How to Lose a War

tomtom22

Chief Engineer
How to Lose a War
Oliver North | November 17, 2005
Pearl Harbor, HI -- Since October of 2001, our FOX News “War Stories” unit has been documenting the remarkable young Americans fighting the Global War on Terror. We have covered thousands of them on the decks of ships in the Persian Gulf, on combat patrols in the shadow of the Hindu Kush, in gunfights along the banks of the Tigris and Euphrates and gone to hospitals in Iraq, Germany and the U.S. with the wounded. Throughout, there has been a common bond among these “warriors of 9-11” -- a steadfast resolve that they could win the war. Now, for the first time since I accompanied the initial U.S. combat units heading into Kandahar, Afghanistan, I'm hearing something different – a loss of confidence in the final outcome.

Over the course of the last ten days, I've met with scores of those I'd previously covered overseas. These soldiers, sailors, airmen, Guardsmen and Marines are now in “stateside” assignments at Camp Lejeune and Fort Bragg, North Carolina, at Miramar Air Station in California, at Brooke Army Medical Center in San Antonio and here in Hawaii. Many of them expect to be back in the fight -- some of them soon. But recent reversals – not on the battlefield -- but in Washington, have caused nearly all of those I talked to on this trip to question whether we are suddenly in danger of losing the war they have been fighting.

This sudden loss of assurance in our fighting forces has nothing to do with casualty figures, troop levels, the leaders prosecuting the war in the field or new acts of terror by a ruthless enemy. Rather, the anxieties I'm now hearing from those I have covered in combat come in questions like: “Do you think that they are going to pull us out before we've finished the mission?” and “Will we abandon Iraq like we abandoned Vietnam?” Interestingly, not one of the thousands of young Americans I have covered in Iraq or Afghanistan has ever asked about or commented upon, pre-war intelligence.

For more than two years the so-called mainstream media, the far left and some in Congress have been making trite comparisons between Vietnam and Iraq. Having spent a significant amount of time in both conflicts, about the only parallels I have seen in the two wars have been that bullets still wound and kill, and spilled blood is still red. But another common thread now ties the two hostilities together -- political cowardice in Washington, D.C.

On Tuesday this week, with the Commander in Chief traveling in Asia, the Democrat leadership in the U.S. Senate introduced a proposal that would have set a fixed date for withdrawing American troops from Iraq. The measure was defeated 58 to 40, but an amended version, setting 2006 as a “period of significant transition creating conditions for the phased redeployment of United States forces from Iraq,” passed by an overwhelming 79-19 margin.

Though the White House and some Republican lawmakers sounded the trumpets of victory for defeating the Democrats hard-and-fast timetable, the message to the troops is clear: no matter where we stand in the war on terror -- if the Senate has its way, we're “pulling out” in 2006. Abu Musab al Zarqawi's "al Qaeda in Iraq" terrorist organization immediately claimed victory and exhorted his followers to “hold on.” Officials in Iraq's interim government, intent on providing a secure election on December 15 th , were publicly muted in response to the votes, expressing hopes in an official statement that “Iraqi security forces are becoming increasingly effective.” Americans in uniform -- both in-theatre and at home -- were stunned.

Major General William Webster, commanding the U.S. Army's 3 rd Infantry Division in Iraq said that “setting a date would mean that the 221 soldiers I've lost this year, that their lives will have been lost in vain.” A U.S. Marine colonel, recently returned from Iraq called it “a formula for disaster.” And universally those I have met with here in Hawaii, from the U.S. Army's 25 th Infantry Division to the 1 st Marine Brigade, to the sailors of the fleet, to the wounded at Tripler Army Hospital – all expressed anger and frustration with statements like: “We've fought well.” “We're helping to create a democracy.” “Don't they want us to win?”

That's a valid question. Even Senate Republicans don't seem to know what they want. As the “World's Greatest Deliberative Body” was exploring how to set a “date certain” for withdrawing troops without setting a certain date, Senator John Cornyn, (R-TX) said, “Americans do not cut and run, Americans do not abandon their commitments, and Americans do not abandon their friends.” But he voted for the measure anyway.

About the only ones in Washington who seem to know what they want are the leaders of the Democrat party. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), who voted for war in 2002, waited until President Bush was overseas meeting with the Prime Minister of Japan to proclaim that, “Democrats and Republicans acknowledged that staying the course is not the way to go.” He then summed it all up by adding, “This is a vote of no confidence on the Bush administration policy in Iraq.”
Source: http://www.military.com/opinion/0,15202,80736,00.html?ESRC=eb.nl

I find that the statement made by Senator John Cornyn, (R-TX) “Americans do not cut and run, Americans do not abandon their commitments, and Americans do not abandon their friends.” , totally lacks any truth, given the vote of Congress in 1974 to cut off all aid to South VietNam. He apparently flunked History in high school, or was in a coma in 1974.
 
Yeah, Republicans are going the wrong way on this one. The reason I voted mostly republican in 2004 is because I thought they would be the party to keep me safe. Now my own senator, John Cornyn, is making bad steps on how to prosecute this war. If I've lost faith that Republicans can keep me safe why the hell would I vote for them again?

Outside of that, yeah, the media doesn't want us to win in Iraq. Democrats don't want us to win in Iraq. It's hard enough to fight an enemy on the battlefield without your own people rooting for your death behind your back.
 
I'm sure glad we didn't give ourselves a time limit for withdrawal at Valley Forge, Normandy, Okinawa, Saipan, and other decisive battles.
 
I think we should start lessening the troops that we have over there. Personally, I don't think we should be losing more troops fighting, the Iraqis should be fighting the insurgents by now. The armies have been trained and trained by us. If we just leave our huge force over there, how are the Iraqis supposed to fight the insurgents themselves? They will always depend on us. I realize that politicians do not realize what is going on in the war from the perspective of someone on the ground, but in my opinion it is about time to think about lessening our level of troops over there.


Of course I could be entirely wrong.
 
With what troops? It was just last month the pentagon itself said they had only 1 batallion of Iraqis that could actually fight!

If 160,000 Americans can't stop the insurgentcy what makes you think one or two thousand Iraqis are capable of that task?

Bush has always said "as they stand up we'll stand down" but we're still over there because for whatever reason their basic traning aparently takes 3 years to complete!
 
By standing down more we will force them to stand up and stop sucking off the american bosom?

Why are they incapable of fighting as of now? Because we are doing it for them. Why should they prove themselves combat ready? If they do, then they wont be able to leech of us for our military, our money, and all that other good stuff. The country is progressing so slowly because we hand them everything and expect nothing in return.
 
Interesting to see how things change, isn't it? I genuinly feel sorry for the guys fighting overthere, it must feel like a kick in the guts. But it shows the relativity of politics.
It things like this that gave me some of my cynicism.
 
its not like other war when we are fighting a specific enemy. people shoot at our troops then throw their gun down and look like a civilian. it's not a matter of, if so and so can defeat the then the whatcha call it's cant, we need to get our prioritys straight.
 
Back
Top