Cut and Run, Again?

I guess the Liberal anti-war leftist wusses think they will soon be getting their way. I heard Phil Donahue, the loud-mouthed ignorant fool spokesman of the left, saying we were going to do just that anyways, in Iraq.

 

Of course, he phrases his words to make it sound like those of us who support our military’s mission and desire to see the Iraqi people strong enough to enjoy freedom, as we do, are just sending children off to war to be slaughtered. Nothing could be further from the truth.

 

Basic and Advanced Individual training in the military is designed to help all survive. Nothing is comparable, of course, but acting by instinct taught, instead of feelings and emotions, makes all the difference in the world. I weep at every death in this War, but at the same time, feel an enormous pride that our young people today are still willing to stand up and fight the good fight, for our freedoms and for the freedoms of those in Iraq and everywhere.

 

Unfortunately, we have a history of tucking tail and running away, ever since Viet Nam. We lost over 58,000 in that War and by running away; we invalidated the sacrifice these brave men and few women made. Not only that, we abandoned a people in need of help wishing only to have freedom. From the "re-education camps,” the Cambodian Killing Fields and the plight of the "Boat People," we left those depending on us to be slaughtered and die at the hands of an oppressive regime of Communists.

 

A little known fact and one still being denied by the anti-war left, is that they cost more lives in Viet Nam than they could imagine. Instead of negotiating surrender after his resounding defeat in the Tet of 1968 offensive, General Vo Nuygen Giap, the Commanding General of the North Vietnamese Army, saw our weakness in the streets of America and on our newscasts. He played to that weakness and held out until the misled public exerted enough pressure on the government to simply walk away. Even more shameful, as Saigon fell to the Communists, we sat in Ft. Bragg N.C. waiting the order from Congress that never came. We idly sat by and turned a blind eye to the Vietnamese people being overran and remained quiet as they began to be systematically murdered and left them to die as they desperately tried to flee in whatever boat they could find, praying some country would take them in. This is the true legacy of the anti-war leftist.

 

30 years later, we are again faced with a formidable enemy bent not only on dominating a country, but to ruthlessly impose a radical religious view on the entire world. Again, the anti-war left pacifists are crying like mad and demanding we turn our backs on the Iraqi and Afghani people as well. They cry it was never a terrorist state until we invaded it, but can’t explain the terrorist training camp at Salman Pak. They cry Bush lied about Weapons of Mass Destructions, but turn deaf when asked how come virtually the entire world said they were there, including the darlings of the leftists, Clinton and Kerry. They readily admit that there were Al Qaeda cells in every country, except Iraq. It doesn’t matter that Saddam Hussein had ties to Bin Ladin, even if not in regard to the September 11, 2001 World Trade Center attack. It doesn’t matter to them that Al Qaeda essentially declared war on us back in 1993 with the first World Trade Center bombing, the bombing of US Embassy’s in Africa or the attack on the USS Cole. They consider these isolated incidents, not acts of war.

 

This War on Terror is going to be bloody and long war, but what other choice to we have? History, from back in the 1972 Olympics, has shown us these radical Islamists cannot and will not be appeased. They are bent on establishing their radical view of an otherwise peaceful religion on the world. Were we should be able to rely on our stronger friends in Europe, who have had more terrorism on their shores than we have; we have been largely abandoned, save a few like Britain. Even there, the anti-war leftists cry out against the ones who would preserve their freedoms and support those who would take it away.

 

In our own country, we now have a woman with a history of leftist activism dancing on her dead sons grave being hailed as the new princess of the anti-war left. It doesn’t matter to her that her son volunteered, not once, but twice, and died a hero, trying to save others. Instead of honoring him, she acts like he was sent off against his will and murdered. For this, she is embraced as a grieving Mother instead of being shown as the charlatan she is.

 

What lies in store for the Iraqis if we abandon them before they have reached the ability to fend off the terrorists? Will the oppressive Zarghawi (sp) take over the government and once again, imprison the freedom seeking Iraqis back under another murderous regime like Saddams? Will we cut and run and let history repeat itself by allowing yet another fledgling democracy to be destroyed in it’s infancy by despots? I pray not, but if the leftists making so much noise in our streets again have their way, we will once again become the weak paper tiger China called us after our abandonment of Viet Nam.

 

Pray for our troops and their mission.

Lew

 

Advertisements

2 Responses to “Cut and Run, Again?”

  1. smb Says:

    Lewis wrote: "[the anti-war left pacifists] can\’t explain the terrorist training camp at Salman Pak."It wasn’t a terrorist training camp. The land at the southernmost tip of the Salman Pak military compound was reserved for Iraqi Special Forces. The facility was established in the mid-1980s with British assistance. Here\’s Scott Ritter, former U.S. military intelligence officer and U.N. weapons inspector:"Iraqi defectors have been talking lately about the training camp at Salman Pak, south of Baghdad. They say there\’s a Boeing aircraft there. That\’s not true… They say there are railroad mock-ups, bus mock-ups, buildings, and so on. These are all things you\’d find in a hostage rescue training camp, which is what this camp was when it was built in the mid-1980s with British intelligence supervision. In fact, British SAS special operations forces were sent to help train the Iraqis in hostage rescue techniques. Any nation with a national airline and that is under attack from terrorists – and Iraq was, from Iran and Syria at the time – would need this capability. Iraq operated Salman Pak as a hostage rescue training facility up until 1992. In 1992, because Iraq no longer had a functioning airline, and because their railroad system was inoperative, Iraq turned the facility over to the Iraqi Intelligence service, particularly the Department of External Threats. These are documented facts coming out of multiple sources from a variety of different countries. The Department of External Threats was created to deal with Kurdistan, in particular, the infusion of Islamic fundamentalist elements from Iran into Kurdistan. So, rather than being a camp dedicated to train Islamic fundamentalist terrorists, it was a camp dedicated to train Iraq to deal with Islamic fundamentalist terrorists."And they did so. Their number one target was the Islamic Kurdish party, which later grew into Al Ansar. Now, Jeff Goldberg claimed in the New Yorker that Al Ansar is funded by the Iraqi Intelligence service. But that\’s exactly the opposite of reality: the Iraqis have been fighting Al Ansar for years now. Ansar comes out of Iran and is supported by Iranians. Iraq, as part of their ongoing war against Islamic fundamentalism, created a unit specifically designed to destroy these people." (Scott Ritter and William Rivers Pitt, \’War on Iraq: What Team Bush Doesn\’t Want You To Know\’, Context Books, 2002)Experts identified the aircraft as an old Russian-built Iraqi Airlines Tupolev 154, and not a Boeing, as claimed by the two defectors.One of those defectors, Abu Zeinab al-Qurairy, talked about the "terror camp" in Vanity Fair magazine. Al-Qurairy is a self-confessed rapist and he claimed to be a former Brigadier-General from the General Intelligence Directorate (the Mukhabarat). He was forced to flee Iraq after exposing the corrupt shenanigans of President Saddam Hussein\’s son, Uday. As reported in the magazine, al-Qurairy "crossed from Iraq to its northern neighbour, Turkey. There, stuck in a Spartan refugee camp, his life going nowhere, in August 2001 he did what would once have been unthinkable: he made contact with Iraq\’s democratic opposition, the Iraqi National Congress."This raised a red flag because 1) it suggested motive, as this guy probably dare not return home until Saddam and his sons were removed from power, and 2) the Iraqi National Congress had a history of actively promoting defectors that were patently untrustworthy.Worse was to follow for Al-Qurairy when he was exposed as a liar.Report on the U.S. Intelligence Community\’s Pre-war Intelligence Assessments on Iraq:"[DELETED] The Salman Pak facility outside Baghdad was an unconventional warfare training facility used by the IIS and Saddam Hussein\’s Fedayeen troops to train its officers for counterterrorism operations against regime opponents. The facility contained a village mockup for urban combat training and a derelict commercial aircraft.…"[DELETED] In Iraqi Support for Terrorism, the CIA provided additional explanation of the sources of the information, noting that, "press and [DELETED] reporting about al-Qa\’ida activity at Salman Pak – [DELETED] – surged after 11 September." The CIA determined, "that at least one [DELETED] defector [DELETED], whose story appeared in Vanity Fair magazine, had embellished and exaggerated his access." Additionally, [DELETED] other sources only repeated information provided by the [DELETED] defector, and also lacked first-hand access to the information. Committee staff asked both CIA and DIA analysts whether any al-Qaida operatives or other sources have confirmed Salman Pak training allegations, and the unanimous response was that none have reported knowledge of any training. A DIA analyst told Committee staff, "The Iraqi National Congress (INC) has been pushing information for a long time about Salman Pak and training of al-Qa\’ida." [SENTENCE DELETED]"http://intelligence.senate.gov/ To repeat: "The Iraqi National Congress has been pushing information for a long time about Salman Pak and training of al-Qa\’ida." And confirmation on their unreliability comes from Douglas Jehl in a report he filed for the New York Times in September of 2003:"An internal assessment by the Defense Intelligence Agency has concluded that most of the information provided by Iraqi defectors who were made available by the Iraqi National Congress was of little or no value, according to federal officials briefed on the arrangement. "In addition, several Iraqi defectors introduced to American intelligence agents by the exile organization and its leader, Ahmad Chalabi, invented or exaggerated their credentials as people with direct knowledge of the Iraqi government and its suspected unconventional weapons program, the officials said."(Douglas Jehl, \’Agency Belittles Information Given by Iraq Defectors\’, New York Times, 29 September, 2003)Hope this helps.

  2. LEW Says:

    Birmingham, thank you for commenting. I appreciate your view, but am afraid these results are also in question. I will concede the aircraft wasn\’t a Boeing, as first reported. However, I question the notion that it was there for defensive training.Iraq\’s U.N. ambassador, Mohammed Aldouri told Frontline in the fall of 2001: "I am lucky that I know the area, this Salman Pak. This is a very beautiful area with gardens, with trees. It is not possible to do such a program there, because there\’s no place for planes." If there for defensive training, why would the government deny it exists?You also have Charles Duelfer, who at the time was deputy UNSCOM chief. The London Observer, a very left leaning paper reported, "He {Deufler} saw the 707, in exactly the place described by the defectors. The Iraqis, he said, told UNSCOM it was used by \’police\’ for counter-terrorist training." To this, Deufler replied, "Of course we automatically took out the word \’counter.\’ I\’m surprised that people seem to be shocked that there should be terror camps in Iraq"Sorry, but the New York Times has little credibility for honest news reporting any longer. This becomes a my source versus your source and the two sides will never agree. Suffice it to say, my comment above wasn\’t really seeking answers to Salman Pak, it\’s a side issue. We are there now and I feel it pure folly to cut tail and run and abandon the fledgling Democracy trying to take hold in Iraq. Of course, I also think Muslim Nations surrounding Iraq should be helping out more to build up the new nation, but we also know they don\’t want Democracy either.Lew

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: