Tag Archives: Iraq War

Some Random Thoughts On The Troop Withdrawal

Posted on by

According to conservative news sources, the troop withdrawal from the Turkish border is simply moving fifty troops–it is not a withdrawal. I wish it were a withdrawal, we are not currently capable of fighting a war right now–we are unable to unite and focus on the job at hand.

Yesterday The Federalist posted an article about the dust-up.

The article notes:

Congress is the institution vested with the power to declare wars, to debate where we send troops, and decide which conflicts are funded. Presidents have been ignoring this arrangement, abuse authorizations for the use of military force (AUMFs), and imbue themselves with the power to engage in conflicts wherever they like, without any coherent endgame, and without any buy-in from Congress.

Congress, in turn, has shown no interest in genuinely challenging executive power, because its members are far more concerned with political self-preservation. Ignoring abuse shields them from tough choices and ensuing criticism—even as they use war as a partisan cudgel.

Even if you don’t believe all these conflicts rise to an Article I declaration, and I don’t, the more accountability there is in foreign entanglements the better. Right now we have little genuine debate or consensus building—in a nation that already exhibits exceptionally little interest in foreign policy—regarding the deployment of our troops, almost always in perpetuity, around the world.

It’s a bipartisan problem. Barack Obama, whose political star rose due to his opposition to the Iraq war, was perhaps our worst offender, circumventing Congress and relying on a decade-old AUMF (authorizations for the use of military force), which he invoked 19 times during his presidency, to justify a half-hearted intervention against ISIS (not al-Qaeda) in Syria (not Afghanistan.)

The article notes that military overreach is a problem in both parties:

It’s a bipartisan problem. Barack Obama, whose political star rose due to his opposition to the Iraq war, was perhaps our worst offender, circumventing Congress and relying on a decade-old AUMF, which he invoked 19 times during his presidency, to justify a half-hearted intervention against ISIS (not al-Qaeda) in Syria (not Afghanistan.)

Trump could bomb Iran tomorrow, use Obama’s reasoning, and have a far stronger legal defense for his actions.

It was also Obama who joined Europeans in the failed intervention in Libya, where he worked under NATO goals rather than the United States law. There was hardly a peep from Democrats fretting over the corrosion of the Constitution.

American would function much more efficiently if our Congressmen and President would simply follow the U.S. Constitution. At this point I am not sure many of them have read it–although they did take an oath to uphold it.

While We Were Watching The Election Campaign

Posted on by

Yesterday Paul Mirengoff at Power Line posted an article about the battle in Dabiq, Syria.

The article reports:

Dabiq is the Syrian village that ISIS promised would be the scene of an apocalyptic showdown, an Armageddon, in which Muslims would win a great battle against the infidels, consisting of 80 nations each ten thousand strong. But recently, as I noted here, ISIS had to abandon Dabiq under pressure from Free Syrian rebels backed by Turkish and U.S. air power.

ISIS’s occupation ended not with an apocalypse, but a whimper.

ISIS has an explanation, though. Will McCants of Jihadica reports that ISIS says the conditions for its apocalyptic prophesy were not present in Dabiq just now. For one thing, the “Mahdi,” a messiah figure, did not appear to lead the battle (the reason for his no-show is unclear). Not only that, the expected 80 infidel armies did not turn up to be defeated.

Prophesy is a difficult racket.

It is good to know that some progress is being made against ISIS. However, we need to remember why ISIS exists. ISIS is the result of the failure of the American State Department under the Obama Administration to secure a reasonable status of forces agreement with Iraq after President Obama took office. President Obama was so obsessed with being the President who ended the war in Iraq that he did not take the necessary steps to secure the victory. A war is not over until both sides have stopped fighting. Somewhere along the way, President Obama decided he had the power to unilaterally end the war in Iraq. Obviously, he didn’t, and our military is currently paying the price for that decision. Unfortunately, the Secretary of State at the time, Hillary Clinton, is no smarter now than she was then. A vote for Hillary Clinton is a vote for further chaos in the Middle East. However, it is good to know that at least in this case, ISIS was routed and their plans altered.

Sometimes You Just Wonder About Motives

Posted on by

American Military News reported on Wednesday that the U.S. government suppressed information on chemical weapons found in Iraq.

The article cites a CNN story:

The U.S. government suppressed information about chemical weapons it found in Iraq, and several servicemembers were injured by their exposure to those weapons, The New York Times is reporting.

In an article published late Tuesday, the newspaper says it found 17 American servicemembers and seven Iraqi police officers who were exposed to mustard or nerve agents after 2003. They were reportedly given inadequate care and told not to talk about what happened.

The article further reports:

According to new reports from the New York Times, between 2003 and 2011 U.S. troops were exposed to Chemical weapons in Iraq regularly, and on 6 occasions were injured by them.

 All in all 5,000 chemical warheads were found in Iraq dating back to the Saddam Hussein regime. Many of these warheads were made in close conjunction with western nations.

I don’t mention this to bring it up as an excuse for the invasion of Iraq. I bring it up to remind people that our government has not always been truthful with us. As far as the invasion of Iraq is concerned, we need to remember the situation at the time–the Iraqi government was violating a United Nations no-fly zone and other conditions of the United Nations agreement signed after Iraq invaded Kuwait. If we wanted the United Nations to survive, we had to deal with Iraq. I personally would not miss the United Nations, but that was the situation at the time. We also need to remember that the Democratic party supported the invasion of Iraq at the beginning and later used the war as a political issue. The war in Iraq is another example of politicians interfering in ways that are unhelpful in military situations.

A Video That Explains Where We Are

Posted on by

I realize that this is not a short video, but it is a briefing by Stephen Coughlin, a man who is no longer allowed to brief our military because he is politically incorrect. Please watch it and understand that our country needs to wake up and realize that our government is not telling the truth. You can go directly to the video on YouTube.

I am currently reading Catastrophic Failure a book by Stephen Coughlin. I would strongly recommend the book to everyone who wants to be informed about the War on Terror.

Rewriting History To Help An Election Campaign

Posted on by

Yesterday the Daily Caller posted an article entitled, “Stop It Liberals: Bush Didn’t Lie About Iraq Having WMDs.” Please follow the link to read the article, I am simply going to focus on the reason this is important.

The seemingly only candidate the Democrats have right now is Hillary Clinton. She has some basic scandal problems. If the media can get the focus off of Hillary Clinton’s scandals and back to Bush Derangement Syndrome, they can tell people that a Republican President is not a good idea–without talking about Hillary or her scandals (or qualifications).

There was much more to the Iraq War than WMDs. Andrew McCarthy posted an article at National Review yesterday talking about the reasons for invading Iraq. Please follow the link and read it–it is extremely insightful.

Like it or not, the 2016 Presidential Campaign is upon us. The press has been given its marching orders and is dutifully following them. Unless Americans begin to look past what the mainstream media is telling us, we will have another President who does not believe in the basic tenets that America was founded on. It is our choice. That is the reason the articles at the Daily Caller and National Review about the invasion of Iraq are important.

 

If You Are Concerned About The Nuclear Deal With Iran, Here Is Your Plan Of Action

Posted on by

Hugh Hewitt posted an article on his website today about the recent developments in the Iranian nuclear deal.

The article reports:

Now that Iran has announced (1) there is no deal unless sanctions are lifted on day one and (2) there will be no “anytime, anywhere” access to military facilities, Democrats up for re-election in 2016 and 2018 face a dilemma even if they are indifferent to national security. Both are deal killers (as should have been the continuation of support for the Iran-backed killer militias of the region and export of existing enriched uranium stockpiles and closing of Fordo.)

…Like the vote on the Iraq war, the vote on the Corker-Menendez will haunt senators for a decade or more to come.  Indeed it will haunt them in history.

The article then lists the Democrats facing re-election in 2016 and 2018 and the phone number to contact them.

The article then lists links to interview Hugh Hewitt has done in recent days regarding the Iranian nuclear deal. I strongly suggest that you follow the link above to the article and read more about the nuclear deal. To agree to this deal should be regarded as treason.

The Purpose Of This Post Is To Stop The Constant Rewriting Of History On This Matter

Posted on by

There are a lot of Americans who believe that President George W. Bush lied about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction in order to get America into a war with Iraq. That is not only not true–to believe it may be dangerous for America’s future.

On February 8, Lawrence H. Silberman posted an article at the Wall Street Journal explaining why this misconception is dangerous for the future of America.

Mr. Silberman writes:

In recent weeks, I have heard former Associated Press reporter Ron Fournier on Fox News twice asserting, quite offhandedly, that President George W. Bush “lied us into war in Iraq.”

I found this shocking. I took a leave of absence from the bench in 2004-05 to serve as co-chairman of the Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction—a bipartisan body, sometimes referred to as the Robb-Silberman Commission. It was directed in 2004 to evaluate the intelligence community’s determination that Saddam Hussein possessed WMD—I am, therefore, keenly aware of both the intelligence provided to President Bush and his reliance on that intelligence as his primary casus belli. It is astonishing to see the “Bush lied” allegation evolve from antiwar slogan to journalistic fact.

Please read the entire article to understand the dangers of letting this lie go unchecked.

Meanwhile, John Hinderaker at Power Line posted an article yesterday providing more information on the subject. Mr. Hinderaker cites a New York Times article from February 15th which stated the following:

The Central Intelligence Agency, working with American troops during the occupation of Iraq, repeatedly purchased nerve-agent rockets from a secretive Iraqi seller, part of a previously undisclosed effort to ensure that old chemical weapons remaining in Iraq did not fall into the hands of terrorists or militant groups, according to current and former American officials.

Defending America and American allies should not be a partisan matter. Unfortunately, there are those in Washington who have chosen to make it so. The fact that some Democrats are boycotting the speech of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is a disgrace. Israel (and Prime Minister Netanyahu) have a history of successfully dealing with terrorism and of understanding how it works. Israel is willing to share that knowledge. America needs to listen.

After A While You Wonder If They Mean Anything They Say

Posted on by

When American forces left Iraq, many military people warned that not leaving significant forces behind would be a mistake. The Obama Administration and many political leaders seemed to overlook the fact that we currently have forces in Germany, Japan, and South Korea, despite that fact that those wars have been over for a long time. Despite the warnings from military leaders, President Obama celebrated the fact that our troops were coming home from Iraq, and many Democrats celebrated with him. So what are these people saying now?

Politico posted an article today with the headline, “Liberal doves run as war hawks.”

The article cites a few examples:

Democrat Kay Hagan didn’t mince words about the Iraq War during her 2008 Senate campaign against Republican Elizabeth Dole.

“We need to get out of Iraq in a responsible way,” Hagan declared in May of that year. “We need to elect leaders who don’t invade countries without planning and stay there without an end.”

Hagan is striking a different chord these days. Locked in a tough reelection battle, the first-term senator boasts that she’s more strongly supportive of airstrikes against Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant militants than her Republican challenger, Thom Tillis, and says she’s been pressing the Obama administration to arm Syrian rebels since early last year.

…Take Bruce Braley, the Democratic Senate candidate in Iowa. He picked up a Republican-held House seat largely on the strength of his opposition to the war in Iraq. He backed cutting off funding for military operations and spoke out against the surge.

When his opponent warned at a 2006 debate of chaos if the U.S. cut and ran, Braley responded: “Chaos already is ensuing in Iraq.”

Just last August, Braley demanded Obama get congressional authorization before taking any military action in Syria.

Now Braley is running against military veteran Joni Ernst in one of the most contested Senate races in the country.

“ISIS is a threat that must be stopped,” Braley said during a debate Sunday. “Anytime American citizens are attacked by a terrorist group, they need to be brought to justice or to the grave.”

Follow the link to the article to read more wiggly-worm statements.

Admittedly, the situation in Iraq and the Middle East is fluid, but it is very obvious that many of the positions taken regarding the war in Iraq and the withdrawal of troops have been purely political. In this country there are men and women who love America more than they love political power. We need to start electing them.

 

How Wars End

Posted on by

Yesterday Frank Gaffney posted a short article at the Center for Security Policy website entitled, “How Wars Don’t End.” In his article he reminds us that President Obama once explained to America that unilateral withdrawals from conflicts is “how wars end in the 21st Century.”

Well. so much for that.

The article states:

Recent events in Iraq show that – in our time, as throughout history – unless both sides in a war agree to stop fighting, the conflict will continue. Such fighting generally comes at the expense of the interests or security of the party that calls it quits.

The mayhem in Iraq that has flowed from President Obama’s decision to “end the war” there unilaterally has reached the point where he felt compelled yesterday to authorize renewed U.S. airstrikes.

The trouble is that his delusional approach to ending wars is of a piece with his tendency to micromanage, limit and, thereby, make ineffectual the military operations he does approve.

I hope we don’t have to put actual boots on the ground again in Iraq, but it breaks my heart to see the gains we made with the surge thrown away. I truly believe that had we left forces there, there would have been enough pressure on Prime Minister Maliki to create a more inclusive government. Now we are faced with a radical caliphate in the Middle East that will grow to include some of the countries that in the past have supported us. Being an ally of America doesn’t mean much right now, and our abandonment of the Iraqis is an illustration of that. Hopefully air power will be enough to stop the slaughter of the innocent Christians that is currently taking place.

The Consequences Of A Failed Foreign Policy

Posted on by

Today’s U.K. Telegraph posted an article about what is happening in Iraq. The Islamic State of Iraq and greater Syria (ISIS) has seized Mosul and is advancing toward Baghdad. How did this happen? This is the result of not signing a Status of Forces agreement with the Iraqi government after we officially ‘ended’ the Iraqi war. It is also the result of announcing to the people we were fighting exactly when we were leaving. However, these were not the first mistakes made in Iraq. Iraq had a real chance at democracy–it had been a united country in the past. However, our first mistake was to put United States approval on a constitution that recognized Sharia Law. We really did not take the steps to insure democracy–Sharia Law and democracy are not compatible. So where are we now?

The article in the U.K. Telegraph reports:

ISIS are pure terrorists: their strategy is to use extreme violence to drive Iraq into a sectarian melee. The group knows that with each atrocity it commits, Iraq’s geographic borders and government institutions lose form. That with each Shia market it bombs, Iraq moves closer to the bloody civil war of 2006 (Shia terrorist groups are far from silent). That with each ISIS victory, Iraq’s basic viability becomes ever more tenuous. Exacerbating the crisis is Maliki’s long term authoritarianism: this has empowered ISIS.

The article concludes:

Obviously, this places the West in a serious bind. Whatever some might say, forming an alliance with Iran to fight ISIS would be a disaster. Still, America cannot allow Iraq to collapse. Too much of our blood and our allies’ blood has already been spilled for that nation’s future. Those sacrifices must not be in vain. Correspondingly, the US should adopt a new, comprehensive regional strategy. Recognising that only the US government has the intelligence and logistics capabilities Iraq so desperately needs, Obama should support Maliki with the caveat that the Iraqi leader make reciprocal concessions. These must include power transfers to Iraqi Sunni-centered political parties and the establishment of independent democratic institutions that can cool sectarian flames over the longer term. These commitments must take form beyond words.

Regardless, we’ve heard for far too long that our absence from the Middle East would best serve our interests. Now we’re learning the opposite is true. No one wants more Iraq wars, but we must face the geopolitical disaster unfolding before us.

There is no way we can or should go back into Iraq. Unfortunately, the war that we have let fester in Syria is playing a major part in the battle for Iraq–Iran is using Iraq as a freeway to get supplies to the government of Syria. American dependence on Middle Eastern oil also complicates our options in this situation.

The thing to remember here is that the goal of Iran, a country which is up to its neck in the chaos of the Middle East, is to set up a caliphate that would include Iran, Iraq, Syria, parts (eventually all) of Saudi Arabia, Egypt, etc. (and what is now Israel). Iran will begin to fast track that program as soon as it gets both the missiles and bombs to carry out its mission. Meanwhile, the Obama Administration is negotiating with Iran while they move toward their goals.

You can’t fix stupid, but you can vote it and its political party out of office in 2014 and 2016.

Memorial Day

Posted on by

This post was written by a friend of mine who is retired from the Marine Corps. She is an Iraqi war veteran, and I wanted to share her thoughts on Memorial Day.

 

Hamilton Fish, Secretary of State in the 1850s, said “If the country is worth dying for in a time of war, let us ensure that it is worth living for in a time of peace.”

 
I grew up in an affluent neighborhood in the Bay Area in California–the type of place where people speak of being proud to be Americans, but only because it is a place where they are allowed to live their accustomed lifestyle. But then again, it was also in the 1980s, a time of peace and prosperity when it was easy to say you love this place. Time had healed the bitter sentiments surrounding Vietnam, and we could all be happy dancing in a ring around the sun, so to speak.

 
I have now seen life further from the Utopian suburbia of my youth than just about anyone there cares to know. The reality, now, is that we are not a country experiencing peace and prosperity. But that shouldn’t make us any less proud.

 
I am back in my childhood home this weekend, and it got me thinking about what Memorial Day is. I was here to attend my sister’s Bridal Shower–a gathering of women, most of whom I have known from childhood. As the token neighborhood veteran, I always get quite a few “thank you for your service” niceties.
While the sentiments are always appreciated, I am not ultimately the one who should be thanked. It’s the one who didn’t come home–the one who never got to hear a “thank you for your service.” The one who never got to see a yellow ribbon tied around a tree. They found this country worth dying for, so, in their honor make this country worth living for.

 
We are engaged in what has been called “The Long War.” It may be a long time before we can agree to call our country “at peace.” So make it worth living for now. Honor those who have giving all by living and drinking in the freedoms of this land. Go exercise your right to freedom of speech and religious practice. Be proud of what makes you unique. Speak for the war, against the war, be gay or straight, worship your god. And do in a way worth living — because thanks to those who have died, you can do it freely. Drink this freedom in. And through living life, we can make this country feel at peace.

 
As for me, right now I’m going for a run. Because that is what my dear friend the late Maj Megan McClung would want to do today.

 
Happy Memorial Day, God Bless all who have gone, and all who are yet to come.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Did We Mean To Give Fallujah To Al Qaeda?

Posted on by

John Hinderaker at Power Line posted a story today about the fact that Al Qaeda has taken over the city of Fallujah in Iraq. American lives were sacrificed to free that city from terrorists, and now it has fallen back into the hands of Al Qaeda.

A friend who is more familiar with Iraq than I am tells me that the fall of Iraq was inevitable whether America left forces there or not. I am not so sure.

The article reports:

A rejuvenated al-Qaeda-affiliated force asserted control over the western Iraqi city of Fallujah on Friday, raising its flag over government buildings and declaring an Islamic state in one of the most crucial areas that U.S. troops fought to pacify before withdrawing from Iraq two years ago. …

In Fallujah, where Marines fought the bloodiest battle of the Iraq war in 2004, the militants appeared to have the upper hand, underscoring the extent to which the Iraqi security forces have struggled to sustain the gains made by U.S. troops before they withdrew in December 2011. …

Events Friday suggested the [Marines’] fight may have been in vain.

“At the moment, there is no presence of the Iraqi state in Fallujah,” said a local journalist who asked not to be named because he fears for his safety. “The police and the army have abandoned the city, al-Qaeda has taken down all the Iraqi flags and burned them, and it has raised its own flag on all the buildings.”

I may be naive, but I believe that the people of Iraq would have stood with us to gain their freedom had we chosen to stay and fight the evil that is Al Qaeda with them, I believe that the country could have become a democracy. Now we will never know.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Please Listen To The Entire Statement From Senator Feinstein

Posted on by

Please listen to the entire statement from Senator Feinstein.  As Senator Cornyn points out, PTSD sufferers are already prohibited from owning weapons by law. It is horribly unfair to accuse all veterans of having PTSD.

The transcript of the video is at C-SPAN:

Our military is well trained and can be trusted with guns. It bothers me that there are people in our government who seem to be trying to undermine the rights of veterans to buy and possess firearms.

Enhanced by Zemanta