Iran remains a problem, but Anbar has joined the fight against terror.

Truth Detector · 06-18-2007, 01:13 PM

What I Saw in Iraq
Iran remains a problem, but Anbar has joined the fight against terror.

BY JOSEPH LIEBERMAN
Friday, June 15, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT

I recently returned from Iraq and four other countries in the Middle East, my first trip to the region since December. In the intervening five months, almost everything about the American war effort in Baghdad has changed, with a new coalition military commander, Gen. David Petraeus; a new U.S. ambassador, Ryan Crocker; the introduction, at last, of new troops; and most important of all, a bold, new counterinsurgency strategy.

The question of course is--is it working? Here in Washington, advocates of retreat insist with absolute certainty that it is not, seizing upon every suicide bombing and American casualty as proof positive that the U.S. has failed in Iraq, and that it is time to get out.

In Baghdad, however, discussions with the talented Americans responsible for leading this fight are more balanced, more hopeful and, above all, more strategic in their focus--fixated not just on the headline or loss of the day, but on the larger stakes in this struggle, beginning with who our enemies are in Iraq. The officials I met in Baghdad said that 90% of suicide bombings in Iraq today are the work of non-Iraqi, al Qaeda terrorists. In fact, al Qaeda's leaders have repeatedly said that Iraq is the central front of their global war against us. That is why it is nonsensical for anyone to claim that the war in Iraq can be separated from the war against al Qaeda--and why a U.S. pullout, under fire, would represent an epic victory for al Qaeda, as significant as their attacks on 9/11.

Some of my colleagues in Washington claim we can fight al Qaeda in Iraq while disengaging from the sectarian violence there. Not so, say our commanders in Baghdad, who point out that the crux of al Qaeda's strategy is to spark Iraqi civil war.

Al Qaeda is launching spectacular terrorist bombings in Iraq, such as the despicable attack on the Golden Mosque in Samarra this week, to try to provoke sectarian violence. Its obvious aim is to use Sunni-Shia bloodshed to collapse the Iraqi government and create a failed state in the heart of the Middle East, radicalizing the region and providing a base from which to launch terrorist attacks against the West.

Facts on the ground also compel us to recognize that Iran is doing everything in its power to drive us out of Iraq, including providing substantive support, training and sophisticated explosive devices to insurgents who are murdering American soldiers. Iran has initiated a deadly military confrontation with us, from bases in Iran, which we ignore at our peril, and at the peril of our allies throughout the Middle East.

The precipitous withdrawal of U.S. forces would not only throw open large parts of Iraq to domination by the radical regime in Tehran, it would also send an unmistakable message to the entire Middle East--from Lebanon to Gaza to the Persian Gulf where Iranian agents are threatening our allies--that Iran is ascendant there, and America is in retreat. One Arab leader told me during my trip that he is extremely concerned about Tehran's nuclear ambitions, but that he doubted America's staying power in the region and our political will to protect his country from Iranian retaliation over the long term. Abandoning Iraq now would substantiate precisely these gathering fears across the Middle East that the U.S. is becoming an unreliable ally.

........ OpinionJournal - Featured Article

Here, too, however, a little perspective is useful. While benchmarks are critically important, American soldiers are not fighting in Iraq today only so that Iraqis can pass a law to share oil revenues. They are fighting because a failed state in the heart of the Middle East, overrun by al Qaeda and Iran, would be a catastrophe for American national security and our safety here at home. They are fighting al Qaeda and agents of Iran in order to create the stability in Iraq that will allow its government to take over, to achieve the national reconciliation that will enable them to pass the oil law and other benchmark legislation.

I returned from Iraq grateful for the progress I saw and painfully aware of the difficult problems that remain ahead. But I also returned with a renewed understanding of how important it is that we not abandon Iraq to al Qaeda and Iran, so long as victory there is still possible.

And I conclude from my visit that victory is still possible in Iraq--thanks to the Iraqi majority that desperately wants a better life, and because of the courage, compassion and competence of the extraordinary soldiers and statesmen who are carrying the fight there, starting with Gen. Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker. The question now is, will we politicians in Washington rise to match their leadership, sacrifices and understanding of what is on the line for us in Iraq--or will we betray them, and along with them, America's future security?

Mr. Lieberman is an Independent Democratic senator from Connecticut.

"Used with permission from OpinionJournal.com, a web site from
Dow Jones & Company, Inc."

Truth Detector · 06-18-2007, 01:15 PM

THIS is the pertinent passage and question that ALL Americans, particularly the Democratic Party need to asnswer:

And I conclude from my visit that victory is still possible in Iraq--thanks to the Iraqi majority that desperately wants a better life, and because of the courage, compassion and competence of the extraordinary soldiers and statesmen who are carrying the fight there, starting with Gen. Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker. The question now is, will we politicians in Washington rise to match their leadership, sacrifices and understanding of what is on the line for us in Iraq--or will we betray them, and along with them, America's future security?

Latherty · 06-18-2007, 01:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Truth Detector

THIS is the pertinent passage and question that ALL Americans, particularly the Democratic Party need to asnswer:

And I conclude from my visit that victory is still possible in Iraq--thanks to the Iraqi majority that desperately wants a better life, and because of the courage, compassion and competence of the extraordinary soldiers and statesmen who are carrying the fight there, starting with Gen. Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker. The question now is, will we politicians in Washington rise to match their leadership, sacrifices and understanding of what is on the line for us in Iraq--or will we betray them, and along with them, America's future security?

Yeah TD.
What we all want is to betray people. Haven't you worked that out yet?

So who exactly are we fighting there these days? Argentinians?

Anti-Imperialistic · 06-18-2007, 01:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Truth Detector

THIS is the pertinent passage and question that ALL Americans, particularly the Democratic Party need to asnswer:

And I conclude from my visit that victory is still possible in Iraq--thanks to the Iraqi majority that desperately wants a better life, and because of the courage, compassion and competence of the extraordinary soldiers and statesmen who are carrying the fight there, starting with Gen. Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker. The question now is, will we politicians in Washington rise to match their leadership, sacrifices and understanding of what is on the line for us in Iraq--or will we betray them, and along with them, America's future security?

oh yea just the other day someone said it will take 10 years for victory from the US military.
this is known as victory syndrome of bush a serios disease"we are winning in iraq,we are winning in iraq,we must win in iraq,we must win in iran,we must win in cuba..............

Truth Detector · 06-18-2007, 01:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Latherty

Yeah TD.
What we all want is to betray people. Haven't you worked that out yet?

So who exactly are we fighting there these days? Argentinians?

More blather? You rarely offer much of anything to any topic do you?

Truth Detector · 06-18-2007, 01:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anti-Imperialistic

oh yea just the other day someone said it will take 10 years for victory from the US military.
this is known as victory syndrome of bush a serios disease"we are winning in iraq,we are winning in iraq,we must win in iraq,we must win in iran,we must win in cuba..............

And your point was? I guess you are suggesting that failure is the better alternative?

Anti-Imperialistic · 06-18-2007, 01:54 PM

well the best thing is to end the occupation in the best intrests of americans as well as iraqis.

Truth Detector · 06-18-2007, 03:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anti-Imperialistic

well the best thing is to end the occupation in the best intrests of americans as well as iraqis.

First, it is not an occupation. How does one "occupy" a terroritory the size of Texas with a mere 150,000 troops?

Second, the Iraqi Government, the one elected by the Iraqi people, does not agree with you that we should leave just yet.

Main Entry: oc�cu�pa�tion
Function: noun
Pronunciation: "�-ky&-'pA-sh&n
Etymology: Middle English occupacioun, from Middle French occupation, from Latin occupation-, occupatio, from occupare
1 a : an activity in which one engages <in the first three grades learning to read is perhaps the major occupation of the pupil -- J. B. Conant> b : the principal business of one's life : VOCATION 
2 a : the possession, use, or settlement of land : OCCUPANCY b : the holding of an office or position 
3 a : the act or process of taking possession of a place or area : SEIZURE b : the holding and control of an area by a foreign military force c : the military force occupying a country or the policies carried out by it
synonym see WORK

The Iraqi Government was not put into place by US occupation, but rather by free elections. Our troops are not there to "occupy". They are protecting the Iraqi people and their government from desperate terrorists, thugs and murderers who want to prevent the Iraqi people from having a peaceful and prosperous Democracy which they voted for even under threat of decapitation.

Fascinating that Leftists continue to abuse the term "occupation" in an effort to distort what the Coalition is doing in Iraq.

Inkslinger · 06-18-2007, 05:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Truth Detector

Mr. Lieberman is an Independent Democratic senator from Connecticut.

Mr. Lieberman is a wolf in Sheep's clothing. But he can take his sheep suit off TD....

Zarathustra · 06-18-2007, 06:02 PM

Unfortunately, I've have come to beleive that the Iraqis aren't going to do shit for themselves unless we begin withdrawing. They still havent passed most of the benchmarks that we put forth for them. I say, enough is enough, by September, if I see no progress then I'll support a phased withdrawal of all U.S. troops.