Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

A Democrat with a spine (rare indeed)


nelms

Recommended Posts

EDIT: yes, I changed the title.

This was from last week, but I don't think anyone posted it (at least I couldn't find it after using the search).

http://opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110007611

Our Troops Must Stay

America can't abandon 27 million Iraqis to 10,000 terrorists.

BY JOE LIEBERMAN

Tuesday, November 29, 2005 12:01 a.m.

I have just returned from my fourth trip to Iraq in the past 17 months and can report real progress there. More work needs to be done, of course, but the Iraqi people are in reach of a watershed transformation from the primitive, killing tyranny of Saddam to modern, self-governing, self-securing nationhood--unless the great American military that has given them and us this unexpected opportunity is prematurely withdrawn.

Progress is visible and practical. In the Kurdish North, there is continuing security and growing prosperity. The primarily Shiite South remains largely free of terrorism, receives much more electric power and other public services than it did under Saddam, and is experiencing greater economic activity. The Sunni triangle, geographically defined by Baghdad to the east, Tikrit to the north and Ramadi to the west, is where most of the terrorist enemy attacks occur. And yet here, too, there is progress.

There are many more cars on the streets, satellite television dishes on the roofs, and literally millions more cell phones in Iraqi hands than before. All of that says the Iraqi economy is growing. And Sunni candidates are actively campaigning for seats in the National Assembly. People are working their way toward a functioning society and economy in the midst of a very brutal, inhumane, sustained terrorist war against the civilian population and the Iraqi and American military there to protect it.

It is a war between 27 million and 10,000; 27 million Iraqis who want to live lives of freedom, opportunity and prosperity and roughly 10,000 terrorists who are either Saddam revanchists, Iraqi Islamic extremists or al Qaeda foreign fighters who know their wretched causes will be set back if Iraq becomes free and modern. The terrorists are intent on stopping this by instigating a civil war to produce the chaos that will allow Iraq to replace Afghanistan as the base for their fanatical war-making. We are fighting on the side of the 27 million because the outcome of this war is critically important to the security and freedom of America. If the terrorists win, they will be emboldened to strike us directly again and to further undermine the growing stability and progress in the Middle East, which has long been a major American national and economic security priority.

Before going to Iraq last week, I visited Israel and the Palestinian Authority. Israel has been the only genuine democracy in the region, but it is now getting some welcome company from the Iraqis and Palestinians who are in the midst of robust national legislative election campaigns, the Lebanese who have risen up in proud self-determination after the Hariri assassination to eject their Syrian occupiers (the Syrian- and Iranian-backed Hezbollah militias should be next), and the Kuwaitis, Egyptians and Saudis who have taken steps to open up their governments more broadly to their people. In my meeting with the thoughtful prime minister of Iraq, Ibrahim al-Jaafari, he declared with justifiable pride that his country now has the most open, democratic political system in the Arab world. He is right.

In the face of terrorist threats and escalating violence, eight million Iraqis voted for their interim national government in January, almost 10 million participated in the referendum on their new constitution in October, and even more than that are expected to vote in the elections for a full-term government on Dec. 15. Every time the 27 million Iraqis have been given the chance since Saddam was overthrown, they have voted for self-government and hope over the violence and hatred the 10,000 terrorists offer them. Most encouraging has been the behavior of the Sunni community, which, when disappointed by the proposed constitution, registered to vote and went to the polls instead of taking up arms and going to the streets. Last week, I was thrilled to see a vigorous political campaign, and a large number of independent television stations and newspapers covering it.

None of these remarkable changes would have happened without the coalition forces led by the U.S. And, I am convinced, almost all of the progress in Iraq and throughout the Middle East will be lost if those forces are withdrawn faster than the Iraqi military is capable of securing the country.

The leaders of Iraq's duly elected government understand this, and they asked me for reassurance about America's commitment. The question is whether the American people and enough of their representatives in Congress from both parties understand this. I am disappointed by Democrats who are more focused on how President Bush took America into the war in Iraq almost three years ago, and by Republicans who are more worried about whether the war will bring them down in next November's elections, than they are concerned about how we continue the progress in Iraq in the months and years ahead.

Here is an ironic finding I brought back from Iraq. While U.S. public opinion polls show serious declines in support for the war and increasing pessimism about how it will end, polls conducted by Iraqis for Iraqi universities show increasing optimism. Two-thirds say they are better off than they were under Saddam, and a resounding 82% are confident their lives in Iraq will be better a year from now than they are today. What a colossal mistake it would be for America's bipartisan political leadership to choose this moment in history to lose its will and, in the famous phrase, to seize defeat from the jaws of the coming victory.

The leaders of America's military and diplomatic forces in Iraq, Gen. George Casey and Ambassador Zal Khalilzad, have a clear and compelling vision of our mission there. It is to create the environment in which Iraqi democracy, security and prosperity can take hold and the Iraqis themselves can defend their political progress against those 10,000 terrorists who would take it from them.

Does America have a good plan for doing this, a strategy for victory in Iraq? Yes we do. And it is important to make it clear to the American people that the plan has not remained stubbornly still but has changed over the years. Mistakes, some of them big, were made after Saddam was removed, and no one who supports the war should hesitate to admit that; but we have learned from those mistakes and, in characteristic American fashion, from what has worked and not worked on the ground. The administration's recent use of the banner "clear, hold and build" accurately describes the strategy as I saw it being implemented last week.

We are now embedding a core of coalition forces in every Iraqi fighting unit, which makes each unit more effective and acts as a multiplier of our forces. Progress in "clearing" and "holding" is being made. The Sixth Infantry Division of the Iraqi Security Forces now controls and polices more than one-third of Baghdad on its own. Coalition and Iraqi forces have together cleared the previously terrorist-controlled cities of Fallujah, Mosul and Tal Afar, and most of the border with Syria. Those areas are now being "held" secure by the Iraqi military themselves. Iraqi and coalition forces are jointly carrying out a mission to clear Ramadi, now the most dangerous city in Al-Anbar province at the west end of the Sunni Triangle.

Nationwide, American military leaders estimate that about one-third of the approximately 100,000 members of the Iraqi military are able to "lead the fight" themselves with logistical support from the U.S., and that that number should double by next year. If that happens, American military forces could begin a drawdown in numbers proportional to the increasing self-sufficiency of the Iraqi forces in 2006. If all goes well, I believe we can have a much smaller American military presence there by the end of 2006 or in 2007, but it is also likely that our presence will need to be significant in Iraq or nearby for years to come.

The economic reconstruction of Iraq has gone slower than it should have, and too much money has been wasted or stolen. Ambassador Khalilzad is now implementing reform that has worked in Afghanistan--Provincial Reconstruction Teams, composed of American economic and political experts, working in partnership in each of Iraq's 18 provinces with its elected leadership, civil service and the private sector. That is the "build" part of the "clear, hold and build" strategy, and so is the work American and international teams are doing to professionalize national and provincial governmental agencies in Iraq.

These are new ideas that are working and changing the reality on the ground, which is undoubtedly why the Iraqi people are optimistic about their future--and why the American people should be, too.

I cannot say enough about the U.S. Army and Marines who are carrying most of the fight for us in Iraq. They are courageous, smart, effective, innovative, very honorable and very proud. After a Thanksgiving meal with a great group of Marines at Camp Fallujah in western Iraq, I asked their commander whether the morale of his troops had been hurt by the growing public dissent in America over the war in Iraq. His answer was insightful, instructive and inspirational: "I would guess that if the opposition and division at home go on a lot longer and get a lot deeper it might have some effect, but, Senator, my Marines are motivated by their devotion to each other and the cause, not by political debates."

Thank you, General. That is a powerful, needed message for the rest of America and its political leadership at this critical moment in our nation's history. Semper Fi.

Mr. Lieberman is a Democratic senator from Connecticut.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Too bad there aren't more Democrats with the guts and honesty that Lieberman shows.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like this from Liberman

But you know what would be better? If Democrats said what they actually thought and didn't try and toe some fine line

If you are against the war, and want the troops home SAY IT. Don't ***** foot around and tell us how you voted against something before you voted for it

I think an open discourse would be much more productive then the current "lets not try and piss off TOO many people" approach the democratic party has taken

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought this was already talked about...in the context of why he might be added to the bush administration or not, in another thread.

But anyway, nice stuff still.

Though we could probably do without calling him a gutless disgrace (in one person's post), or implying that all other Democrats have no spine (in another person's post). I think Senator Lieberman would be ashamed of such comemnts.

;-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought this was already talked about...in the context of why he might be added to the bush administration or not, in another thread.

But anyway, nice stuff still.

Though we could probably do without calling him a gutless disgrace (in one person's post), or implying that all other Democrats have no spine (in another person's post). I think Senator Lieberman would be ashamed of such comemnts.

;-)

Maybe not ALL. How 'bout 95%? :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A Connecticut Democrat is like a Texas Democrat, just a Coulter hair from being Republican.

Looks like "Joementum" is building for him to switch parties. He can't be any worse than Rumsfield, if they want him for Defense Secretary. He probably will, since some polls have him trailing in his reelection to a Republican turned Independent.

10k terrorists? That sounds like a Rush Limbaugh number, pulled straight out of someone's butt. When did they take that survey? I wonder how many there were in Iraq 5 years ago...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like the idea of 10K terrorist and more flooding Iraq to fight our Marines. Best trained warriors in the world (I'm referring to the Marines, Democrats, not the terrorists) will pick them off scores at a time. I never understood what the problem was with the "Iraq is a breeding ground for terrorists" argument. GOOD. That's where they'll breed, and that's where they'll perish.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is a war between 27 million and 10,000; 27 million Iraqis who want to live lives of freedom, opportunity and prosperity and roughly 10,000 terrorists

How many times have I said this? I've lost count.

And Sick... We know the population of Iraq is about 27 Million. By judging the frequency of attacks we can easily determin that the terrorists are a tiny portion of the population. 10,000 is a pretty well accepted estimate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like the idea of 10K terrorist and more flooding Iraq to fight our Marines. Best trained warriors in the world (I'm referring to the Marines, Democrats, not the terrorists) will pick them off scores at a time. I never understood what the problem was with the "Iraq is a breeding ground for terrorists" argument. GOOD. That's where they'll breed, and that's where they'll perish.

:applause: :cheers:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...if only this guy were VP rather than Cheney ;)

Forget that. If only he were the leader of the democratic party.

Can you imagin how much sooner we could win in Iraq if both parties and all americans had the political will to break the backs of the terrorists?

Imagine the response of the terrorists and insurgents if we could declare a political "all in" over Iraq. Those suckers would fold faster than dead money at the WSOP. Instead we have a democratic leadership that is showing weakness to the terrorists and encouraging them to play on.

Frankly I don't give a damn which party wins, I just want them both to be smart, and ensure that AMERICA WINS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kinda hard for me to sympathize considering I care more for the Troops than the Iraqis, who I dont give a damn about ( thats why stories of schools opening and that other stuff fail to impress me). If there are 27 million Iraqs why CANT they take care of only 10,000 terriorist

You wanted to emphasize the THEY in that last sentance ;)

If there are 27 million Iraqs why CANT they take care of only 10,000 terriorist

Had to point that out

As for the question, it is the same reason why the Kingdom (SA) can't take of the terrorists amongst them, the oppurtunity cost for being a terrorist is still too low

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What oppertunity costs are there to killing yourself?

A very small minority of these terrorists are blowing themselves up. If they all strapped a bomb on their chests, or even engaged in combat, they'd all be dead, for the most part. The problem is that nations such as Syria and Lebanon don't pursue the organizations within their own borders, allowing the "behind the scenes" terrorists to roam freely with little to no penalty. Once we close the border to Iraq, equip the military and government to deal with the threat, and begin to take stronger stances against nations such as Syria, there will be a greater opportunity cost to SUPPORT the terrorists' efforts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Forget that. If only he were the leader of the democratic party.

Can you imagin how much sooner we could win in Iraq if both parties and all americans had the political will to break the backs of the terrorists?

Imagine the response of the terrorists and insurgents if we could declare a political "all in" over Iraq. Those suckers would fold faster than dead money at the WSOP. Instead we have a democratic leadership that is showing weakness to the terrorists and encouraging them to play on.

Frankly I don't give a damn which party wins, I just want them both to be smart, and ensure that AMERICA WINS.

Do you seriously believe that? That the only thing keeping the terrorists going is the words of the democratic leadership?

We're fighting against people that believe their path to heaven is through killing Americans. We're fighting against people that have no discernible goal other than to create chaos in the civilized world. We're fighting against people that have never surrendered to any army in any conflict. And as SHF points out, we're fighting against people that don't have much to lose.

Do you honestly believe the terrorists would "fold faster than dead money at the WSOP" if we just talked a little bit tougher? When you push a short-stack all-in, talk doesn't count anymore; the game is all about the cards.

The terrorists don't need to hear anything from us to get them motivated to fight. Our debate should be about the best way to fight back, not about the best things to say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

but they have the ace murtha, the king kerry, the queen dean, the jack of pelosi, and the 10 of the democrat base, thats a royal flush. The terrorists might have folded had the democrats not discarded the 7 of liberman :silly:

Man, at least come up with some original material. . . that's so 2003. . . it belongs alongside MadMike's sig.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What oppertunity costs are there to killing yourself?

Well, if you believe what the terror masters say, you are missing out on 72 virgins and the rewards of paradise (which are many)

And you will be amazed at how well this message plays to a very sexually frustrated and poor male population

For me of course, I have a business to run, bills to pay, and women to meet

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And Sick... We know the population of Iraq is about 27 Million. By judging the frequency of attacks we can easily determin that the terrorists are a tiny portion of the population. 10,000 is a pretty well accepted estimate.

Who is "we?"

The same people that assured us there were WMDs?

The same ones who said we would be showered with sweets and candy?

The same ones who said the war would cost 2 billion?

I'll stick by my opinion that this number was probably pulled out of someone's butt. Are you telling me that we know that .03703% of people in Iraq are terrorists? I'd love to see a link on that...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...