Kurds send 3 brigades for surge; Insurgent strikes down 80 percent

War On Terror: The party of John Murtha shamelessly seeks to defund and defeat U.S. troops on the battlefield and snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. The Congress the terrorists wanted is doing their bidding.

Sudden Jihad Syndrome

We love you! You’re perfect! Now lose!

Exclusive: We love you! You’re perfect! Now lose!
Raymond S. Kraft
Author: Raymond S. Kraft
Source: The Family Security Foundation, Inc.
Date: February 19, 2007

Can you really support the troops while wishing them to fail in their task? FSM Contributing Editor Raymond S. Kraft says no, and here’s why.

We love you!  You’re perfect!  Now lose!

By Raymond S. Kraft

Joe DiPietro hilariously skewers most of the quandaries and vagaries of love, dating, and romance in his off-Broadway play “I Love You! You’re Perfect! Now Change!,” one of the longest-running off-Broadway musicals in theater history.  It’s poignant title is taken from the habit of certain women (and some men) who deliriously see the object of their affection as perfect, or nearly so, and then within a few months, weeks, or days, begin demanding that they change so they’ll really be perfect.

I wish the Liberals’ treatment of America’s Soldiers, Sailors, Marines, and Airman in the Middle East, in Iraq and Afghanistan, were as poignant and hilarious, but it is not.  It is tragic, short-sighted, mean-spirited, intellectually dishonest, specious and ugly.

They support the troops, yes, yes, America’s “best and bravest,” but they don’t want the troops to win the Battle for Iraq that is the keystone to making this war smaller and shorter, rather than larger and longer.  The Democrats’ attitude to this war and America’s troops is simply this:

We love you!  You’re perfect!  Now lose!

I am not the first to say so, and I won’t be the last, but the Democrat Party has staked its hopes and future and credibility on the proposition that the George W. Bush blundered horribly and lied to everybody going into Iraq, that Iraq is a quagmire that can’t be won, that we have squandered all the goodwill we ever had in the world, and that only by reversing the Bush policy, leaving Iraq to the tender mercies of Al Qaeda, and elevating the Democrats to the Presidency and a majority in Congress can America’s esteem among nations be restored.

According to America’s Democrats, to be respected, America must surrender.  To be liked, America must be defeated.

If Bush’s Iraq policy is proven wrong, Democrats win.  If America loses this war, Democrats win. 

But if Bush’s policy is proven right, if it succeeds, then Democrats are proven wrong.  If America wins, Democrats lose.  Never in memory has a political party in America staked its claim so openly and completely to defeat.  These Democrats have abandoned all loyalty to the best interests of America, and are obsessed only with the success of the Democrat Party in the next election.  They want their “team” to “win,” no matter how many American soldiers they offend, no matter how much disrespect they show to those who have accepted wounds and death in the cause of American security and Iraqi freedom, no matter how many Iraqi lives they have to throw under the train.  If America wins, Democrats lose.  If America loses, Democrats win.  The Democrat Party has staked its hopes for power on an American defeat, retreat, surrender, failure, in Iraq.

If Democrats were urging an alternative strategy for winning the Battle of Iraq, in the Jihad War, I would not make such criticisms.  But they are not. They are not talking about another path to victory.  Democrats are against victory.  

The resolution they are expected to pass Monday, as Nancy Pelosi said, be “the first step” toward losing the war.  John Murtha vowed to attach numerous conditions to war funding – “I will make recommendations in the bill that hopefully will change the direction of the war,” Murtha said last week, but he did not state that he planned a reinvigorated strategy to win.  He intended to lay down roadblocks to impede, delay, and obstruct the President’s decision to reinforce the troops in Iraq.

There is a misunderstanding of the Bush Team strategy that seems to be nearly universal within the Democrat Party.

The U.S. does not have a goal to “occupy” Iraq,” and it does not need to.  The Bush strategy has always envisioned regime change (which leading Democrats including Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton supported when they passed and President Clinton signed The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 – until Bush became President) – and the reconstruction of an Iraqi government, using no more American troops than necessary, and inflicting no more damage on Iraq than necessary.  The United States could have flattened Baghdad in the first minute of the war, but it didn’t.

The objective has always been to enable Iraq to form a stable government that can assume full responsibility for its own security.  This can’t be done overnight.  It takes time to train a police force and army – months to train a soldier, years to train an officer.

Looking back from the vantage of ten or twenty years I think we will see the Iraq war as a near-miracle, if America’s Democrats don’t ruin everything.

Within the span of 5-10 years, the U.S. will have overthrown one of the world’s worst dictators, Saddam Hussein, who murdered an estimated 500,000-1,000,000 of his own political opponents and their families, Shias and Kurds.  The U.S. dismantled the entire government, army, and police force, because it couldn’t trust the existing government, army, and police organizations not to remain loyal to Saddam.  The U.S. then helped the Iraqis rebuild a new government, a new army, a new police structure, from scratch – and achieve operational security in a unified Iraq where Shia, Sunni, and Kurdish interests were all represented and accommodated.

To my knowledge, nothing like this has ever been done so completely and so quickly, at least not since the American reconstruction of Germany and Japan after World War II, and never before.

This process took the United States about 88 years, from the beginning of the American Revolution in 1776 to the end of the Civil War in 1864.

Contrary to popular media mythology, Iraq is not having a “civil war.”  There is no generalized uprising.  99 percent plus of the populace are the victims of the violence, not the perpetrators of it.  They are not setting bombs, they are getting their bodies blown apart.  The trouble is being done by a handful of militias, some Sunni, some Shia, and by terrorist groups backed by Iran, Syria and Al Qaeda, all determined to prevent Iraq from becoming a stable democracy.  America’s Democrats are also determined to prevent Iraq from becoming a stable democracy.

Once the borders are controlled and the militias taken down, the level of violence in Iraq will plummet, and the level of stability will rise.  It is messy now, because war is always messy and deadly.  It will remain a mess until this war is won, and if this war is not won Iraq will remain a mess and an incubator of terror for all the foreseeable future.

America suffers from TV Syndrome.  We want everything to happen in a thirty-minute script, on cue, with a snappy ending.  Reality is not like that.  The Cold War lasted some 40 years, and ended with a whimper.  The war between Islam and everybody else has lasted 1,400 years already, and will not end until the Islamists and Jihadists are convinced they cannot conquer the world for Allah, however long that takes.  But Americans deceive themselves if they think that this war will end if the U.S. withdraws from Iraq.  The Battle for Iraq will end.  The Jihad will have won.  The Jihad, the Mujahadeen, the so-called “Soldiers of God,” will have defeated the Great Satan, the greatest military power in the world, America. Then the battle will begin anew, somewhere else, or in many other places, and we will have to start the fight all over again, or concede the world, inch by inch, to Jihad.

FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor Raymond S. Kraft is an attorney in Northern California.  He can be reached at rskraft@vfr.net .

© 2003-2007 FamilySecurityMatters.org All Rights Reserved

If you are a reporter or producer who is interested in receiving more information about this writer or this article, please email your request to COY7m@aol.com.

Note — The opinions expressed in this column are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions, views, and/or philosophy of The Family Security Foundation, Inc.

McCain says Roe v. Wade should be overturned

Iran’s Smoking Guns

Iran’s Smoking Guns

Don’t miss this excellent editorial in the Wall Street Journal today.

Following the weekend intelligence disclosures about Iranian-supplied weapons killing GIs in Iraq, we predicted Tuesday that “a large part of Washington will pretend the evidence doesn’t exist, or suggest the intelligence isn’t proven, or claim that it’s all the Bush Administration’s fault for ‘bullying’ Iran.” Sure enough, President Bush faced a barrage of questions Wednesday wondering whether senior Iranian leaders were really aware of the weapons transfers, whether he was using “faulty intelligence,” and whether the disclosures were part of a strategy designed to “provoke Iran.”

So here is the state of our public discourse: American military officials present prima facie evidence of Iranian weapons implicated in killing 170 U.S. soldiers and wounding 600 more, and Washington’s main concern is not for the GIs but in refighting the last intelligence war.

…Meantime, is it too much to expect American journalists and Members of Congress to devote as much skepticism to Iran’s motives and behavior as they do to Mr. Bush’s?

Carjackers beware! New bill in Tennessee allows “deadly force”

Carjackers beware! New bill in Tennessee allows “deadly force”

against attackers

Apparently the increase in violent crimes in Tennessee is leading legislators to take some unprecedented actions. They have filed bills that would increase the rights of citizens to bear arms and use those arms with deadly force in certain situations. Like during a carjacking. One bill in particular would allow motorists to kill an attacker that they feel is threatening to “murder, rape, kidnap, rob or carjack the car’s occupants.” Filing the bill was Rep. Ulysses Jones and Sen. Reginald Tate, two Memphis Democrats. “I’ve heard a lot of support for this. It’s time to give citizens the opportunity to protect themselves. Right now, we’re at the mercy of what I call ‘scum’,” said Jones, a Memphis Fire Department paramedic.

The important shift here is that potential victims had only been allowed the right of defense inside their homes. Extending the right to outside the home, and particularly to a motorist in a vehicle, is a dramatic change. The NRA has helped push similar laws through in Florida, but Tennessee is believed to be the first effort to extend rights to motorists. These so-called “No Retreat” laws change the burden of attackees so that fleeing isn’t the only option. Standing your ground and defending yourself and your property is allowed instead.