The American-Sunni War
By Pat Buchanan
Posted: February 2, 2005
1:00 a.m. Eastern
2005 Creators Syndicate, Inc.
"We must recognize what a large and growing number of Iraqis now
believe," said Sen. Ted Kennedy last week, that "the war in Iraq has
become a war against the American occupation."
Even with the heroic and heartening election turnout, Kennedy is not
entirely wrong. The insurgency has always been a war against the U.S.
occupation and those Iraqis who cooperate with us. But the paradox
Kennedy fails to address is this: While the U.S. invasion and
occupation precipitated the insurgency, it has grown to where only the
U.S. military keeps it from seizing power. Should we withdraw now,
there is a near certainty the insurgents in the Sunni Triangle would
inherit the country.
Here we come to the core conflict the elections starkly reveal. This
is not an Iraqi war against America. It is a Sunni insurrection,
supported by foreign jihadists. Neither the Kurds, who owe their
independence to us, nor the Shia, who now stand to inherit the nation,
are in rebellion. For not only did we depose the hated enemy of the
Shia and Kurds, Saddam Hussein, we dismantled his state, disbanded his
army and put Iraq on the road to elections that now point to an
autonomous Kurdistan and a Shia-dominated Iraq.
The Shia believe they are being compensated for having been abandoned
in 1991, when George H.W. Bush urged them to rise up against Baghdad,
but let them be slaughtered when Saddam sent his Revolutionary Guard
to massacre the rebels. But the elections also leave the United States
with a dilemma. While expelling us is the casus belli of the
insurgency, it has taken on a life of its own. A year ago, Gen. John
Abizaid said there were 5,000 fighters. He now estimates the number of
enemy at 20,000, even though Gen. George Casey says we killed or
captured 15,000 in the last year. The head of Iraqi intelligence puts
the number of enemy at 30,000 or 40,000 fighters, supported by 200,000
people.
U.S. generals dispute the latter numbers, but no one denies the
insurgents have augmented their ranks and increased the incidence and
lethality of their attacks.
Given our dilemma – the U.S. military presence is the cause of the
insurgency, but also the only barrier to its success – the answer
suggests itself: We must bring an end to our military presence, even
as we build an indigenous force to replace it.
With the elections now completed, President Bush should lay down, for
the Iraqis and the world, conditions for the withdrawal of U.S. forces
and their replacement with Iraqi forces. Specifically, President Bush
should:
Inform the new Iraqi assembly the United States has no plans for any
permanent U.S. military presence on Iraqi soil.
Pledge continued U.S. aid in battling the resistance and rebuilding
the country, as long as an elected government endures.
Accelerate the training and equipping of Iraqi army forces, and the
transfer to them of the duty to defend their own government.
Announce an initial drawdown of U.S. forces, so Iraqis get the message
that the defense of democracy in their own country is first and
foremost their own duty, not ours. While we will aid them in their
battle, its ultimate outcome will depend upon them.
The Iraqis must know that, in the not-too-distant future, their fate
and future will be in their hands, not ours.
The elections showed that a majority of Iraqis will vote for
democracy. What has not yet been demonstrated is whether Iraqis will
fight for it with the same determination as the insurgents are
resisting it. Should Bush advance such a proposal, Iraqis would know
that if the insurgents continued to fight – even after the Americans
were committed to leave and had begun to depart – the insurgents' real
agenda was a return to power in Baghdad, by force.
And if the Shia, 60 percent of the country, and Kurds, 20 percent,
plus the anti-Baathist Sunni, are unwilling to fight a bloody
restoration of Baathist tyranny, we need to find out now, before more
U.S. blood is shed.
.
|
|
| User: "Absolute Zero" |
|
| Title: Re: The American-Sunni War |
02 Feb 2005 10:17:00 AM |
|
|
wrote:
The American-Sunni War
By Pat Buchanan
Posted: February 2, 2005
1:00 a.m. Eastern
2005 Creators Syndicate, Inc.
"We must recognize what a large and growing number of Iraqis now
believe," said Sen. Ted Kennedy last week, that "the war in Iraq has
become a war against the American occupation."
Even with the heroic and heartening election turnout, Kennedy is not
entirely wrong.
"Just look at what Senator Kennedy said yesterday, he's basically
wishing for the US to fail, as is every Liberal in this newgroup."
Make your mind up... or is your hero Buchanan wishing for the US to fail
also?
-A
The insurgency has always been a war against the U.S.
occupation and those Iraqis who cooperate with us. But the paradox
Kennedy fails to address is this: While the U.S. invasion and
occupation precipitated the insurgency, it has grown to where only the
U.S. military keeps it from seizing power. Should we withdraw now,
there is a near certainty the insurgents in the Sunni Triangle would
inherit the country.
Here we come to the core conflict the elections starkly reveal. This
is not an Iraqi war against America. It is a Sunni insurrection,
supported by foreign jihadists. Neither the Kurds, who owe their
independence to us, nor the Shia, who now stand to inherit the nation,
are in rebellion. For not only did we depose the hated enemy of the
Shia and Kurds, Saddam Hussein, we dismantled his state, disbanded his
army and put Iraq on the road to elections that now point to an
autonomous Kurdistan and a Shia-dominated Iraq.
The Shia believe they are being compensated for having been abandoned
in 1991, when George H.W. Bush urged them to rise up against Baghdad,
but let them be slaughtered when Saddam sent his Revolutionary Guard
to massacre the rebels. But the elections also leave the United States
with a dilemma. While expelling us is the casus belli of the
insurgency, it has taken on a life of its own. A year ago, Gen. John
Abizaid said there were 5,000 fighters. He now estimates the number of
enemy at 20,000, even though Gen. George Casey says we killed or
captured 15,000 in the last year. The head of Iraqi intelligence puts
the number of enemy at 30,000 or 40,000 fighters, supported by 200,000
people.
U.S. generals dispute the latter numbers, but no one denies the
insurgents have augmented their ranks and increased the incidence and
lethality of their attacks.
Given our dilemma – the U.S. military presence is the cause of the
insurgency, but also the only barrier to its success – the answer
suggests itself: We must bring an end to our military presence, even
as we build an indigenous force to replace it.
With the elections now completed, President Bush should lay down, for
the Iraqis and the world, conditions for the withdrawal of U.S. forces
and their replacement with Iraqi forces. Specifically, President Bush
should:
Inform the new Iraqi assembly the United States has no plans for any
permanent U.S. military presence on Iraqi soil.
Pledge continued U.S. aid in battling the resistance and rebuilding
the country, as long as an elected government endures.
Accelerate the training and equipping of Iraqi army forces, and the
transfer to them of the duty to defend their own government.
Announce an initial drawdown of U.S. forces, so Iraqis get the message
that the defense of democracy in their own country is first and
foremost their own duty, not ours. While we will aid them in their
battle, its ultimate outcome will depend upon them.
The Iraqis must know that, in the not-too-distant future, their fate
and future will be in their hands, not ours.
The elections showed that a majority of Iraqis will vote for
democracy. What has not yet been demonstrated is whether Iraqis will
fight for it with the same determination as the insurgents are
resisting it. Should Bush advance such a proposal, Iraqis would know
that if the insurgents continued to fight – even after the Americans
were committed to leave and had begun to depart – the insurgents' real
agenda was a return to power in Baghdad, by force.
And if the Shia, 60 percent of the country, and Kurds, 20 percent,
plus the anti-Baathist Sunni, are unwilling to fight a bloody
restoration of Baathist tyranny, we need to find out now, before more
U.S. blood is shed.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: The American-Sunni War |
02 Feb 2005 10:31:52 AM |
|
|
itwill@happen.com wrote:
The American-Sunni War
By Pat Buchanan
Posted: February 2, 2005
1:00 a.m. Eastern
2005 Creators Syndicate, Inc.
"We must recognize what a large and growing number of Iraqis now
believe," said Sen. Ted Kennedy last week, that "the war in Iraq has
become a war against the American occupation."
Even with the heroic and heartening election turnout, Kennedy is not
entirely wrong.
"Just look at what Senator Kennedy said yesterday, he's basically
wishing for the US to fail, as is every Liberal in this newgroup."
Yep, he sure is.
Make your mind up... or is your hero Buchanan wishing for the US to fail
also?
-A
While Buchanan did not want us to go to Iraq, he now knows that
we cannot just leave without finishing the job, Kennedy on the other
hand tried to sabotage the elections and wants our troops taken out
now, before the job is done.
Big difference.
Tony
The insurgency has always been a war against the U.S.
occupation and those Iraqis who cooperate with us. But the paradox
Kennedy fails to address is this: While the U.S. invasion and
occupation precipitated the insurgency, it has grown to where only the
U.S. military keeps it from seizing power. Should we withdraw now,
there is a near certainty the insurgents in the Sunni Triangle would
inherit the country.
Here we come to the core conflict the elections starkly reveal. This
is not an Iraqi war against America. It is a Sunni insurrection,
supported by foreign jihadists. Neither the Kurds, who owe their
independence to us, nor the Shia, who now stand to inherit the nation,
are in rebellion. For not only did we depose the hated enemy of the
Shia and Kurds, Saddam Hussein, we dismantled his state, disbanded his
army and put Iraq on the road to elections that now point to an
autonomous Kurdistan and a Shia-dominated Iraq.
The Shia believe they are being compensated for having been abandoned
in 1991, when George H.W. Bush urged them to rise up against Baghdad,
but let them be slaughtered when Saddam sent his Revolutionary Guard
to massacre the rebels. But the elections also leave the United States
with a dilemma. While expelling us is the casus belli of the
insurgency, it has taken on a life of its own. A year ago, Gen. John
Abizaid said there were 5,000 fighters. He now estimates the number of
enemy at 20,000, even though Gen. George Casey says we killed or
captured 15,000 in the last year. The head of Iraqi intelligence puts
the number of enemy at 30,000 or 40,000 fighters, supported by 200,000
people.
U.S. generals dispute the latter numbers, but no one denies the
insurgents have augmented their ranks and increased the incidence and
lethality of their attacks.
Given our dilemma – the U.S. military presence is the cause of the
insurgency, but also the only barrier to its success – the answer
suggests itself: We must bring an end to our military presence, even
as we build an indigenous force to replace it.
With the elections now completed, President Bush should lay down, for
the Iraqis and the world, conditions for the withdrawal of U.S. forces
and their replacement with Iraqi forces. Specifically, President Bush
should:
Inform the new Iraqi assembly the United States has no plans for any
permanent U.S. military presence on Iraqi soil.
Pledge continued U.S. aid in battling the resistance and rebuilding
the country, as long as an elected government endures.
Accelerate the training and equipping of Iraqi army forces, and the
transfer to them of the duty to defend their own government.
Announce an initial drawdown of U.S. forces, so Iraqis get the message
that the defense of democracy in their own country is first and
foremost their own duty, not ours. While we will aid them in their
battle, its ultimate outcome will depend upon them.
The Iraqis must know that, in the not-too-distant future, their fate
and future will be in their hands, not ours.
The elections showed that a majority of Iraqis will vote for
democracy. What has not yet been demonstrated is whether Iraqis will
fight for it with the same determination as the insurgents are
resisting it. Should Bush advance such a proposal, Iraqis would know
that if the insurgents continued to fight – even after the Americans
were committed to leave and had begun to depart – the insurgents' real
agenda was a return to power in Baghdad, by force.
And if the Shia, 60 percent of the country, and Kurds, 20 percent,
plus the anti-Baathist Sunni, are unwilling to fight a bloody
restoration of Baathist tyranny, we need to find out now, before more
U.S. blood is shed.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Absolute Zero" |
|
| Title: Re: The American-Sunni War |
02 Feb 2005 10:44:45 AM |
|
|
wrote:
wrote:
The American-Sunni War
By Pat Buchanan
Posted: February 2, 2005
1:00 a.m. Eastern
2005 Creators Syndicate, Inc.
"We must recognize what a large and growing number of Iraqis now
believe," said Sen. Ted Kennedy last week, that "the war in Iraq has
become a war against the American occupation."
Even with the heroic and heartening election turnout, Kennedy is not
entirely wrong.
"Just look at what Senator Kennedy said yesterday, he's basically
wishing for the US to fail, as is every Liberal in this newgroup."
Yep, he sure is.
Make your mind up... or is your hero Buchanan wishing for the US to fail
also?
-A
Boy, are you confused.
While Buchanan did not want us to go to Iraq,
F*&^ing Liberal
he now knows that
we cannot just leave without finishing the job,
Oh, you mean my pov... as opposed to your pov which would have the USA
out of there this year, before they've even had the proper elections.
Kennedy on the other
hand tried to sabotage the elections and wants our troops taken out
now, before the job is done.
Whilst I don't follow his every utterance, I'm sure I would have heard
this from you if true. IOW, show me it's not typical TonyZ (c)
words-in-mouth *****.
And yet Buchanan agrees with Kennedy. Nobody could accuse you of
double-think... triple or quadruple maybe.
Big difference.
LOL
-A
Tony
The insurgency has always been a war against the U.S.
occupation and those Iraqis who cooperate with us. But the paradox
Kennedy fails to address is this: While the U.S. invasion and
occupation precipitated the insurgency, it has grown to where only the
U.S. military keeps it from seizing power. Should we withdraw now,
there is a near certainty the insurgents in the Sunni Triangle would
inherit the country.
Here we come to the core conflict the elections starkly reveal. This
is not an Iraqi war against America. It is a Sunni insurrection,
supported by foreign jihadists. Neither the Kurds, who owe their
independence to us, nor the Shia, who now stand to inherit the nation,
are in rebellion. For not only did we depose the hated enemy of the
Shia and Kurds, Saddam Hussein, we dismantled his state, disbanded his
army and put Iraq on the road to elections that now point to an
autonomous Kurdistan and a Shia-dominated Iraq.
The Shia believe they are being compensated for having been abandoned
in 1991, when George H.W. Bush urged them to rise up against Baghdad,
but let them be slaughtered when Saddam sent his Revolutionary Guard
to massacre the rebels. But the elections also leave the United States
with a dilemma. While expelling us is the casus belli of the
insurgency, it has taken on a life of its own. A year ago, Gen. John
Abizaid said there were 5,000 fighters. He now estimates the number of
enemy at 20,000, even though Gen. George Casey says we killed or
captured 15,000 in the last year. The head of Iraqi intelligence puts
the number of enemy at 30,000 or 40,000 fighters, supported by 200,000
people.
U.S. generals dispute the latter numbers, but no one denies the
insurgents have augmented their ranks and increased the incidence and
lethality of their attacks.
Given our dilemma – the U.S. military presence is the cause of the
insurgency, but also the only barrier to its success – the answer
suggests itself: We must bring an end to our military presence, even
as we build an indigenous force to replace it.
With the elections now completed, President Bush should lay down, for
the Iraqis and the world, conditions for the withdrawal of U.S. forces
and their replacement with Iraqi forces. Specifically, President Bush
should:
Inform the new Iraqi assembly the United States has no plans for any
permanent U.S. military presence on Iraqi soil.
Pledge continued U.S. aid in battling the resistance and rebuilding
the country, as long as an elected government endures.
Accelerate the training and equipping of Iraqi army forces, and the
transfer to them of the duty to defend their own government.
Announce an initial drawdown of U.S. forces, so Iraqis get the message
that the defense of democracy in their own country is first and
foremost their own duty, not ours. While we will aid them in their
battle, its ultimate outcome will depend upon them.
The Iraqis must know that, in the not-too-distant future, their fate
and future will be in their hands, not ours.
The elections showed that a majority of Iraqis will vote for
democracy. What has not yet been demonstrated is whether Iraqis will
fight for it with the same determination as the insurgents are
resisting it. Should Bush advance such a proposal, Iraqis would know
that if the insurgents continued to fight – even after the Americans
were committed to leave and had begun to depart – the insurgents' real
agenda was a return to power in Baghdad, by force.
And if the Shia, 60 percent of the country, and Kurds, 20 percent,
plus the anti-Baathist Sunni, are unwilling to fight a bloody
restoration of Baathist tyranny, we need to find out now, before more
U.S. blood is shed.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "R. Foreman" |
|
| Title: Re: The American-Sunni War |
04 Feb 2005 01:06:42 AM |
|
|
Absolute Zero <amycaton@hotmail.com> Spat the Words
itwill@happen.com wrote:
The American-Sunni War
By Pat Buchanan
Posted: February 2, 2005
1:00 a.m. Eastern
2005 Creators Syndicate, Inc.
"We must recognize what a large and growing number of Iraqis now
believe," said Sen. Ted Kennedy last week, that "the war in Iraq has
become a war against the American occupation."
Even with the heroic and heartening election turnout, Kennedy is not
entirely wrong.
"Just look at what Senator Kennedy said yesterday, he's basically
wishing for the US to fail, as is every Liberal in this newgroup."
Make your mind up... or is your hero Buchanan wishing for the US to fail
also?
Doesn't tony remind you of chicken-little... running around
clucking about the sky falling and the world coming to an end?
-A
The insurgency has always been a war against the U.S.
occupation and those Iraqis who cooperate with us. But the paradox
Kennedy fails to address is this: While the U.S. invasion and
occupation precipitated the insurgency, it has grown to where only the
U.S. military keeps it from seizing power. Should we withdraw now,
there is a near certainty the insurgents in the Sunni Triangle would
inherit the country.
Here we come to the core conflict the elections starkly reveal. This
is not an Iraqi war against America. It is a Sunni insurrection,
supported by foreign jihadists. Neither the Kurds, who owe their
independence to us, nor the Shia, who now stand to inherit the nation,
are in rebellion. For not only did we depose the hated enemy of the
Shia and Kurds, Saddam Hussein, we dismantled his state, disbanded his
army and put Iraq on the road to elections that now point to an
autonomous Kurdistan and a Shia-dominated Iraq.
The Shia believe they are being compensated for having been abandoned
in 1991, when George H.W. Bush urged them to rise up against Baghdad,
but let them be slaughtered when Saddam sent his Revolutionary Guard
to massacre the rebels. But the elections also leave the United States
with a dilemma. While expelling us is the casus belli of the
insurgency, it has taken on a life of its own. A year ago, Gen. John
Abizaid said there were 5,000 fighters. He now estimates the number of
enemy at 20,000, even though Gen. George Casey says we killed or
captured 15,000 in the last year. The head of Iraqi intelligence puts
the number of enemy at 30,000 or 40,000 fighters, supported by 200,000
people.
U.S. generals dispute the latter numbers, but no one denies the
insurgents have augmented their ranks and increased the incidence and
lethality of their attacks.
Given our dilemma – the U.S. military presence is the cause of the
insurgency, but also the only barrier to its success – the answer
suggests itself: We must bring an end to our military presence, even
as we build an indigenous force to replace it.
With the elections now completed, President Bush should lay down, for
the Iraqis and the world, conditions for the withdrawal of U.S. forces
and their replacement with Iraqi forces. Specifically, President Bush
should:
Inform the new Iraqi assembly the United States has no plans for any
permanent U.S. military presence on Iraqi soil.
Pledge continued U.S. aid in battling the resistance and rebuilding
the country, as long as an elected government endures.
Accelerate the training and equipping of Iraqi army forces, and the
transfer to them of the duty to defend their own government.
Announce an initial drawdown of U.S. forces, so Iraqis get the message
that the defense of democracy in their own country is first and
foremost their own duty, not ours. While we will aid them in their
battle, its ultimate outcome will depend upon them.
The Iraqis must know that, in the not-too-distant future, their fate
and future will be in their hands, not ours.
The elections showed that a majority of Iraqis will vote for
democracy. What has not yet been demonstrated is whether Iraqis will
fight for it with the same determination as the insurgents are
resisting it. Should Bush advance such a proposal, Iraqis would know
that if the insurgents continued to fight – even after the Americans
were committed to leave and had begun to depart – the insurgents' real
agenda was a return to power in Baghdad, by force.
And if the Shia, 60 percent of the country, and Kurds, 20 percent,
plus the anti-Baathist Sunni, are unwilling to fight a bloody
restoration of Baathist tyranny, we need to find out now, before more
U.S. blood is shed.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
