Cheney says "For quite a while, the cause of our military in that country went pretty much unquestioned, even on the left. The effort was routinely praised by way of contrast to Iraq, which many wrote off as a failure until the surge proved them wrong. Now suddenly " and despite our success in Iraq " we're hearing a drumbeat of defeatism over Afghanistan. These criticisms carry the same air of hopelessness, they offer the same short-sighted arguments for walking away, and they should be summarily rejected for the same reasons of national security.
What success in Iraq? The 132 people killed on a recent Sunday wouldn't label it a success, just another "Mission Accomplished type of day "that is more Iraqis die, the Americans lie about their success in GWOT, more terrorists are created and the US become less safe.
The article "Bombings rock Iraq's political landscape -- DEADLIEST ATTACKS IN TWO YEARS--'A clear message' to Maliki before elections at
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/25/AR2009102500811_pf.html
states "Twin car bombs that devastated three government buildings and killed 132 people Sunday underlined a new strategy in Iraq's contest for power ahead of January elections: spectacular blows aimed at destroying faith in Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's ability to secure the country as the United States withdraws, officials and residents said.
Maliki trying to proclaim his ability to keep Iraq secure is one of the stated reasons he should retain his position. That makes sense as in every country the ability of country to defend itself is a paramount responsibility. So when he fails, his opponents can claim that they could do a better job. See how this corresponds to Cheney and Obama?
The article continues "Security officials are busy with politics," said Asma al-Musawi, a parliament member from a bloc allied with cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, whose followers represent one of Maliki's main challengers in the coming election. "Now everybody's accusing everybody else."
Remember Rumsfeld's Oct-22-2003 slog memo in which he said "Today, we lack metrics to know if we are winning or losing the global war on terror," he wrote. "Are we capturing, killing or deterring and dissuading more terrorists every day than the madrassas and the radical clerics are recruiting, training and deploying against us?"
Implicit in this is that the US might kill 10 terrorists only to generate 100 more relatives and friends of the victims of "Shock and Awe .
The article continues "We don't know whether it's the political parties, al-Qaeda, neighboring countries or the Americans," said Ridah Mahdi Mohammed, 41, whose nephew was run over by a vehicle speeding away from one of the bombings. The Americans are primarily to blame, though, he added, because "they control everything, from the sky to the ground." Mohammed seems to be a likely recruit for the terrorists "who wouldn't want vengeance when a youngster dies- and he identifies us as the enemy thanks to W's GWOT.
Why is Sadr important? The article "The Rise of Ayatollah Moqtada al-Sadr at
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009/07/27/the_rise_of_ayatollah_muqtada_al_sadr
explains that Sadr has been studying in Iran to attain religious legitimacy by becoming an ayatollah. If he accomplishes that he'll have, "major sources of religious and financial capital that have traditionally benefited high-ranking Shiite clerics. The phased withdrawal of U.S. forces, along with the possible renewal of sectarian violence in the country, could be the ideal backdrop for the resurrection of the Sadrists. Sadr can reconstitute his militia with relative ease, turning it into a Hezbollah-like organization capable of wielding influence both on the streets and in the political arena. This is where Tehran could play a major role: During his studies in Qom, Iranian hard-liners may encourage Sadr to lead a new Mahdi Army in Iraq in a new challenge against the U.S. presence there. The opportunities for such a battle would only grow if there were to be a violent confrontation between Iran and the United States over Tehran's nuclear program.
We don't know how the next Iraqi election will turn out. If Sadr gets power the US will have to accept that they have given their biggest enemy in the Middle East "Iran, an oil rich country "Iraq. Where is Cheney's success in Iraq?
Why does the US media give Cheney a forum? The article "Cheney: Stop the 'dithering' as troops face danger at
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/21/AR2009102104242_pf.html
should never have been developed as it just gives Cheney the opportunity to denigrate the President. Cheney, back in his days of power, would have imprisoned anyone who made the same remarks against W.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
1
1
1
