Iraq Study Report & Troop Reduction Not Recommended

Star Tribune: http://www.startribune.com/587/story/859263.html

Experts advise (President) Bush not to reduce troops despite what the Iraq Study Report says. This story comes out by the Washington Post (And MSNBC also mentions that the ARMY Also wants more troops). This fly’s in the face of the Iraq Study Report, and I doubt you will see this in the Star Tribune. Let me show you why I feel that following the Iraq Study report is... Dumb.

To quote the Associated Press, with a completely non-bias, center leaning, middle of the road, objective article titled "Panel: Bush's Iraq Policies have failed:"

Nearly four years, $400 billion and more than 2,900 U.S. deaths into a deeply unpopular war, violence is bad and getting worse, there is no guarantee of success and the consequences of failure are great

Wow, this sounds familure. World War II... Lots of US Soldiers died for a war with violence that escalated the further the war went on with no guarantee of success and huge huge consequences of failure. The only thing that’s not the same between the two (the way the Associated Press writer words it) is that Iraq has gotten very unpopular, where World War II was very popular? Oh yea, Never mind that last part, The US Didn't want to get into World War II either.

An intrestering side note that also bothers me: People Anti-War folks try to say "why attack Iraq when they didn't attack us?" Well, in world war II, why attack Germany when they didn't attack us? Wasn't it Japan that attacked us, which pushed us into war on the otherside of the planet with Germany? Iraq is the same. And why do you think terrorists are trying so hard to keep Iraq? Because, oh, I don't know, It must be important to them...

It said the United States should find ways to pull back most of its combat forces by early 2008 and focus U.S. troops on training and supporting Iraqi units. The U.S. should also begin a "diplomatic offensive" by the end of the month and engage adversaries Iran and Syria in an effort to quell sectarian violence and shore up the fragile Iraqi government, the report said.

Okay, I have a question. What the crap is a "Diplomatic Offensive?" Have the ones we're fighting (terrorists and extremists) ever asked to sit down and talk? Would you believe the word of a group that has said that they want all us "infidels" dead? Do you think a group that has made statements to that effect could be trusted with diplomacy?

"I feel encouraged, and I feel the stay-the-course strategy is officially dead."
— Rep. Jane Harman, D-Calif.

Well, I think you, Jane Harman, are an Idiot. To illustrate this point, Let me call upon the views of those who agree with her: ThinkProgress.org. This is quite interesting... watch how I spin this. To Quote Think Progress.org:

A newly translated letter from al-Qaeda’s leadership to their Iraq organization shows the Bush administration’s “stay the course” Iraq strategy is exactly what al Qaeda wants:

The most important thing is that you continue in your jihad in Iraq, and that you be patient and forbearing, even in weakness, and even with fewer operations; even if each day had half of the number of current daily operations, that is not a problem, or even less than that. So, do not be hasty. The most important thing is that the jihad continues with steadfastness and firm rooting, and that it grows in terms of supporters, strength, clarity of justification, and visible proof each day. Indeed, prolonging the war is in our interest, with God’s permission.

This summer, Bush administration officials repeatedly justified their Iraq policy by pointing to al Qaeda propaganda. One example of many:

DAN BARTLETT: So, it doesn’t matter what we say. We should be taking the - the words of the enemy seriously. They think [Iraq is] the fight of the war on terror, so, we must as well. [8/31/06]

Will the White House change its tune now that al Qaeda has endorsed “stay the course”?

For one, this letter is from Al Qaeda is directed to members of Al Qaeda telling them to stay in Iraq, and to fight us, no matter what, or as they say:

even if each day had half of the number of current daily operations, that is not a problem, or even less than that.

So, ThinkProgress.org... Al Qaeda didn't say anywhere in there that they want the US to stay in Iraq, but that they want to keep fighting for Iraq. I can't believe that you (ThinkProgress.org) are so willing to put forth your own propaganda as to distort clear facts in that manor.

Secondaly, apparently ThinkProgress.org does not remember in 2004 when Al Qaeda's Osama Bin Laden him self told us not to vote for President Bush.

We agreed with the general commander Muhammad Atta, may Allah have mercy on him, that all operations should be carried out within 20 minutes, before Bush and his administration would become aware. We never imagined that the Commander in Chief of the American armed forces would abandon 50,000 of his citizens in the twin towers to face this great horror alone when they needed him most. It seemed to him that a girl's story about her goat and its butting was more important than dealing with planes and their 'butting' into skyscrapers. This allowed us three times the amount of time needed for the operations, Allah be praised.

Your security is not in the hands of Kerry or Bush or Al-Qa'ida. Your security is in your own hands, and any U.S. state that does not toy with our security automatically guarantees its own security.

So, with that said, since you (ThinkProgress.org) feel in your own misguided opinion that because Al Qaeda wants us to stay the course (using your own words), that now, thanks to me pointing it out to you again, You feel that Bush is a correct choice because Al Qaeda did not want him as president?

This isn't about partisan politics, people. Its about Logic. Don't let your partisan hatred for President Bush get in the way of the safety of the United States. It is illogical to think that because Al Qaeda wants Iraq, we should let them have it... Because Al Qaeda wants to fight for it, we should back down. So, now that I'm done poking a morinic group with the stick of Justice, back to this "report." (What exactly is "Progressive" about running away, anyway?)

We CAN NOT be diplomatic with Al Qaeda, no matter how much this report wants us to be, or how much the public want us to end a war. To alter the plan to include one of diplomacy with a group that wants to kill us is suscide.

"We will not accomplish victory by setting arbitrary deadlines or negotiating with hostile governments." — Rep. John Boehner, R-Ohio.

And that brings me into the second point about this report. The Withdraw by 2008. If we told Germany in World War II (and by tell Germany, I mean, our media and news papers, because our enemy can read the Star Tribune just as easily as I can) that we are going to take our troops out in 1945, do you think we would have won World War II? No, because the enemy would have just held out until that time, and they would have won. I know war sucks, people, but so does spanking your child. And if you tell your child that you will only spank him 5 times in his life, you may as well tell him you will never punish him.

So, your witty comment to take away from this is:

War is like spanking a child. It sucks, but sometimes you have no choice.

The Iraq Study Report is doing nothing but appealing to what the public wants (thanks to the bombardment of the Media Agenda). This report was nothing but a political gesture to try to tell people that the government is thinking about what people are whining about.

To Quote Chuck Norris:

America: Don't stick your head in the sand!
This is one of my greatest concerns for our newly elected Democratic-majority House and Senate: that they not stick their heads in the sand regarding the war on terror.
With anti-American extremist cells loose and growing in the world, now is not the time to drop our guard and funding on intelligence, national security and the global spread of anti-American sentiment.
Regardless of whether our troops stay or are withdrawn from Iraq, America's enemies will remain relentlessly in pursuit of our downfall and destruction, in and outside our country.
Of course our enemies are not the Japanese or the Germans like they were back then, but a network of nebulous extremists. And our battlefield is not any specific location, but anywhere our adversaries can lie in foxholes of fear.

Make no mistake about it: If we don't fight them abroad, we'll fight them at home.

I will leave you with this. It is pathetic when someone takes a quote that says "there is no guarantee of success" and uses that as their proof that we should leave. There is never a guarantee of success in any situation, but if we used that as a reason not to fight, or push on, or advance ourselves... we would probably still be building premeds out of sand... unless there is no guarantee of succeeding at that either. If we listen to the people who want us out of Iraq, before you know it, Iraqi Ambassador Osama will hang out at the UN Headquarters in New York telling us how unfortunate it was that we forced them to cause 9/11, and we'll be apologizing to him.

********** Update 12/27/06 9:35am **********

See, I'm not crazy. To quote CNN:

Biden said he opposes adding troops in Iraq. The Iraq Study Group recommended adding troops to the 140,000 U.S. in the country. And there have been signs that the administration favors putting more troops in Baghdad as a way to curb the escalating violence there.

Biden said a "troop surge" will not work.
"We should be drawing down troops gradually, forcing the Iraqis to meet their own
needs to end this civil war by a political agreement," Biden said Tuesday on CNN's "American Morning."

Biden has said he favors partitioning Iraq, something the Iraq Study Group and military leaders oppose.

Amazing. While I don't agree with the Iraq Study Report saying we need to withdraw by 2008 (that decision should be made based on the assessment of the situation there), which Biden DOES agree with, I do agree with the Iraq Study Report's assessment that more troops would be good (to stomp out the fires), which Biden DOES NOT agree with.