The Plan failed....Next!

That's life. Things don't always go as planned. Hellllloooooooo. Plan to win. The libtards love to lose. They wallow in it. It's their cause celebre. Self defeating momzers.
On Iraq,  John Podhoretz lays it out beautifully here in the New York Post;

We thought a political process inside Iraq would make a military push toward victory against a tripartite foe - Saddamist remnants, foreign terrorists and anti-American Shiites - unnecessary.

Yes, we'd stay in Iraq and fight the bad guys when we had to, which seemed mostly to be when they decided to attack us first. Our resolve was intended to give the Iraqi people the sense that they were being given control of their future, and to give Iraqi politicians the sense that they had a chance to forge a new kind of country in which everybody could prosper.

For this reason, we relented on several occasions when we had a chance to score a major victory over the bad guys. Because politics was more important than military victory, because playing the game was more important than killing the enemy, we chose to lose.

After the beheading of Americans in Fallujah, we had the city surrounded - but, because it seemed an attack on Fallujah would be problematic for Iraqi politics, we pulled back. We had the Shiite monster Moqtada al-Sadr in our sights as well, but let him go as well for fear Iraq's leading Shiite cleric would turn on us.

Each of these decisions seemed prudent at the time. In retrospect, they seem disastrous. Our failure to take Fallujah after the deaths of Americans gave the enemy the sense that we were weak. Our failure to kill Sadr has led to a situation in which he has excessive power over the elected government.

Still, the theory of how to prevail in Iraq made sense as a theory. What, after all, were the Saddamists and the terrorists fighting for? Clearly there would be no restoration of Saddam's cruel reign, and they couldn't score a battlefield victory against us. That's why Dick Cheney and others referred to them as "dead-enders" - because they were and are dead-enders. They had no achievable goal for securing power in Iraq.

Meanwhile, the Iraqi people were voting in elections - 8 million in the first, 10 million in the second, 12 million in the third. They created a new political class where there'd been none before.

Means nothing to the left. They love ideas, hate people.

So we need a new plan. But the Baker-Hamilton advice isn't a new plan. The Democrats don't have a new plan. The only plan that will work is a plan to face the tripartite enemy - the Saddamists, the foreign terrorists and the Shiite sectarians - and bring them to heel.

Kill as many bad guys as we can, with as many troops as we can muster.

If this is unrealistic, then Iraq is lost.

If we can't win, then we lose.

Political change doesn't win wars. That's what we've learned, painfully and horribly. Only winning wars wins wars.

President Bush needs to decide, as soon as possible, that he is going to win this war - that the bad guys are going to die, that we are going to kill them and that we will achieve our objectives in Iraq. That is the only way forward for him if he doesn't want to end up in ignominy.

The clock is ticking. He has only a week, maybe two, to change course dramatically. To choose to win, and to direct the military to do so.

Bottom line in Iraq ................... we are fighting for lives, like it or not.

Cal Thomas in today's NY SUN (read it all here , it's is so good)

In his memo, Mr. Rumsfeld's list of "above the line" options contain an element of troop reductions, but his recommendations are designed to put progress ahead of pullout, so that withdrawal follows the attainment of a more stable Iraq, instead of impeding it. That is the main difference between the Rumsfeld memo and the vociferous "withdraw now" crowd. Mr. Rumsfeld and President Bush want to see an independent and stable Iraq achieved first.

[...]

There is something else the Iraq Study Group is unlikely to address. It is the loss of fear by our enemies. America was once feared and respected around the world. Once, few would have dared kidnap an American because of certain retribution. The loss of fear started with Jimmy Carter, who allowed followers of Iran's Ayatollah Khomeini to hold American hostages for 444 days. It was no coincidence that Khomeini released the hostages just 20 minutes after Ronald Reagan's inaugural address. Khomeini must have believed reports that Reagan was a "cowboy" and might flatten Iran with nuclear bombs.

Buck up America. We are at war. This aint no football game.

They [American politicians] are like the crowd at a football game that sees the home team losing and heads for the exits before the game is over, only to miss the big comeback and victory

 

Comments

[prairiemain]

>>Khomeini must have believed reports that Reagan was a "cowboy" and might flatten Iran with nuclear bombs.<<

The reason he "believed" is because Reagan made it clear twice. I paraphrase Reagan's most famous, unembellished response to that specific question:

"Those American hostages will be free shortly after I'm sworn in if not before."

What he meant was: They release them or we're going in to get them.

It also became a log to the conspiracy fire that Reagan had made a pre-election deal with the Iranians. It is typical of leftwing moonbats (and are there any other kind?) to misconstrue resolve for the angst-laden bleating of cowardly idiots like Jimmy Carter.

When pressed to give details on what he meant, Reagan refused to do so. It was part of that gentleman's agreement that you do not overly criticize the sitting Commander-in-Chief on matters of foreign police (remember when that rubric held sway?). But anyone watching Reagan could not mistake the absolute commitment written on his face.

This much we knew and Khomeini knew: if the American hostages were still in Iranian hands after Reagan's swearing in, war would've been the result. American aircraft carriers would've been on their way to Iran within the hour and I'm certain assault divisions would've been in the process of preparing to deploy. B-52s would've been winging their way to that la la land within the hour.

Oil isn't worth very much if you can't pump it out of the ground or ship it to paying customers. Tehran is already a sewer by most Western standards; it would've become a rubble-filled sewer.

The hostages might not have been freed, even so, but one thing is certain: Iran was about to pay a heavy price for holding Americans and Khomeini was smart enough to have some inkling as to how much damage the American military could do to his so-called "Islamodingdong Revolution".

End result: The hostages were released just before Reagan was sworn in.

Reagan understood the importance of the phrase "speak softly but carry a big stick."
The big stick doesn't mean much if no one believes you'll actually use it.

Arnold
Tarheel Redneck

[Zhubin]

You're four different kinds of retarded, prairie. Aside from the well-documented links between Reagan and the ayatollahs prior to the election, and the VERY strong links between the two governments afterwards, it would be patently ridiculous to believe that an American attack on Iran would have been anything but beneficial to the Islamic government at the time, which needed an outside enemy to help consolidate power. There is almost no doubt that a deal was cut to free the hostages.

And hey, where was Reagan's "big stick" during the Iran-Contra scandal? Oh, I guess he must have sold it to the Iranians to pay for funds to the Contras.

Arming one group of terrorists to help support another group of terrorists. That's your hero Reagan for you.

[Cruz8r]

Part of my plan can be found on my blog.http://kafirklatsch.blogspot.com To date, noone has visited it and I have no idea if it is even accessible. An Atlas I'm not, not as cultured, not as couth, and certainly not as curvaceous! But I digress. As long as President Bush is sucking up and rolling over I think he should apologize to the Iraqis, apologize to our servicemen, their families and apologize to Saddam Hussein. Yes Sadaam. He should then pardon him, rearm his military and let him give it to the Shi'a. When he's thru, we can go back in and then hang him.

[Cruz8r]

La Cosa Nostra and the Dogs of War

Having grown up in and near the environs of the Big Apple, I was infatuated at a young age with all things Mafia. An early reader, I enjoyed the Daily News, the NYPost, and Newsday on a daily basis. I remember the public demise of "Crazy Joey" Gallo, Gambino, Castellano etc, etc. I read all the books. Honor thy Father, The Valachi Papers, the Godfather and on and on. I learned that the Mafia invented and perfected the Vendetta. Well, the old Moustache Pete's are dead or locked up, but I think they should be resurrected. We need to find full blooded Sicilians with fully sociopathic psyches. We need, as the US of A to hire these people and place them in the newly created Cabinet department called the Department of Terror. A typical day for an agent of the DofT would consist of visiting family members of our enemies. They could have a nice chat and some tea with Mother Bin-Laden. They could then cut her toes off and mail them to Al-jazeera. Daily visits to the families of terrorists accompanied by some good limb sawing would surely get the attention of the terrorist de jour. Wake the F*#k up America and western civilization!!! This is a damn war! We are not going to gain any ground by talking to the islamoscum in english. We need to speak their language, and that language is death and destruction. The one who kills quickest and destroys fastest wins. These people are willing to die for their religion, we need to oblige them post haste. It appears that Americans haven't the stomach for a long protracted war, so lets finish it quick like. Cry Havoc! and let slip the marines. Let our men take the gloves off and do what they do best; kill the enemy with extreme prejuidice. How many alarms must sound before we arise from our slumber and defend that which is good.

[majdvmphd]

What "well documented links", Zhubin? I agree with prairie, and I've got a DVM and a PhD. Care to call ME four different kinds of retarded? Why is there "almost no doubt that a deal was cut to free the hostages"? You are five different varieties of chromosome deficient and a cut from the 2006 Special Olympics Debate Team.

Again with the "blame America first" and moral equivalence bullshit. Forget the fact that Ahmadenijad was one of those hostage takers?

Reagan dealt with the lesser of evils at the time, as has been an unfortunate reality throughout history. Our alliance with Stalin during WWII to fight the Nazis for example. Doesn't mean that Stalin wasn't the enemy later and that was shouldn't have considered him such. This was also the case with the Chinese post-WWII, and Saddam Hussein more recently as well. It doesn't mean that you don't rectify ("unfuck") the situation when it changes down the line because you had a prior arrangement. Ridiculous argument.

Unless you can cite something to verify your conspiracy theory from something other than "The Nation", "Mama Jones", or Michael Moore, you've just experienced a smack-down.

[Zhubin]

Again with the "blame America first" and moral equivalence bullshit. Forget the fact that Ahmadenijad was one of those hostage takers?

What the hell does that have to do with anything, maj? My argument was that Reagan was not some cowboy hero who heeled the Ayatollah with a stern look, as prairie thinks, but a guy who was willing to cut deals with anyone, including the mullahs he denounced so fervently to the cameras. You're either a moron for thinking Ahmadinejad's participation in the hostage crisis (or his general dickness) is relevant, or deliberately confusing the issue.

Reagan dealt with the lesser of evils at the time, as has been an unfortunate reality throughout history.

Although I agree that sometimes you must deal with lesser evils, I don't accept that making deals with terrorists to fund other terrorists is acceptable, and certainly not for the reasons Reagan did it. And in any event, if you DO believe what Reagan did was okay, and accept that for some reason the murder of thousands of innocent Nicaraguans was necessary to fulfill some higher value, then at least don't go around pretending that he's some kind of hero cowboy, alright?

And there are a host of well-documented links between former CIA agents in the Reagan administration and Iranian mullahs, and documented visits between the two groups before Reagan's swearing-in and afterwards. These have been recounted in both the House and Senate intelligence committees and numerous books, such as Sick's October Surprise.

Nonetheless, my language in the previous post was a bit too forceful. Although I have no doubt that Reagan was involved in a hostage deal, the hard evidence is not at the "almost no doubt" level.

Still, the links between the two groups combined with the mullahs' sudden rejection of Carter's negotiations in 1979 plus the sudden release of the hostages after Reagan's inauguration plus the numerous arms deals with Iran afterward are compelling evidence to me that a deal was cut.

[prairiemain]

Zhubin, you're a waste of carbon but you have comic appeal. However, as usual for the moonbat left, every syllable of your silly diatribe is false.

Ronald Reagan is the greatest President this country has ever had. We need another one like him and soon.

Sit up straight, take some oxygen in with that smoke and try not to dribble. It impresses people.

Arnold
Tarheel Redneck

[cozmo1950]

Zhubin, We are in agreement. I too think there was a deal. It went something like this. Release the hostages or die.

Mississippi Combat Robotics Go Fast/Hit Stuff

[Zhubin]

Four different kinds, prairie.

[majdvmphd]

Five chromosome deficit, zhubin.

[Richard Davis]

majdvmphd - you're right, he has a hormonial imbalance.