Friday, January 26, 2007

A good Read.

This is some very good work and a worthwhile read.

Troops Authorized to Kill Iranian Operatives in IraqAdministration Strategy Stirs Concern Among Some Officials

By Dafna Linzer

Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, January 26, 2007; A01

The Bush administration has authorized the U.S. military to kill or capture Iranian operatives inside Iraq as part of an aggressive new strategy to weaken Tehran's influence across the Middle East and compel it to give up its nuclear program, according to government and counterterrorism officials with direct knowledge of the effort.

For more than a year, U.S. forces in Iraq have secretly detained dozens of suspected Iranian agents, holding them for three to four days at a time. The "catch and release" policy was designed to avoid escalating tensions with Iran and yet intimidate its emissaries. U.S. forces collected DNA samples from some of the Iranians without their knowledge, subjected others to retina scans, and fingerprinted and photographed all of them before letting them go.

Last summer, however, senior administration officials decided that a more confrontational approach was necessary, as Iran's regional influence grew and U.S. efforts to isolate Tehran appeared to be failing. The country's nuclear work was advancing, U.S. allies were resisting robust sanctions against the Tehran government, and Iran was aggravating sectarian violence in Iraq.

"There were no costs for the Iranians," said one senior administration official. "They are hurting our mission in Iraq, and we were bending over backwards not to fight back."

Three officials said that about 150 Iranian intelligence officers, plus members of Iran's Revolutionary Guard Command, are believed to be active inside Iraq at any given time. There is no evidence the Iranians have directly attacked U.S. troops in Iraq, intelligence officials said.

But, for three years, the Iranians have operated an embedding program there, offering operational training, intelligence and weaponry to several Shiite militias connected to the Iraqi government, to the insurgency and to the violence against Sunni factions. Gen. Michael V. Hayden, the director of the CIA, told the Senate recently that the amount of Iranian-supplied materiel used against U.S. troops in Iraq "has been quite striking."

"Iran seems to be conducting a foreign policy with a sense of dangerous triumphalism," Hayden said.

The new "kill or capture" program was authorized by President Bush in a meeting of his most senior advisers last fall, along with other measures meant to curtail Iranian influence from Kabul to Beirut and, ultimately, to shake Iran's commitment to its nuclear efforts. Tehran insists that its nuclear program is peaceful, but the United States and other nations say it is aimed at developing weapons.

The administration's plans contain five "theaters of interest," as one senior official put it, with military, intelligence, political and diplomatic strategies designed to target Iranian interests across the Middle East.
The White House has authorized a widening of what is known inside the intelligence community as the "Blue Game Matrix" -- a list of approved operations that can be carried out against the Iranian-backed Hezbollah in Lebanon. And U.S. officials are preparing international sanctions against Tehran for holding several dozen al-Qaeda fighters who fled across the Afghan border in late 2001. They plan more aggressive moves to disrupt Tehran's funding of the radical Palestinian group Hamas and to undermine Iranian interests among Shiites in western Afghanistan.

In Iraq, U.S. troops now have the authority to target any member of Iran's Revolutionary Guard, as well as officers of its intelligence services believed to be working with Iraqi militias. The policy does not extend to Iranian civilians or diplomats. Though U.S. forces are not known to have used lethal force against any Iranian to date, Bush administration officials have been urging top military commanders to exercise the authority.

The wide-ranging plan has several influential skeptics in the intelligence community, at the State Department and at the Defense Department who said that they worry it could push the growing conflict between Tehran and Washington into the center of a chaotic Iraq war.

Senior administration officials said the policy is based on the theory that Tehran will back down from its nuclear ambitions if the United States hits it hard in Iraq and elsewhere, creating a sense of vulnerability among Iranian leaders. But if Iran responds with escalation, it has the means to put U.S. citizens and national interests at greater risk in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere.

Officials said Hayden counseled the president and his advisers to consider a list of potential consequences, including the possibility that the Iranians might seek to retaliate by kidnapping or killing U.S. personnel in Iraq.

Two officials said that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, though a supporter of the strategy, is concerned about the potential for errors, as well as the ramifications of a military confrontation between U.S. and Iranian troops on the Iraqi battlefield.

In meetings with Bush's other senior advisers, officials said, Rice insisted that the defense secretary appoint a senior official to personally oversee the program to prevent it from expanding into a full-scale conflict. Rice got the oversight guarantees she sought, though it remains unclear whether senior Pentagon officials must approve targets on a case-by-case basis or whether the oversight is more general.

The departments of Defense and State referred all requests for comment on the Iran strategy to the National Security Council, which declined to address specific elements of the plan and would not comment on some intelligence matters.

But in response to questions about the "kill or capture" authorization, Gordon Johndroe, spokesman for the NSC, said: "The president has made clear for some time that we will take the steps necessary to protect Americans on the ground in Iraq and disrupt activity that could lead to their harm. Our forces have standing authority, consistent with the mandate of the U.N. Security Council."

Officials said U.S. and British special forces in Iraq, which will work together in some operations, are developing the program's rules of engagement to define the exact circumstances for using force. In his last few weeks as the top commander in Iraq, Army Gen. George W. Casey Jr. sought to help coordinate the program on the ground. One official said Casey had planned to designate Iran's Revolutionary Guard as a "hostile entity," a distinction within the military that would permit offensive action.

Casey's designated successor, Army Lt. Gen. David H. Petraeus, told Congress in writing this week that a top priority will be "countering the threats posed by Iranian and Syrian meddling in Iraq, and the continued mission of dismantling terrorist networks and killing or capturing those who refuse to support a unified, stable Iraq."

Advocates of the new policy -- some of whom are in the NSC, the vice president's office, the Pentagon and the State Department -- said that only direct and aggressive efforts can shatter Iran's growing influence. A less confident Iran, with fewer cards, may be more willing to cut the kind of deal the Bush administration is hoping for on its nuclear program. "The Iranians respond to the international community only when they are under pressure, not when they are feeling strong," one official said.

With aspects of the plan also targeting Iran's influence in Lebanon, Afghanistan and the Palestinian territories, the policy goes beyond the threats Bush issued earlier this month to "interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria" into Iraq. It also marks a departure from years past when diplomacy appeared to be the sole method of pressuring Iran to reverse course on its nuclear program.
R. Nicholas Burns, the undersecretary of state for political affairs, said in an interview in late October that the United States knows that Iran "is providing support to Hezbollah and Hamas and supporting insurgent groups in Iraq that have posed a problem for our military forces." He added: "In addition to the nuclear issue, Iran's support for terrorism is high up on our agenda."
Burns, the top Foreign Service officer in the State Department, has been leading diplomatic efforts to increase international pressure on the Iranians. Over several months, the administration made available five political appointees for interviews, to discuss limited aspects of the policy, on the condition that they not be identified.

Officials who spoke in more detail and without permission -- including senior officials, career analysts and policymakers -- said their standing with the White House would be at risk if they were quoted by name.
The decision to use lethal force against Iranians inside Iraq began taking shape last summer, when Israel was at war with Hezbollah in Lebanon. Officials said a group of senior Bush administration officials who regularly attend the highest-level counterterrorism meetings agreed that the conflict provided an opening to portray Iran as a nuclear-ambitious link between al-Qaeda, Hezbollah and the death squads in Iraq.

Among those involved in the discussions, beginning in August, were deputy national security adviser Elliott Abrams, NSC counterterrorism adviser Juan Zarate, the head of the CIA's counterterrorism center, representatives from the Pentagon and the vice president's office, and outgoing State Department counterterrorism chief Henry A. Crumpton.

At the time, Bush publicly emphasized diplomacy as his preferred path for dealing with Iran. Standing before the U.N. General Assembly in New York on Sept. 19, Bush spoke directly to the Iranian people: "We look to the day when you can live in freedom, and America and Iran can be good friends and close partners in the cause of peace."

Two weeks later, Crumpton flew from Washington to U.S. Central Command headquarters in Tampa for a meeting with Gen. John P. Abizaid, the top U.S. commander for the Middle East. A principal reason for the visit, according to two officials with direct knowledge of the discussion, was to press Abizaid to prepare for an aggressive campaign against Iranian intelligence and military operatives inside Iraq.

Information gleaned through the "catch and release" policy expanded what was once a limited intelligence community database on Iranians in Iraq. It also helped to avert a crisis between the United States and the Iraqi government over whether U.S. troops should be holding Iranians, several officials said, and dampened the possibility of Iranians directly targeting U.S. personnel in retaliation.

But senior officials saw it as too timid.

"We were making no traction" with "catch and release," a senior counterterrorism official said in a recent interview, explaining that it had failed to halt Iranian activities in Iraq or worry the Tehran leadership. "Our goal is to change the dynamic with the Iranians, to change the way the Iranians perceive us and perceive themselves. They need to understand that they cannot be a party to endangering U.S. soldiers' lives and American interests, as they have before. That is going to end."

A senior intelligence officer was more wary of the ambitions of the strategy.
"This has little to do with Iraq. It's all about pushing Iran's buttons. It is purely political," the official said. The official expressed similar views about other new efforts aimed at Iran, suggesting that the United States is escalating toward an unnecessary conflict to shift attention away from Iraq and to blame Iran for the United States' increasing inability to stanch the violence there. But some officials within the Bush administration say that targeting Iran's Revolutionary Guard Command, and specifically a Guard unit known as the Quds Force, should be as much a priority as fighting al-Qaeda in Iraq. The Quds Force is considered by Western intelligence to be directed by Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, to support Iraqi militias, Hamas and Hezbollah.

In interviews, two senior administration officials separately compared the Tehran government to the Nazis and the Guard to the "SS." They also referred to Guard members as "terrorists." Such a formal designation could turn Iran's military into a target of what Bush calls a "war on terror," with its members potentially held as enemy combatants or in secret CIA detention.
Asked whether such a designation is imminent, Johndroe of the NSC said in a written response that the administration has "long been concerned about the activities of the IRGC and its components throughout the Middle East and beyond." He added: "The Iranian Revolutionary Guards Quds Force is a part of the Iranian state apparatus that supports and carries out these activities."
Staff writer Barton Gellman and staff researcher Julie Tate contributed to this report.

Words from Those Who Know

A friend of mine, in Iraq, works as an english translator. He is very well educated and would be a compliment to any working democracy. Recently, played a role in helping to track down a group of terrorists. These terrorists had kidnapped a certain number of Americans. Their hope was to trade for these American hostages for Iranian prisoners. The Iraq army handled the situation with speed but could not save these American lives. When the terrorists were captured, they were found to be Iranian.

As a matter of discussion, Iranians in Iraq often act the part of Suni and Shiite when performing acts of violence on the opposing sect.

My friend explains, “It is Iran who is doing all that troubles in the Middle East. Look at Lebanon, Palastine and Iraq. Najadi thinks that one day after he has the nuclear weapon; he will ask to be the head of the world.”

He also said, “Sadir people are going to Iran because of the new security plan and the Maliki who did that to save his people.”

Very few including my friend have much confidence or trust in Maliki. I might note that Nancy Pelosi is scheduled to visit with Maliki for talks.

Here is the irony, my friend is Shiite by religion. Funny, most or all of his associates feel the same way. Maliki was a big mistake and Iran is the culprit. Much of the same sentiment felt here in the States.

Ultimately, they want Iran out and a new, more represenative, government in.

My friend goes on to say, “we need to change the Government, to one temporary, for 2 years or less little and bring one man to decide all the government like Allawi Or Al-Aloosi as Sonnie. They are not Radicals and not following Iran and in the same time the US have to support them, to make the people accepting them, by seeing the changes and there will be changes.
Believe in me, people here starting to feel that they got decieved by giving votes for the Radicals Shea'a.

It is Tough for the President to do that because it is against his goal, which is Democratic Iraq, but it is a step on the way up. Im sure because I see the life here”

This brave Iraqi man holds out hope that America can help to resolve the problems in Iraq without having to attack Iran. He believes this can be accomplished.

The only problem is that America is in a fight for credibility. Mitt Romney, in speaking to the Herzliya audience, warned against the temptation to, "not lift a finger," in our own defense. We would onlt do this if,

Thursday, January 25, 2007

It's Time For Strength

The world looks to the United States and depends on its leadership and a strong President for global security. President Bush has proven he is a strong leader with tax cuts, and other tough domestic policies as well as his strong stand against terrorist and global Jihadists. Unfortunately, the President has been weakened. A weak U.S. President will result in many failures around the world. If the Nation fails to get behind the President and support his agenda the following will probably happen:

1. Lebanon’s Prime Minister Seniora will fail and democracy will cease in Lebanon.. A large number of moderate Muslims and Christians will die as a result.

2. Israel will be forced to negotiate with the Palestinians from a weakened position. They will loose credibility and territory, and put themselves closer to another genocide.

3. The likes of Ayman Zawarhairi will continue to take innocent lives around the world and mock the President (really the Nation) with impunity.

4. Troop moral in the global war on terror will continue to decline until it causes serious decent with in the ranks.

5. Democracy in Afghanistan will give way to Taliban rule.

6. The United States will bow to Iran and Syria and give away 400 billion dollars and 3,000 lives to the enemy. The world oil supply will be in the hands of radical Islam.

7. Somalia, Indonesia, Pakistan, Turkey and many other places around the world including France and Great Brittan where western civilization has began and even flourished will turn toward the advance of fanatic Islam.

The Democrats and some Republicans know this all to well, but encourage it. They are betting that they can get away with destroying President Bush and then put things back in order once they’re in power. They believe that their superior intellect and diplomacy will solve the world’s problems. It won’t !

Set aside the tragic loss of life and treasure that their political scheme has cost; their plan won’t work for one basic reason. The fanatic Jihadists only understand one thing; Superior power and authority. It may be many years before a strong President comes back to power and the United States has the resolve to take on this hideous enemy.

A U.S. President was destroyed while in office and the military withdrew from the battle field of Vietnam. Communism was eventually defeated when a strong President came back to power, but this time it won’t be the same. When you consider the nuclear threat, the whole equation changes. Unfortunately, the American public have been misled, and they don’t understand what’s at stake. The best presidential candidate will be one who can educate the public on the reality of the world we live in today.

Danger Thrives in The Silence

Reports have been confirmed. High tech, anti-aircraft, rockets have been transfered to Iran. The grantor; Russia. The new home of these rockets; Iranian nuclear facilities.

Then, the presence of North Korean nuclear specialists visiting with Iranian leaders and their nuclear staff.

During all this activity, we get more threatening words from Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, "United States and the Zionist regime of Israel will soon come to the end of their lives."

Mitt Romney and other world leaders, spoke out about these activities during sessions of the Herzliya Conference. Of the former governor's speech, former Ambassador Ronald Lauder said, “I just want to say that you have heard one of the most comprehensive, direct, clear strategies on Iran. I must say I have heard many different statements on Iran. This was as good as it gets, as straight as it gets, and I for one am very, very much impressed. I think Governor Mitt Romney has it all together.”

We have heard the plan from McCain, more troops. But what of the Democrats? I know of one plan, (Bidon - Gelb), which is a makeshift plan at best. I would say a more of a glorified version of CUT AND RUN.

Here is the most troubling. We have nothing coming from the top Democrat presidential candidates like Hillary and Obama. This alone is more horror than than any human should be exposed to. But is gets even more scary. These two are sitting high in their party's polls. What will it take to wake this public up?

An Earlier Article

Mitt on the War
In 2004 John McCain addressed the War in Iraq. He recommended that the generals on the ground be overruled by the highest levels and that more troops be sent in. His words were as follows, "Harry Truman overruled Douglas MacArthur. Abraham Lincoln overruled his generals. Franklin Delano Roosevelt overruled his military people because -- as Napoleon said -- war is too important to be left to the generals."

Now, McCain awaits the announcement of the Administrations new plan for Iraq. Will President Bush ask for more troops? Will Nancy Pelosi dam up war spending?

In any case Mitt Romney has a great position here and is right on the mark. After coming back from a tour of the situation in Iraq, U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, points out the real problem in Iraq. He describes an need for Iraqis to get more involved with the security of their nation.

Earlier Mitt Romney laid out a strategy for Iraq when he stated, "An effective strategy will involve both military and diplomatic actions to support modern Muslim nations. America must help lead a broad-based international coalition that promotes secular education, modern financial and economic policies, international trade, and human rights."

Main points here(per Mitt Romney):

1. Support modern Muslim nations.
2. Promote secular education, modern financial and economic policies, international trade and human rights.

In all this Iraqis must take part in the building, or face collapse when their support is taken away.

The last thing we want right now is fighting between our generals on the ground and the "highest levels" of government. We know that many generals had it right in World War II. Patton's push through Africa into Italy and then later into the heart of Germany came with much criticism from the "highest levels." Was he right? He was worth listening too at the very least.

Our next president needs to shed the tendency of errogance common from the "highest levels," lest he find himself at odds with his main workhorses on the ground. McCain is the propietor of errogance and hard headedness. Look at his stance on immigration in the face of his trusting conservative constituency. His stance on interrogation unravelled the present war on terror information.Mitt Romney remains untouched.

Mitt Romney is one capable of uniting this divided country on ficsal issues as well as the war.

Wednesday, January 24, 2007

Why the Anger? Was the Question...

There are many fake conservatives in this coutry right now. What has happened is that Ted Kennedy cried wolf on the war but he didn't cry to other Democrats. Instead, he turned his attention to the "old-time" conservatives adding a tinge of deficit, debt, and spending.

Being the prophet of fad, he formed the train to no where and quickly loaded it. Then, he sent it rolling down the tracks of self mutilation.

One big passenger of this South bound train is talk show host, John Konop.

John recently asked me the question, "Would you call Lou Dobbs, Bret Scowcroft, Pat Buchanan, Richard Lugar, John Warner….all slime for not supporting a failed plan?"

He later asked me to "reveal" my age. I really have no idea what my age has to do with politics except that this guy cannot brave a debate on real issues with me. But if your tuned in here, John Konop, the answer to your question is 31.

My answer to the first question:

John,If your real question is - West why are you so angry?
The answer to that would be, I come from a family that settled in New York back when there was only York. My ancestors fought in every engagement this country has seen including Independence, Civil, WWII and Vietnam.

I hear the likes of bench warmers like you, who haven’t a child’s understanding of the travails this country has faced down and won.

My father is a businessman the type that most liberals would love to ask the question to, “why aren’t your kids over there fighting”?

His answer, "Because I am".

Let Michael Moore ask that little question to the likes of this man.

Here is a man who has had feet on the ground since 2003 with only short breaks of no more than a month or less. He has walked with Iraqis in their streets, he has fougth insurgents on so many levels.

I could give you so many correspondence with his most trusted Iraq men. These men have watched their hard work literally blow up their faces with because of liberals like you.

I have no link or love for president Bush but the bandwagon of antiwar, that started with liberals sucking their thumbs for losing power, is the direct reason terrorists are emboldened.

Pat yourself on the back here John.

Yes, the elections in Iraq took a, predictably, wrong turn but the trouble really started when slime like you jumped on the Kennedy bandwagon.

It was all politics.

Now, I didn’t join the military. Neither did any of my six brothers. My father went so we could all raise families.
You should get to know men like this, John, instead of hanging out with office butts.

I’ll give you his age if you want.



Now, I realize do that there are so many wonderful Americans with great family history. I also realize that not all these Americans agree with the War in Iraq. But for liberals like John to jump up on the backs of real conservative pioneers and then shout the liberal agenda is going beyond the call and duty of slime.

Kennedy took the lead, showed the example. Talks shows see the shifting tide and launched their boats.

Once again the American people are intellectually ambushed.

The sick thing is, they took the bait. Now, we must wait for a democrat congress to carry out its universal duty, teaching the American people, they never had it so good.

Tuesday, January 23, 2007

Say "NO" to Self Destruction

Mitt Romney spoke at the Herzliya Conference recently. His words were direct and clear. In essence, he said we will be kicking our own butts if we don't lift a finger in defense.

He explained, "In the current conflict, the balance of forces is not nearly as dangerously close as it was during the moments of World War II and the Cold War. There's no comparison between the economic, diplomatic, and military resources of the civilized world and the weak terrorist states that threaten us.
In those previous global wars, there were many ways to lose, and victory was far from guaranteed. In the current conflict, there's only one way to lose, and that is if we as a civilization decide not to lift a finger to defend ourselves, our values, and our way of life."

During the Conference Mitt laid out the best strategy yet for Iran, which translates the the best strategy yet for Iraq:

Governor Romney's Five Step Plan Of Action To Prevent A Nuclear Iran:


"First, we must continue tighten economic sanctions. Our model should be at least as severe to the sanctions imposed on Apartheid South Africa. We should demand no less from the international community today….
"We must also be imaginative in the way we pressure Iran economically – an issue I have been looking into. In my meetings this week in Israel, I have become aware of the potential of U.S. pension funds to further isolate the Iranian economy. We should explore a selective disinvestment policy. After a series of briefings here, I have contacted the Treasurer of my own state of Massachusetts and Governors of other states to begin this process by meeting today with senior Israeli leaders in Boston."

"Second, we must impose diplomatic isolation of Iran's Government. Ahmadinejad should not be provided the trappings, respect, and recognition of a responsible head of state as he travels. In fact, when former Iranian President Khatami traveled to Boston last year to lecture at Harvard University, I denied him state police security for his visit. The real question is: why was he invited in the first place? Ahmadinejad is even more strident than Khatami. He should neither be invited to foreign capitals nor feted by foreign leaders. This would have important symbolic significance, not just to Ahmadinejad, but to the people of Iran.
"Diplomatic isolation should also include an indictment of Ahmadinejad for incitement to genocide under the Genocide Convention. The United States should lead this effort.
"The full title of the Genocide Convention is the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. Remember that word: Prevention.
"Article III of that treaty establishes that 'public incitement to commit genocide' is a punishable crime. Every signatory to this treaty, including the U.S. and most European countries, shares an obligation to enforce it. So do human rights groups that care about international humanitarian law.
"Nobel Prize Winner Elie Wiesel, and human rights advocate and former Canadian Justice Minister Irwin Cotler have spoken out on this issue.
"In addition, former U.S. Ambassador John Bolton has been a forceful advocate for this effort, and is joined by Alan Dershowitz. If these two can agree, they must be on to something.

"Third, Arab states must join this effort to prevent a nuclear Iran. These states can do much more than wring their hands and urge America to act. They should support Iraq's nascent government, They can help America focus on Iran by quickly turning down the temperature of the Arab-Israeli conflict -- stopping the financial and weapons flows to Hamas and Hizbullah…thawing relations with Israel…and telling the Palestinians they must drop terrorism and recognize Israel's right to exist.

"Fourth, we must make it clear that while nuclearization may be a source of pride, it can also be a sourcee of peril. The military option remains on the table. And further, nuclear material that falls into the hands of terrorists would surely provoke a devastating response from the civilized world.

"Fifth, our strategy should be integrated into a broader approach to the broader Muslim world. I agree with our friend, former Prime Minister Aznar of Spain, that a central purpose of NATO should be to defeat radical Islam. I believe this has two critical dimensions. The first is an unquestionably capable military. This will mean a greater investment by the United States as well as other nations. The second is a global partnership which includes NATO and other allies. Its mission would be to support progressive Muslim communities and leaders in every nation where radical Islam is battling modernity and moderation. This Partnership for Prosperity should help provide the tools and funding necessary for moderates to win the debate in their own societies. They need secular public schools, micro credit and banking, the rule of law, adequate healthcare, human rights, and competitive economic policies. In the final analysis, only Muslims will be able to permanently defeat radical Islam. And we can help."




Monday, January 22, 2007

McCain and Bush vs. Mitt Romney

Early on, McCain criticized the Bush administration on such issues as the methods of attaining information from prisoners, immigration and the handling of the war in Iraq. This could have been a facade.

Now, President Bush has backed the maverick senator. It could be the other way around here. McCain may have found a new love for the President and his war policy.

One thing is certain, they are both banking on troop surge as the key to success in Iraq. They have come together, here, on this issue.

I estimate the war to be the leading issue in 2008. The future president of the United States will be the person who is able to lay out a real plan that takes into account the true challenges in Iraq. The plan must then rely on the insight, understanding and committment of every soldier, agent and contractor involved. The idea of chopping the roots of a tree as opposed to swatting the thousands of leaves cannot be an overstatement of how we, as Americans, have handled the war in Iraq so far. We, here in the states, took for granted the importance of Iraq which then led to the mishandling by some, less committed to freedom and democracy, on the ground.

As one American in Iraq put it, "The biggest problem here in Iraq is not the number of folks, but that many aren't doing anything. Many people have let the President down. If more troops means more of the same, it probably won't help."

No politician has even communicated the problem clearly. Yes, we have plans from presidential hopefuls such as Bidon and McCain, the "leading leaf swatters".

But what is the real answer for Iraq?

No one really knows.

In many cases, we have steered completely clear of international conflict allowing communism to take root. Later, we turn around a complain about trade deficits and unfair economic play.

When we have committed, to help another country to democracy, we have fallen short in that committment. We have spent billions of dollars, lost thousands of lives and then cut and run.

Mitt Romney, at least, starts with a true look at the problem. Before we get the infamous words, throw money and troops at the problem, we get an in depth analysis of the enemy and the challenge.

Instead of political bandwagon jumping we get a thoughtful position. Mitt backed the president, who returned little political advantage, because he had the best interest of America in mind.

Saturday, January 20, 2007

Fighting Smart in Iraq

Mitt Romney stated the following in regards to the war against Jihad, "The defeat of this radical and violent faction of Islam must be achieved through a combination of American resolve, international effort, and the rejection of violence by moderate, modern, mainstream Muslims. An effective strategy will involve both military and diplomatic actions to support modern Muslim nations. America must help lead a broad-based international coalition that promotes secular education, modern financial and economic policies, international trade, and human rights."

The argument to this thinking, as held by the likes of the Democrats and some Republicans, has been that we have no business being in Iraq, but since we're there we shouldn't try to force Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds under one roof. Three separate and distinct countries should be created.

However, there are a few problems with this type of thinking. For one, the true instigator of instability in the entire region, as well as in the world, is overlooked. The great instigator is radical Jihadism. This movement is headed up by very big money, and recognizes no borders. So, whether there are three new perimeters or one, Jihadists will cross that line and continue their works of killing.

Secondly, the problem with Democrat's thinking is that they assume seculars are in short supply in Iraq. They propose that there is no hope for democracy due to the lack of democratic thinkers in that region. Once again, they fail to consider the true enemy. The true enemy isn't necessarily civil hatred, but, is more terrorist opportunism with instability.

There is one crucial fact hidden by the media, which is this: there are Iraqis struggling, pondering, and working on the issues at hand. These Iraqi's are going through the thought processes indicative of a developing democracy.

The following are words from one Iraqi man who has great interest and knowledge of the situation in his country. Unfortunately, too few of these folks are heard from:

I would love to write, for you, an article about the situation (in Iraq) and I will do that. Democracy, which was brought by americans to Iraq, is the greatest idea for humans on the earth because it was for all the people, not just Iraqis. The plan shouldent be the way it was Presented. Bush gave Malike alot of time. He shouldn't have, because it is our lives and Americans lives where going in vain while Maliki was doing negative things..

There are 2 choices, as I think, in Presedent Bush's mind.

1.Cancelling Maliki Goverment In Iraq along with the Parliment and starting with temporary goverment of Sunnies and Sheaa and Kurdish from People in the middle; better with no relations in any party and make these guys deciding the new ministers. All and all not from religion parties especially the defence and interior. There should be very hard punishment to those who carry weapons whatever he is. I want you to know that the Iraqi personality is follower to the circumstances.

This means we are immature for democracy. We need more time.


2 .the other option is doing the plan depending on Maliki, because he is the man that came by democracy. The first option will put Bush under all the pressures, that he made, all that for democracy. If he cancels his goals that will cause the Republicans to be erased from the American history forever. But with the 2nd option, it will be disaster, we need the time, the time is not with us. Iraq will be a blood lake in the future and that will make the republican lose too. So anyway the republicans will lose because the urgent government need at less 2 years and by this time the elections will be up in the USA and that will cause the disaster to the republicans. But this is the only solution as I believe."
(name withheld for security purposes)

Iraq may very well be "immature for democracy" but it certainly is not unfit for democracy. An American on the ground in iraq describes a need to understand the mission and be more committed to it, both here in the states and on the ground in Iraq. In this letter to home, he explains:

"The biggest problem here in Iraq is not the number of folks, but that many aren't doing anything. Many people have let the President down. If more troops means more of the same, it probably won't help. What Mitt should do is demonstrate the kind of leadership that would encourage the folks that are here to understand the mission better and be more commited, then more troops would help."

He goes on to say
, "The Dems can whine all they want, and criticize and call names, but unless they have a better plan and extend the leadership to get it accomplished the Republicans will stay in the lead. The military may be more inclined to follow McCain, but I wonder if the public will. The person that can explain, persuade and lead will be the next President. "
(name withheld for security purposes)

This may very well be the most important line from the above, "If more troops means more of the same, it probably won't help."

This is where John McCain, though a better candidate then Hillary Clinton, is dead wrong, for he believes more troops should be sent First, we must clean up our act on the ground. Iraqi's must believe we are there for the right reasons. Here is why:
1. Iraqi confidence in the United States must not wane.
2. Iraqis must look to the United States for an example.
3. Iraqis must not turn to the Jihadists

Mitt Romney has sounded a message that will, hopefully, sink deep into the hearts of Americans and Iraqis alike; it will tie together the support of the American people with the confidence of the Iraqi public. He stated, "The jihadists are waging a global war against the United States and Western governments generally with the ambition of replacing legitimate governments with a caliphate, with a theocracy."

Both Americans and Iraqis alike, have come to understand the sting and devastation imposed by violent Jihadism, for we are two nations struggling against the same enemy. He who understands this important concept should be our next president, which is why I will vote for Mitt Romney.