July 4 issue - I don't see how Iraq's insurgency can win. It lacks the support of at least 80 percent of the country (Shiites and Kurds), and by all accounts lacks the support of the majority of the Sunni population as well. It has no positive agenda, no charismatic leader, virtually no territory of its own, and no great power suppliers. That's why parallels to Vietnam and Algeria don't make sense. But despite all these obstacles, the insurgents launched 700 attacks against U.S. forces last month, the highest number since the invasion.
That's quite a statement coming from a magazine that recently ran the bogus Koran desecration story and helped the terrorists cause in Iraq. And none of that stops the deranged left from trying to make Vietnam comparisons.
The US is constantly criticized for not having enough man power in Iraq but today on the radio I heard the cost to America will be over $1 Trillion dollars. Instead of criticizing the US, why aren't these critics harping at France, Germany, and Russia to help out? Or condemning Spain and the PI for pulling out? Why are there no attacks on Syria and Iran who are aiding these terrorists? The smug answer we are given is that "you broke it, you fix it". But just like the Vietnam comparison is bogus, so is this sneer, for it implies that Iraq was not broke in the first place, an absurd implication.
The positive picture is worth painting. Iraq has had successful elections, a new (and more legitimate) government, Sunnis included into the political process, and is working on a new constitution. The insurgents' attacks on ordinary Iraqis are having the predictable effect of making them lose popular support. When I was in Iraq recently, several Iraqis (all Sunnis) told me that they were losing respect for and patience with the insurgents. "These guys are thugs who are killing Iraqis, not resistance fighters battling the occupation," one of them said. And finally, Iraqi politicians have been more mature and steadfast than one could have ever hoped for—making compromises, arriving at consensus and moving forward under tremendous personal danger.
Since the terrorists have "no positive agenda, no charismatic leader, virtually no territory of its own, and no great power suppliers", and lacks the support of ordinary Iraqis, why does the world press support them and attack America so much?
Becuase this is not about defeating terrorism, this is about defeating America, even if it means letting terrorists win. Such is the inverted world the left and the media have created.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment