War In Iraq Actually Won?

[DeepGreen]

By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Monday , July 07, 2008 4:20 PM PT

Iraq: What would happen if the U.S. won a war but the media didn't tell the American public? Apparently, we have to rely on a British newspaper for the news that we've defeated the last remnants of al-Qaida in Iraq.

Picture (Metafile)

London's Sunday Times called it "the culmination of one of the most spectacular victories of the war on terror." A terrorist force that once numbered more than 12,000, with strongholds in the west and central regions of Iraq, has over two years been reduced to a mere 1,200 fighters, backed against the wall in the northern city of Mosul.

The destruction of al-Qaida in Iraq (AQI) is one of the most unlikely and unforeseen events in the long history of American warfare. We can thank President Bush's surge strategy, in which he bucked both Republican and Democratic leaders in Washington by increasing our forces there instead of surrendering.

We can also thank the leadership of the new general he placed in charge there, David Petraeus, who may be the foremost expert in the world on counter-insurgency warfare. And we can thank those serving in our military in Iraq who engaged local Iraqi tribal leaders and convinced them America was their friend and AQI their enemy.

Al-Qaida's loss of the hearts and minds of ordinary Iraqis began in Anbar Province, which had been written off as a basket case, and spread out from there.

Now, in Operation Lion's Roar the I raqi army and the U.S. 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment is destroying the fraction of terrorists who are left. More than 1,000 AQI operatives have already been apprehended.

Sunday Times reporter Marie Colvin, traveling with Iraqi forces in Mosul, found little AQI presence even in bullet-ridden residential areas that were once insurgency strongholds, and reported that the terrorists have lost control of its Mosul urban base, with what is left of the organization having fled south into the countryside.

Meanwhile, the State Department reports that Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's government has achieved "satisfactory" progress on 15 of the 18 political benchmarks — a big change for the better from a year ago.

Things are going so well that Maliki has even for the first time floated the idea of a timetable for withdrawal of American forces. He did so while visiting the United Arab Emirates, which over the weekend announced that it was forgiving almost $7 billion of debt owed by Baghdad — an impressive vote of confidence from a fellow Arab state in the future of a free Iraq.

But where are the headlines and the front-page stories about all this good news? As the Media Research Center pointed out last week, "the CBS Evening News, NBC Nightly News and CNN's Anderson Cooper 360 were silent Tuesday n ight about the benchmarks" that signaled political progress.

The war in Iraq has been turned around 180 degrees both militarily and politically because the president stuck t o his guns. Yet apart from IBD, Fox News Channel and parts of the foreign press, the media don't seem to consider this historic event a big story.

Here is another item ... any connection ??

=0 A

General VoNguyen Giap.

General Giap was a brilliant, highly respected leader of the North Vietnam military. The following quote is from his memoirs currently found in the

Vietnam war memorial in Hanoi:

'What we still don't understand is why you Americans stopped the bombing of Hanoi.

You had us on the ropes. If you had pressed us a little harder, just for another day or two, we were ready to surrender!

It was the same at the battles of TET.

You defeated us!

We knew it, and we thought you knew it.

But we were elated to notice your media was definitely helping us. They were causing more disruption in America than we could in the battlefields.

We were ready to surrender. You had won!'

General Giap has published his memoirs and confirmed what most American servicemen knew.

< /div>

The Vietnam war was not lost in Vietnam -- it was lost at home.

The exact same slippery slope, sponsored by the US media, is currently well underway. It exposes the enormous power of a Mass Media to cut out the heart and will of the American public.

A truism worthy of note: ...

Do not fear the enemy, for they can take only your life. Fear the media far more, for they will destroy your honor.

[Eagle1855]

Well technically we won the war in a few days, if you count ousting the opposition govt and taking over as a victory. It's just the whole clean up part that's been the real bitch.

[DeepGreen]

Well technically we won the war in a few days, if you count ousting the opposition govt and taking over as a victory. It's just the whole clean up part that's been the real bitch.

You're correct on that point. In my opinion, I've always thought we went into Iraq with too few soldiers on the ground. Rumsfield screwed that up. Enough troops and better planning of the cleanup, we wouldn't have had near the mess or the number of casualties.

[UNTflyer]

You're correct on that point. In my opinion, I've always thought we went into Iraq with too few soldiers on the ground. Rumsfield screwed that up. Enough troops and better planning of the cleanup, we wouldn't have had near the mess or the number of casualties.

And everyone would have said it was a great idea... no WMDs? Big deal, we kicked ass.

The American people are a fickle bunch.

[DeepGreen]

And everyone would have said it was a great idea... no WMDs? Big deal, we kicked ass.

The American people are a fickle bunch.

No one can convince me there were no WMD's in Irag. How many Kurds did he Hussein kill with gas? By my account, that's using WMDs. If anyone could poke their noses around Syria, my guess is they'd find Hussein's WMDs. Hell, he had what, 9 months to haul them out of Iraq.

[meangreendork]

And everyone would have said it was a great idea... no WMDs? Big deal, we kicked ass.

The American people are a fickle bunch.

Here's the thing, BECAUSE the strategic planning for the war was so mishandled anything of any scale will grab the attention of the media. Had more time been taken to strategically plan the war and post-war phases of the conflict, more countries probably would've joined in, more troops would've been on the ground, and everything post-war would've probably worked out better and with fewer hiccups.

You can't tell me that the war planning was perfect, and you can't sit here and tell me that the post-war planning was perfect either. Anyone who thought that the clean-up and rebuilding process would be fast is horribly mistaken. Looking at the rebuilding of Germany and Japan, where the population was generally supportive of US/Allied presence and without the same sort of interference from outside/3rd parties, that still took over a decade to complete, with the combined efforts of the Allied nations and the US. But with Iraq/Afghanistan, you have two nations that don't completely support (but that's changing for the better everyday) US/Coalition presence and also have tons of interference from outside nations/forces and 3rd parties.

But don't ask me if I think the US/Coalition should leave Iraq. I'll tell you "yes, it does need to happen" but I won't tell you when. I'm not on the ground over there, and even if I were, I wouldn't know what would happen if the pull-out happened within the next 2 years since the odds of things improving or getting worse is basically 50/50.

[meangreenacct]

Here's the thing, BECAUSE the strategic planning for the war was so mishandled anything of any scale will grab the attention of the media. Had more time been taken to strategically plan the war and post-war phases of the conflict, more countries probably would've joined in, more troops would've been on the ground, and everything post-war would've probably worked out better and with fewer hiccups.

You can't tell me that the war planning was perfect, and you can't sit here and tell me that the post-war planning was perfect either. Anyone who thought that the clean-up and rebuilding process would be fast is horribly mistaken. Looking at the rebuilding of Germany and Japan, where the population was generally supportive of US/Allied presence and without the same sort of interference from outside/3rd parties, that still took over a decade to complete, with the combined efforts of the Allied nations and the US. But with Iraq/Afghanistan, you have two nations that don't completely support (but that's changing for the better everyday) US/Coalition presence and also have tons of interference from outside nations/forces and 3rd parties.

But don't ask me if I think the US/Coalition should leave Iraq. I'll tell you "yes, it does need to happen" but I won't tell you when. I'm not on the ground over there, and even if I were, I wouldn't know what would happen if the pull-out happened within the next 2 years since the odds of things improving or getting worse is basically 50/50.

I don't think Flyer is trying to contend that the war planning was perfect, if that's what you meant by quoting his post.

To your last point, I really think that's the quandry (sp?) we are in and the reason previous leaders were hesitant about going into Iraq. I'm afraid that no matter how long we stay, that soon after we leave the country will return to chaos.

Deep Green, to your point about WMD. Everyone knows that Sadaam had WMD's at some point, I believe the gassing of the Kurds occured in the 80's pre gulf war. The question that needed to be answered is, did Sadaam have weapons of mass destruction after the first gulf war, which would have been prohibited. After reading some of the declassified information, and even listening to Bush, they do not believe that he did. I guess it's hard to disprove that if people are inclined to believe they were moved to a secret location in another country, even though there is no evidence of that.

[KRAM1]

As a Viet nam era war vet I can tell you how frustrating it was to stop bombing Hanoi and to "just get out" when the thing could have ended differently. But, that is "water under the bridge" so they say, and it appears that the US is on the way to becomming a good trading partner with Viet Nam and in having strong political and economic ties with the nation. So it seems to go. Yes, we did "win the war", but the "peace" has been a tough battle. Looks to me like the coalition forces (don't forget other natuions, while small in number of committed troops, etc. are part of the fight) are actually winning both the "hot war", but the "hearts and minds" of the population. Interseting turn of events, and I do not expect the main stream media to heald it in any positive fashion. The challenge now appears to be helping Afghanistan "clean out the Talliban". We are directing more forces in that direction as we speak. In fact, I have a nephew who returned recently from his SECOND tour in Iraq saying he was "done" for good with being a soldier, but is now seriously considering returning to active duty to head to Afghanistan with some of his old Iraq soldier buddies. Man, the kid is a born soldier!

The coalituion forces will win in both Iraq and in Afghanistan even if Pakistan seems to be riding the fence and playing both sides against each other...

GOD Bless and protect all our coalition soliders and civilian workers who are "fighting the good fight" wherever they may be.

[Coffee and TV]

No one can convince me there were no WMD's in Irag. How many Kurds did he Hussein kill with gas? By my account, that's using WMDs. If anyone could poke their noses around Syria, my guess is they'd find Hussein's WMDs. Hell, he had what, 9 months to haul them out of Iraq.

I've got some beachfront property in Arizona if you're interested.

[meangreenacct]

I've got some beachfront property in Arizona if you're interested.

A big earthquake or some more melting glaciers and you just might have some beach front property in Arizona

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Monday , July 07, 2008 4:20 PM PT

A truism worthy of note: ...

Do not fear the enemy, for they can take only your life. Fear the media far more, for they will destroy your honor.

---Really --- this sounds more like a statement made in the Soviet Union by Stalin

--Without a free press we would never get the truth. [see USSR, China, and Nazi-Germany] Sometimes the press is even wrong, usually it is right, sometimes it has bias (IBD).... it is up to us to sort out the truth, but it is there somewhere.

Oh by the way, that sourse is so biased it is not credible. Any decent sourse will always support and criticize any point of view [party or individual] if it is a truely honest sourse, this one doesn't. But then again some people just don't want to think and can't handle the truth.

No doubt we won the war... easily.... ( they had almost no tanks or jet planes, they were destroyed in that Gulf War and enforcing the no-fly -zone afterwards).... It is the follow up to install peace and put a governemnt in place that has been the problem and had little pre-war thought. In other words... not much long range thinking by those who do not want to think. It was a shoot and ask questions later situation... maybe the White House should first have asked what happens after we win... apparentally they didn't.

Edited July 31, 2008 by SCREAMING EAGLE-66

[KRAM1]

There have been some recent reports (not that you would know from the reporting by the mainstream media) of WMD being located that were in the Iraq arsenal. As I recall, they were of the chemical nature....I cannot find the link to the report, so I will have to say this is from "memory" of a recent story on MSNBC and CNN both (yes, I couldn't believe it either)...if I can locate the reports I'll pass them along. Some of this is in how you define "IS". I do not think anyone will ever change their mind depending upon which side of this issue they are on EVEN if a missle loaded with a nuke warhead is uncovered in the sand just outside the green wall in Baghdad! One side would say "I told you so" and the other would claim that George Bush personally went there with a shovel and buried it himself to make it look like a WMD.

Time to

[KRAM1]

.....move on.

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

---maybe from Iraq --------- but never from defending a free press.

The right to say and print your opinion is what makes America.... AMERICA.

Dictators and dishonest politicians fear a free press... honest ones have very little to fear.

( just from those who distort the truth and those people who actually believe it ....seen the B.Spears/Obama ad lately...LOL.. get real.. if that is the best they can come up with then he is a saint.. which he isn't nor is McCain.. .. )

Edited July 31, 2008 by SCREAMING EAGLE-66

[meangreendork]

I don't think Flyer is trying to contend that the war planning was perfect, if that's what you meant by quoting his post.

To your last point, I really think that's the quandry (sp?) we are in and the reason previous leaders were hesitant about going into Iraq. I'm afraid that no matter how long we stay, that soon after we leave the country will return to chaos.

Deep Green, to your point about WMD. Everyone knows that Sadaam had WMD's at some point, I believe the gassing of the Kurds occured in the 80's pre gulf war. The question that needed to be answered is, did Sadaam have weapons of mass destruction after the first gulf war, which would have been prohibited. After reading some of the declassified information, and even listening to Bush, they do not believe that he did. I guess it's hard to disprove that if people are inclined to believe they were moved to a secret location in another country, even though there is no evidence of that.

That wasn't my objective, sorry if it sounded like that.

About the WMD: right about the time the US government was planning the initial assault, the Texas LEO community was tracking down a group of fugitives. I said the following more than a few times: "If the Texas law can't find a group of fugitives only on the run for a few months, how hard do you think it'll be to find weapons when the governmental head of Iraq has had years to hide evidence of weapons he's had?"

Are there weapons there? Probably nothing immediately effective, but it's hard not to think at least some of the equipment needed to make them isn't around somewhere.

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

---You are greatly over-estimating Iraq.... claiming they hid all-evidence of WMD. One of two people might be able to hide but to hide an entire program involving dozens if not hundreds of people for five years is crazy... A weapons programs is not like some meth lab somewhere, it requires complicated equiptment and lots of people..

---Iraq wanted Iran to wonder about a possible problem since they are bordering neighbors and may have a weapons program... Iran/Iraq had a major war in the 80's and Saddam feared what the Islamic nuts in Tehran might do (as do we) . A bluff was about all he had left... we had destroyed his tanks and jets in the Gulf War. ...basicly he had no ability to defend himself. We or Europe was never his target.

---It amazes me how many just refuse to believe the truth and just believe what they want to be true.

Edited July 31, 2008 by SCREAMING EAGLE-66

[KRAM1]

I VERY MUCH agree with the "free press" comment...right on...my concern with the "free press" is that they seem to have turned into major OP-EDS and away from reporting the facts and actual news. Can't turn on any of the major TV stations news casts without opinion after opinion being reported as "news" and stories being slanted (one way or the other) to solidify a position in OP-ED news. The newspapers are just as much OP-ED pieces as the TV news media. hard to find an unbiased report from any of the major news sources these days. I am old enough to remember whern the media felt their main purpose was to be like Jack Webb in Dragnet..."just the facts, just the facts ma'am". I am fully capable of making my own mind up regarding what "I think" is going on or where I stand on any issue. I do not think it is the media's place in a "free society" to try to "direct" my thoughts on a subject. That is not a free press but rather propaganda. If you want to do op-ed and propaganda, great, just make certain you label it as such and let your readers and viewers know it is such. Don't "color" it as news! When the press covers one side of an issue almost exclusively it is hard to get much objectivity going.

If the press had treated the events during WWII as they did Viet Nam and as they do Irag and Afghanistan the US may not have been able to stay in the war long enogh to defeat Hitler and Tojo. Just finished reading "Ghost Mountain Boys" about the battle for New Guinea. Amazing how unprepared, under equipped and poorly led the troops were who fought day and night for extended periods of time to defeat the Japanese army in New Guinea. The losses were staggering on both sides and did not have to have been so. You think planning and execution of the Iraq War was "poor", read about New Guinea in WWII and a few of the other South Pacific battles early on when the Japanese had control of the theater. Very interesting read. When one thinks of "war is hell", it had to be "pure d" HELL in New Guinea, Guadacanal, Pelieu, Iwo, Okinawa, etc., etc. And, this does even touch the China-Burma-Inda theater or the European theater of operations. If the press acted and reported then as they do now, we might just be speaking German or Japanese! The American public was "shielded" from much of the day to day struggles our soldiers faced, and from the actual day to day "body counts", no TV shots of gore, etc., etc. And, reporters tried to report news, not their ideological beliefs. Interseting how times and things change.

Everyone can make their own minds up about whether they think today's press is really reporting the news or op-eds. You be the judge as I am certain everyone will have their own opinion and each opinion is as "good" as the next.

A censored press is a bad press and not worthy of existing. A truly free press is a great thing and one thing that makes America the greatest nation on God's green earth. I just wish they would stick to REPORTING instead of pontificating! Use the op-ed and editorial pages for your opinions.

[UNTflyer]

I have come to the conclusion that we were neither completely right, nor completely wrong about WMDs. Dozens of other foreign intelligence agencies came to the same conclusions we did.

[SCREAMING EAGLE-66]

I have come to the conclusion that we were neither completely right, nor completely wrong about WMDs. Dozens of other foreign intelligence agencies came to the same conclusions we did.

--A chemical program ..maybe... a nuclear one.... next to impossible if you know anything about physics. In case you haven't noticed ours at Los Alamos was rather large and even today it would still have to be large. .

[Baby Arm!]

---It amazes me how many just refuse to believe the truth and just believe what they want to be true.

Isn't that what you are doing?

[UNTLifer]

---Iraq wanted Iran to wonder about a possible problem since they are bordering neighbors and may have a weapons program... Iran/Iraq had a major war in the 80's and Saddam feared what the Islamic nuts in Tehran might do (as do we) . A bluff was about all he had left... we had destroyed his tanks and jets in the Gulf War. ...basicly he had no ability to defend himself. We or Europe was never his target.

This was admitted by the FBI agent put in charge of Hussein that was interviewed for 60 Minutes. He stated that he asked Hussein why not admit to not having WMD's or let the UN investigators in, and he stated that Hussein was willing to let the U.S. invade again rather than letting Iran know that he didn't have these capabilities. Hussein just underestimated how far the U.S. would take the invasion.

[Mean Green 93-98]

---maybe from Iraq --------- but never from defending a free press.

The right to say and print your opinion is what makes America.... AMERICA.

Dictators and dishonest politicians fear a free press... honest ones have very little to fear.

( just from those who distort the truth and those people who actually believe it ....seen the B.Spears/Obama ad lately...LOL.. get real.. if that is the best they can come up with then he is a saint.. which he isn't nor is McCain.. .. )

I have read and re-read this thread, and fail to see where anyone opposes free press. Pointing out the serious shortcomings of the nation's (I'll say it, since you won't--liberal) media does not mean one wants the First Amendment stricken from the record.