Proving that those who fail to learn history not only damn themselves, but others, the Democrats are asking George McGovern how they should surrender in Iraq. This makes it quite clear what the Democratic Party’s priority is: bugging out of Iraq as soon as possible, regardless of the consequences. Not only that, but they’re now working with an architect of one of America’s most shameful surrenders in order to do it.
I wasn’t that depressed about the Democrats winning — the GOP needs a spanking, and boy did they get it. But now, I’m right with Ann Althouse in fearing what the future will bring:
It’s the failure of Americans to support the war. It’s the folding and crumpling because things didn’t go well enough and the way we conspicuously displayed that to our enemies. They’re going to use that information.
For how long?
Forever.
She’s right. Our enemies got the message: we don’t have the guts. We’ll back down if you keep the pressure on for long enough. We don’t have the spine to fight — our military does, but our chattering classes are as weak-willed as they come. Even President Bush can be cowed with enough pressure.
Our troops are worried that we’ll leave before the job is done. They’re the ones living with reality of Iraq today, and yet they seem to have more perspective than anyone else. I would hope that Mr. McGovern would listen to them rather than the voices of defeat, but I rather doubt that he will.
The legacy of this election could be handing the biggest victory to al-Qaeda that they have ever had. If we leave Iraq before stabilizing the situation, we will pay for it for years to come.
Our enemies are listening, and our new Congress is already starting to discuss how to wave the white flag.
bin Laden, and his jihadis, have their Tet, exactly as they predicted. Who fears Pelosi? Nobody.
The only question now is whether the Democrats care anymore about the Iraqis than they did about the Vietnamese…
Um, Eracus, didn’t the Democrats take us into Vietnam to begin with? Last I checked, Kennedy, Johnson, and McNamara were part of the donkey crew.
Anyway, if we’re going to start an air war with Iran, we’d better be out of Iraq, or the Revolutionary Guard will catch our army with it’s pants down. Iran isn’t Iraq. Iran spends $5 billion a year on armaments and has the most powerful millitary in the region. While they couldn’t stop our airstrikes, they could utterly humiliate us on the ground, catching us off our guard while we’re busy patrolling and battling insurgents in the field.
Pick your wars carefully.
Technically, we’re already fighting a war with Iran. The Mahdi Army is being funded and equipped by Tehran, and they’re causing plenty of problems for us as it is.
I don’t think a war in Iran has ever been viable, for the reasons you mentioned, even if we hadn’t gone into Iraq.
Nicq, While Iran may have a large army it best to compare it to pre-golf war 1 Iraq in its skill level and equipment. Yes they may make an initial hit or two but would soon be pounded to death by our air support. (see the Iraq Republic Guard fleeing Kuwait) Also I seriously doubt that they would be able to form up and attack us without us detecting and preparing for the asault. Air cover and support should never be minimized. Given it is now common for all guided bombs to hit within 10 feet of where you want it and the percentage of guided bombs being used going up constantly you do not want to take the US on.
The only practical military operation against US forces is irregular operations, as seen in Iraq. The best you can hope for is about a 10-1 kill ratio. During this summers Taliban summer offensive the ratios have been somewhere between 50 and 100 to 1 not good numbers to be on the receiving end. Regular forces become useless very fast at those attrition rates.
Also keep in mind nearly every commander, fighting soldier and marine now has combat experience. Our equipment has undergone a fast leap forward in capability and technology. The troops have the best body armor available, dispite what other may tell you, and it is issued to every soldier.
Also Iran may be an arms builder but it mostly takes old soviet deigns and updates them a little. It does not sell anything above small arms on the world market. Which should give you an indication of the level of engineering skills.
Dave
Dave:
William Lind isn’t so sure, and I think his analysis is spot on- we’ve overestimated our own capabilities in this war once, and it could easily happen again:
http://news.monstersandcritics.com/middleeast/article_1218968.php/Outside_View_Iraq_disaster_warning
We’re not invincible, and if we start thinking we are, we’re bound to fail. Unfortunately, I fear that American Omnipotence will fall VERY hard.
That, and Iranian indigenous millitary technology is more sophisticated than you might think. The Sa’eqeh fighter that they rolled out two years ago, while about 20 years behind America’s tech curve, is still a formidable piece of hardware. Their Azarakhsh fighter, essentially a reverse-engineered F-14, has been in production since 2000; they may have two entire wings operational already.
Many millitary analysts consider Iran to be a more formidable millitary power than Saudi Arabia; given the billions of dollars that the Saudis spend on advanced American armaments, that implies to me that Iran has a very sophisticated millitary force, even if it’s not up to 21st century US standards.
Ann Althouse is one of those women who thinks she’s going to get an honorary penis if/when the social conservatives get their way because she spends so much time bending over for them now. I can’t stand her.
What happened to all of those rigged Diebold voting machines from 2004? Karl Rove’s falling down on the job.
Of course, right now our enemies are learning that we’ll do the same thing over and over without being smart about it. They’re learning that partisan hacks will say we’re weaker as a country because their party lost an election. You neocons are teaching them everything they need to know right now.