Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« Apparently We Did Go To War | Main | Slow down there boys »

Monday, April 11, 2005

Good News From Iraq

Chrenkoff's latest roundup of good news from Iraq is out.

Drudge is also headlining a New York Times (free registration required) piece suggesting the US is starting to look at winding down the military presence.

Two years after the fall of Saddam Hussein, the American-led military campaign in Iraq is making enough progress in fighting insurgents and training Iraqi security forces to allow the Pentagon to plan for significant troop reductions by early next year, senior commanders and Pentagon officials say.

Senior American officers are wary of declaring success too soon against an insurgency they say still has perhaps 12,000 to 20,000 hard-core fighters, plentiful financing and the ability to change tactics quickly to carry out deadly attacks. But there is a consensus emerging among these top officers and other senior defense officials about several positive developing trends, although each carries a cautionary note.

Huh. Some occupiers they turned out to be.

Posted by Kate McMillan on April 11, 2005 in International Affairs | Permalink


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Good News From Iraq:


I particularly liked the quote that "While Iraq's new leaders lack Saddam's 99.8 per cent electoral mandates, they certainly make up for it in unscripted enthusiasm and passion. Saddam, meanwhile, who for years inflicted on his captive television audience his rambling speeches and meaningless proceedings of Iraq's "parliament" is now on the receiving end, getting the taste of the real democracy in action."

Democracy is ugly folks, but to paraphrase Sir Winston Churchill, it's less ugly than all the alternatives. I suspect that's why President Bush always refers to "freedom & democracy", rather than just to democracy itself.

Posted by: Tony | 2005-04-11 8:41:12 AM

Here comes the second Saigon Embassy evacuation, this time from Baghdad.

The Brits are going to be leaving in a matter of days after Tony Blair loses the election. Its almost a certainty that he will lose the majority and its even possible that the Conservatives (who opposed the war) will form a minority government. Please note that I think that would be good for Britain, Blair and the Labour Party must go because of Iraq and their disasterous decisions to send troops illegally to that country.

In the meantime, the Iraqi insurgency continues to mount, and we are now seeing the outbreak of full scale civil war, which is just about how professional intelligence officers like Mr. Baer predicted.

The US is going to be forced out sooner or later. They have lost over 1500 young men, have suffered injuries and serious maimings for over 37,000 others, have spent over $500B, and as we read in yesterday's newspapers, cannot even get the power back on line, or get the water system repaired.

The problem is not "democracy" Tony, the problem is George Bush II.

The people of Spain have learned the hard way, and the people of Britain have learned the hard way. Canada knew it all along. And sooner or later the people of the United States are going to learn the hard way.

Posted by: Joe Green | 2005-04-11 8:58:33 AM


While the coalition has been winning the war for the liberation of Iraqis, it has been losing the propaganda battle, both in North America and Europe. This is mainly due to the anti-liberation bias of MSM, however the situation hasn't been helped by the fact that the rescue of a nation from a band of thugs by other nations who were not directly attacked is unprecedented.

As a result we haven't developed language which appropriately describes what is taking place. The term Occupier is a case in point. It has a pejorative meaning which mis-describes the manificently humanitarian nature of the mission to liberate and plant the seeds of democracy.

I have wriiten several emails to the CBC objecting to the use of the term Occupier and suggesting instead that the coalition forces be described as Liberating, Stablilization and Reconstruction Forces or LSR for short.

Well you can imagine my shock that THEY never implemented my suggestion.

Posted by: Terry Gain | 2005-04-11 9:01:07 AM

And on that note, Joe, I've earned some good billable hours last night, I'm paying my taxes on that for the good of Canada, and I'm going to bed, to sleep well.

You take care of yourself, Joe. Catch ya later.

Posted by: Tony | 2005-04-11 9:06:19 AM

Terry Gain wrote:

"While the coalition has been winning the war for the liberation of Iraqis, it has been losing the propaganda battle, both in North America and Europe."

Yep, just like in Viet Nam. And no amount of propaganda can paper over the strategic mistakes made by the Bush Administration.

All of Colin Powell's work as Chief of Staff following the Viet Nam War has been undone. We again see a high tech American Army bogged down and unable to move the goal posts.

They are stuck because they lack a "just cause".
Armies lose wars when they lack a "just cause".

Posted by: Joe Green | 2005-04-11 9:33:01 AM

"Armies lose wars when they lack a "just cause"."

And we have a winner for the 'Stupidest Comment' Award.

Posted by: jhuck | 2005-04-11 10:02:28 AM

They are stuck because they lack a "just cause".
Armies lose wars when they lack a "just cause".
Joe Green

Joe, I'll take the word of 8.5 million Iraqis over some oldo-soc (YOU)as to what constitutes "just cause".

Why is it that you think 25 million Iraqis aren't entitled to what you take for granted?

Your prediction has no credibility as you have a pathetic anti-liberation bias. Have you read even one of Chrenkoff's Good News Reports?

Sorry Joe, the writing is on the wall. They may still have some brutally bloody days but the insurgency is waning. Iraqis have shown they are willing to die for the freedom that leftists like you deny them. And the Iraqis are backed by the most powerful military force that's ever existed commanded by a President who is resolute.

In the end result Joe, Iraqis win. The coalition wins, the U.S. wins, Bush wins, Freedom and Democracy win. Neo -cons win.

The losers: those who hate freedom and their enablers ( the internationalist "smart set talkers"- those who aren't honest enough to acknowledge the limits of so-called international law and the fact that in order for the rule of law to be established in Iraq, so-called international law needed to be ignored) and you Joe, you and all the other oldo-socs are the real losers.

Posted by: Terry Gain | 2005-04-11 10:05:03 AM

Those that do not learn from history are doomed to repeat its lessons.

America and this Administration did not take the lessons of Vietnam seriously.

They are going to learn the lessons all over again. It will come as a growing stream of body bags and jumbo jets filled with wounded and maimed soldiers returning from a war in Iraq where their side lacked a "just cause".

Iraq is not going to emerge as a modern democracy no matter how much you bleat that it will. For democracy to flourish in Iraq, you need conditions on the ground for it to take root. Those conditions do not exist today in Iraq.

What George Bush has set off is a great unfolding tragedy. Its a civil war that will claim more victims then even the murderous Saddam unleashed upon the population. It will ultimately produce millions of refugees. And the cynics in the Bush Administration understand, that a divided Iraq preoccupied with civil war is a weak country that will pass over its wealth to waiting American corporations and friends of the President.

The Americans are raping Iraq for its resources. Even Britain does not have the stomach for that.

Posted by: Joe Green | 2005-04-11 10:21:12 AM

Joe Green,

You said that the UK Conservatives opposed the war in Iraq. This is incorrect. They supported the war in Iraq and continue to support it. The only conservative leader in the Anglosphere to oppose sending troops to Iraq was Stephen Harper.


Posted by: donald | 2005-04-11 10:36:37 AM

Harper says he opposed the war because he knows full well that over 65% of Canadians oppose the war, however I frankly do not belive him. What he faces is "election reality".

I think your facts on British Conservatives is just plain wrong. They opposed Tony Blair's invasion plans of Iraq, they opposed the illegal occupation of Iraq, and they want the role of British troops in Iraq to end as soon as possible.

Face it, the Americans and the Israelis, have now completely isolated themselves in the world. No one supports them, even Poland is pulling out and Australia has already left, but for a corporals guard. Ukraine also announced it is leaving in a couple of months.

Bush will "declare victory" and leave, rather like Nixon did in helicopters from the American Embassy in Baghdad.

Two full years after the "mission accomplished" statements, the road to the Baghdad airport STILL is not safe to travel except by convey protected by tanks.

With Nixon, it was "Peace with Honour". What lies will Karl Rove and George Bush invent for this latest American humiliation?

Posted by: Joe Green | 2005-04-11 10:44:59 AM

You are incorrect. While the UK Conservatives have criticized Blair on many issues about the handling of the war, they still support the war in principle and in action (voting to support the government). Their manifesto says "It is nevertheless the case that a democratic Iraq would be a powerful beacon of hope in a troubled part of the world. So we believe that Britain must
remain committed to rebuilding Iraq and allowing democracy to take hold."

I was not really directing the comment about Harper to you, but towards Conservatives. If they can't even convince their own leader to be principled on foreign policy issues when faced by the voters, what claim do they have of the moral high ground on such issues?

It would be almost as dumb as saying you thought that abortion was mass murder but that you weren't going to talk about it for the first four years of governing.

Posted by: donald | 2005-04-11 10:55:43 AM

donald, when Robin Cook resigned from the Blair Government, just before the House voted on the Iraq War resolution, how did the Conservatives actually vote?

And have any British Conservatives rose in the House with claims of privilege that the Prime Minister has "misled" (i.e. lied) to the House about the facts of Iraq prior to the British participation in the Invasion?

And how did the Labour Party behave? Clearly misleading the House on an issue of war and peace, is something that would lead to the resignation of a Prime Minister in such circumstances.

Which is why its no surprise to me that Tony Blair is going to lose the election shortly. Unlike Americans, the British people do not take kindly to lying politicians.

Posted by: Joe Green | 2005-04-11 11:11:34 AM

"Unlike Americans, the British people do not take kindly to lying politicians." Yeah, unlike what happened to Clinton when he lied under oath.

Joe keeps on outdoing himself with stupid comments.

Posted by: jhuck | 2005-04-11 11:26:41 AM

Huh. I think I've noticed a pattern:

1) Joe Green writes a comment that's only tangentially about the original post but mainly about how Americans (and, in particular, the president they elected) are evil.

2) Everyone tells him he's full of it.

3) Joe attempts a rebuttle that mentions Brian Mulroney, the War of 1812, "American whiskey peddlars," pythons strangling Oklahoma, or some combination thereof.

4) Go to Step 2 for "x" iterations.

5) Next, go to Step 1.

Perhaps if Step 2 were eliminated, the comments here might be a little less tiresome to read through.

Just a thought.

Posted by: doloop | 2005-04-11 12:24:37 PM

I second doloop's motion. Ignoring people who are trying to rile you up is the only way to get rid of them.

Posted by: ld | 2005-04-11 12:43:35 PM

Does Joe Green have a job, or is he being supported by Liberal adscam $ so he can write crap all day ?

Posted by: Mark | 2005-04-11 12:49:29 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.