Monks.
Kol tuv,
BobW
Posted by: BobW on December 12, 2005 05:39 AM
5
.
kuhnkat
said:
Mr. Belman,
I think we are on the same page, I am just a little more optimistic.
In Vietnam the WAR was not just over who controlled South Vietnam, or should not have been. The original reason we went in, in addition to insuring access to strategic raw materials was to stop the Communists. After our "loss" there the Communists were virtually free to run rampant over the world including inside the US. We still suffer from this insurgency at home.
In Iraq the war was not just whether Saddam had WMDs or was a brutal fascist murdering his people and attacking neighbors putting our oil supply in danger. The most important part of our attacking Saddam was to break up the hegemony the Islamofascists were creating in the ME. This solidified base would have controlled a large chunk of the worlds oil supply providing leverage and funds to subjugate country after country.
Winning in Iraq won't win this war. It will put us in a much better position to fight it.
The result of our Winning will be a rather tumultous internal and external political situation. The good news is that pretty much everyone in the country is fed up with the Islamofascists and want to get back to grabbing their share of Influence and proceeds from the Oil revenue. Their relative success as a Democracy for even a few years will be a good influence to destabilize the Islamofascists and dictatorships instead of strenghtening them.
Posted by: kuhnkat on December 12, 2005 09:53 AM
6
.
Ted Belman
said:
Kuhnkat
We are in the exact same position.
Posted by: Ted Belman on December 12, 2005 11:09 AM
7
.
david tripp
said:
I hope and pray that it works.
Posted by: david tripp on December 13, 2005 02:41 AM
Will America suffer from premature evacuation?
By Ted Belman (written in '03)
America will win the battle but will it win the war?
Normally, I am very optimistic but I am beginning to have my doubts. America will be victorious in Iraq just as Israel was victorious in all its wars with the Arabs. Unfortunately for Israel, its victories didn’t win the peace. I am afraid the US will suffer the same outcome.
The Arabs have shown that they will never accept Israel in their midst and not just Israel in the territories. They will stop at nothing and will fight forever to achieve their goal of getting Israel out of the ME. Time and again, Arafat has thumbed his nose at the US and he is still there. This intafadah has cost the Palestinians dearly but they still want it to go on. No matter how many terrorists Israel stops, more come. Oslo brought Israel close to ruin and the Road Map promises to finish the job. They are premised on the illusion that the Arabs will accept a rational solution to the conflict short of Israel’s destruction.
America will soon find it self in occupation of Iraq. Hussein didn’t cave in, in advance of the war preferring to bury the Americans in Iraq. The Palestinians know they need the US to help them get concessions from Israel but that doesn’t stop them from supporting Hussein and sending martyrs. Syria gets a stern warning and they too continue to defy the US and send men and equipment to support Iraq. Al Qaeda has also joined the fray sending a large contingent of their people to Iraq. There is no shortage of volunteers to participate in the fight to defeat America. The Arabs will use guerrilla warfare in Iraq and terrorism in America to achieve their liberation.
If anything is clear the Arabs are going to resist America for "as long as it takes" to use Bush’s phrase. Russia let Germany in, only to later defeat them. Russia let Napoleon in, only to later defeat him. North Vietnam outlasted America. Examples abound of where invaders bit off more than they could chew, especially where the population is hostile and energized to overcome, as the Arabs are to America.
America’s only hope is that they win the hearts and minds of the Shi’ites as they liberate them. If the Shi’ites embrace the American liberation then they will reject the terrorists among them. All is not that simple because Iran may try to replace American influence with its own influence. The Kurds will stay loyal in the north and can govern themselves leaving only the Sunnis in the centre. That’s where the population can be expected to be hostile to America and where terrorism will flourish.
The Arabs will be aided and abetted by the entire anti-war crowd and the liberal press.
What hope is there for America? What hope is there for Israel? Will the Road Map that America seems to be determined to make public help them win friends? I think not. Will it help them bring peace to Israel or the ME? I think not. How will they get Syria to bend to their will if Syria is prepared to suffer a great deal of damage to their country as the Palestinians and Iraqis are. This war could well destabilize Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt in a way that is not in America’s interest.
If America comes to the conclusion that their ultimate goals are not achievable, they will settle for destroying WMD and then install a Shiite regime in the south that is dependant on them and a Kurdish regime in the North that is dependant on them and whoever they can in Bagdad. Then they will get the hell out. It will all have been for naught with more negative fallout then positive benefits.
That will leave Israel in a worse place than before the War. The Arabs will feel emboldened and Israel will be road kill on the Road Map.
I remember when the US was in Vietnam and losing badly, they wondered how they could get out without losing more than they could bear. They were finally forced to just get out and bear the cost. What will happen here? They will certainly be conflicted over the cost benefit of staying or of going. Will they stay the course no matter what the pain because the cost or retreating would be too much to bear? Will they stay the course for 10 years or suffer from premature evacuation.
Time will tell but the signs are ominous.
(I wrote this in April '03. It was on the money then. and still is.)
Posted by Ted Belman at December 12, 2005 07:41 AM