Victory In Iraq Day
Because of the nature of insurgencies, our President, the Iraq Prime Minister, and the Generals commanding the coalition military forces will not formally declare the war completed, but there is no longer any violence of violence occurring in Iraq that can be properly be called a war. There hasn't been in months, and the basic conditions for victory—the enemy are dead, vanquished, or turned—have existed since July. Zombie decided to declare today Victory in Iraq Day. I say, since the conditions are met and they've earned their victory, and should be able to call it by its proper name.
Despite a loathing by the media to declare it such, the Iraq wars are effectively over, and we won. The first war was the second invasion of Iraq where U.S. conventional forces deposed Saddam Hussein, killed his heirs, and defeated his military in 2003. We won that one quickly. The second war, an asymmetrical conflict with al Qaeda in Iraq and other Sunni insurgent groups, emerged from the rubble of the conventional conflict as a media war, where seemingly random IED strikes and vicious terrorist bombings that killed dozens at a time sought to create chaos and defeat the U.S and Iraqi will to win. I hasten to add that this war was in many ways effective, turning the majority of Americans against the conflict and a President who refused to surrender to terrorism. Despite some serious political and military mistakes, new U.S. counterinsurgency doctrine combined with a Sunni rebellion known as the Awakening Movement to stomp out or co-opt the last significant vestiges of the insurgency. Together as allies, Americans and Iraqis have won this war as well. What remains are isolated terrorists committing regrettable and ultimately pointless attacks of violence that can no longer significantly influence the course of history. The third war, fought concurrently with the Sunni insurgency, was a proxy war pitting the Shia government and it's coalition backers against EFP-equipped, Iranian-trained Shia militias for the control of Iraq's Shia majority. This was won earlier this year when Iraqi forces commanded by the Prime Minister and backed by American units stormed de facto Iranian strongholds throughout southern Iraq, killing or capturing hundreds of pro-Iranian militiamen and effectively neutering Muqtada al Sadr's Medhi Army. Like all counterinsurgencies, we couldn't easily see at the time when these foes were effectively finished as a long-term threat, but with the benefit of hindsight and ever-dwindling casualty figures for all sides, it is obvious that the war Barack Obama and his fellow Democrats tried so hard to lose in Congress was won in the sands of al Anbar, the slums of Basra, and the streets of Baghdad. The Iraq War, as men on the ground on all sides of the conflict will tell you, is over, and we—Americans and Iraqis together— won the right for the Arab world's first democracy to exist despite fierce internal and external opposition.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at 10:24 AM
Comments
1
Great! You gonna get on an aircraft carrier, with a big banner and everything?
"CY DECLARES MISSION ACCOMPLISHED"
"CY DECLARES MISSION ACCOMPLISHED"
Posted by: larrys at November 22, 2008 02:09 PM (PMlL4)
2
Great job, CY. The troops deserve every bit of this praise.
Posted by: The Sanity Inspector at November 22, 2008 03:34 PM (mG8Vx)
3
CY-
As I've stated elsewhere, I'm in total disagreement here on the verbiage and use of the word 'war'.
'Battle' would be more appropos.
As Iraq, as is Afghanistan, and the US, are 'fronts' in the GWOT, we need to use 'battles' until the radical jihadists have capitulated and either burrowed into the hills, never to come out, or denounced radical Islamism and laid down arms.
Either way, you and I won't see the GWOT, as a whole, understood until the right frame of reference is used; otherwise, we'll forever be trying to explain when and where this is all over; the example I would use is the 'Cold War'.
Wolf
As I've stated elsewhere, I'm in total disagreement here on the verbiage and use of the word 'war'.
'Battle' would be more appropos.
As Iraq, as is Afghanistan, and the US, are 'fronts' in the GWOT, we need to use 'battles' until the radical jihadists have capitulated and either burrowed into the hills, never to come out, or denounced radical Islamism and laid down arms.
Either way, you and I won't see the GWOT, as a whole, understood until the right frame of reference is used; otherwise, we'll forever be trying to explain when and where this is all over; the example I would use is the 'Cold War'.
Wolf
Posted by: mr. wolf at November 22, 2008 05:02 PM (9xtFl)
4
Wolf, within the "Cold War" there were two other wars... Korea and Vietnam, and both of those are called wars.
In short, I doubt that there's much danger of confusion, after all, there's no confusion between the Korean War, the Vietnam War, and the Cold War.
In short, I doubt that there's much danger of confusion, after all, there's no confusion between the Korean War, the Vietnam War, and the Cold War.
Posted by: ConservativeWanderer (formerly C-C-G) at November 22, 2008 06:12 PM (Jqe+A)
5
Great! You gonna get on an aircraft carrier, with a big banner and everything?
"CY DECLARES MISSION ACCOMPLISHED"
Posted by larrys at November 22, 2008 02:09 PM
Ah yes, the standard libtard fallback when they can't dispute the facts, resort to infantile mockery.
"CY DECLARES MISSION ACCOMPLISHED"
Posted by larrys at November 22, 2008 02:09 PM
Ah yes, the standard libtard fallback when they can't dispute the facts, resort to infantile mockery.
Posted by: Todd at November 22, 2008 06:24 PM (Pyq82)
6
I've added this blog to my blogroll if that's cool. Great work. Our soldiers deserve it.
Posted by: Tim at November 22, 2008 07:14 PM (YqYOC)
7
Hey, Tim... check my humble corner of the blogosphere... we can discuss blogroll entries. 
Posted by: ConservativeWanderer (formerly C-C-G) at November 22, 2008 08:50 PM (Jqe+A)
8
CW-
Those two were part of the 'Cold War'? And here I thought the 'Cold War' was entirely with US, Russian, and Germans. I never considered VN and K as 'fronts' of the CW. Yeah verily we faced Communism, but unless I'm mistaken, Korea wasn't backed so much by USSR as ChiComs, and VN was backed by USSR. And the USSR was not exactly friendly with ChiCom views.
Plus, given that VN and K were 'shooting' wars, they don't fit 'Cold War' definition?
Or am I WAAAAAY off base here?
Wolf
Those two were part of the 'Cold War'? And here I thought the 'Cold War' was entirely with US, Russian, and Germans. I never considered VN and K as 'fronts' of the CW. Yeah verily we faced Communism, but unless I'm mistaken, Korea wasn't backed so much by USSR as ChiComs, and VN was backed by USSR. And the USSR was not exactly friendly with ChiCom views.
Plus, given that VN and K were 'shooting' wars, they don't fit 'Cold War' definition?
Or am I WAAAAAY off base here?
Wolf
Posted by: mr. wolf at November 22, 2008 09:12 PM (9xtFl)
9
No, Wolf, the Cold War was against communism in general... besides, you just admitted that in Vietnam we were facing off against a USSR-backed enemy, so in a way, yes, we were facing the USSR, whom you claim the Cold War was against.
In short, you just tied yourself up with your own twisted logic. Congrats.
In short, you just tied yourself up with your own twisted logic. Congrats.
Posted by: ConservativeWanderer (formerly C-C-G) at November 22, 2008 09:18 PM (Jqe+A)
10
This can't be true- I haven't seen it on the news. ;-]
Posted by: Jones at November 22, 2008 10:26 PM (VkNlv)
11
Actually, Wolf, the Germans weren't a part of the Cold War, other than the competition between East and West over the fate of Germany, which was divided during the Cold War. Korea and Vietnam were the two main hot wars of the Cold War that actually pitted US and Soviet combatants against other. In both wars, the Soviets provided massive amounts of assistance to both of our communist adversaries and flew combat missions on behalf of both North Korea and North Vietnam against US warplanes and ground forces. Think of the Cold War as the larger war of ideology and influence within which occurred hot wars between East and West. Much the same is occurring in the GWOT, with Iraq and Afghanistan as the two hot wars of the GWOT. Just because they've occurred within this larger competition doesn't make Iraq or Afghanistan any less "wars."
Good post, CY. Victory has come, whether the liberal media and the Democrats on the Hill like it or not. We need to get the word out because too many people still consider Iraq to be unsuccessful.
I also joined in V-I day on my blog. Check it out: www.thesurfingconservative.com
Cheers!
Good post, CY. Victory has come, whether the liberal media and the Democrats on the Hill like it or not. We need to get the word out because too many people still consider Iraq to be unsuccessful.
I also joined in V-I day on my blog. Check it out: www.thesurfingconservative.com
Cheers!
Posted by: Surfer 49 at November 23, 2008 01:01 AM (gu4Vo)
12
thank god, we can get out of that nightmare now. bout time.
Posted by: jimmy at November 23, 2008 06:40 AM (9FgXE)
13
Larrys is a jerk and an America hater. Brainwashed by liberal propaganda.
Sad, sad, sad to be opposed to the very country and policies that brought you freedom.
Have another toke, Jerry Garcia. The Vietnam was is over, Liberal Scum.
Larrys is a jerk and an America hater. Brainwashed by liberal propaganda.
Sad, sad, sad to be opposed to the very country and policies that brought you freedom.
Have another toke, Jerry Garcia. The Vietnam was is over, Liberal Scum.
Posted by: Mayor Curley at November 23, 2008 08:58 AM (6roW3)
14
"thank god, we can get out of that nightmare now. bout time."
Posted by jimmy at November 23, 2008 06:40 AM
Right Jimmy,
Don't let us confuse you with facts, just keep regurgitating the same old stupid and thoroughly discredited libtard talking points.
Posted by jimmy at November 23, 2008 06:40 AM
Right Jimmy,
Don't let us confuse you with facts, just keep regurgitating the same old stupid and thoroughly discredited libtard talking points.
Posted by: Todd at November 23, 2008 09:12 AM (Pyq82)
15
Jimmy, let's pull troops out of the countries where Democrats sent them into first. Let's see, there's Germany, and Korea, and Kosovo...
Posted by: ConservativeWanderer (formerly C-C-G) at November 23, 2008 09:18 AM (Jqe+A)
16
Ever noticed that the liberal wing of the Democrat party is either made up of young minds-of-clay, who are wet behind the ears and oozing with naivete, or Acid-headed children of the 60s who are still reliving Woodstock (another group rife with sophomoric notions/views of the world)?
Cancel my subscription. Barack Obama is a media-created farce and the leader of zombies.
I liked to think back to that movie "Night of The Living Dead": these mind-numbed zombies from the grave breaking in to voting precincts, in droves, and crashing the voting machines to vote for their false messiah.
Have fun someday someday: ask one of these O-Bots why they voted for them?
"Uh, uh, change. Hope."
Vapid fools.
Ever noticed that the liberal wing of the Democrat party is either made up of young minds-of-clay, who are wet behind the ears and oozing with naivete, or Acid-headed children of the 60s who are still reliving Woodstock (another group rife with sophomoric notions/views of the world)?
Cancel my subscription. Barack Obama is a media-created farce and the leader of zombies.
I liked to think back to that movie "Night of The Living Dead": these mind-numbed zombies from the grave breaking in to voting precincts, in droves, and crashing the voting machines to vote for their false messiah.
Have fun someday someday: ask one of these O-Bots why they voted for them?
"Uh, uh, change. Hope."
Vapid fools.
Posted by: Mayor Curley at November 23, 2008 10:32 AM (6roW3)
17
Mr. Wolf:
Both North Korean and Chinese pilots used the MiG-15 fighter. And that aircraft was built where and supplied to them by which nation?
Both North Korean and Chinese pilots used the MiG-15 fighter. And that aircraft was built where and supplied to them by which nation?
Posted by: Mikey NTH at November 23, 2008 01:51 PM (TUWci)
18
The point of my mockery was this: there's no victory anywhere, anytime, just because a bunch of bloggers (in this instance, ultra-consnervatives) decide to stage a publicity stunt to "declare" victory. It's hype. Just as much as Bush's ballyhooed "Mission Accomplished" banner was hype.
Victory will come when we can turn Iraq over to Iraqis and bring the bulk of our people home. And that isn't gonna happen before Bush leaves office, so he (and you) will just have to let January 20 come (and go) and be disappointed by Bush's absence of victory.
And, speaking of disappointment, I'm neither a wet-behind-the-ears kid or an acid-headed child of the 60s. I realize how convenient is it to stereotype your opponents, but it doesn't always work.
Victory will come when we can turn Iraq over to Iraqis and bring the bulk of our people home. And that isn't gonna happen before Bush leaves office, so he (and you) will just have to let January 20 come (and go) and be disappointed by Bush's absence of victory.
And, speaking of disappointment, I'm neither a wet-behind-the-ears kid or an acid-headed child of the 60s. I realize how convenient is it to stereotype your opponents, but it doesn't always work.
Posted by: larrys at November 23, 2008 02:43 PM (PMlL4)
19
The "Mission Accomplished" banner corresponded with the end of major combat operations against conventional military forces in Iraq, but what it was actually marking was the end of the tour of duty of the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln (CVN-72) after it left the Persian Gulf and was returning to port in San Diego, its role in the war indeed over, its mission accomplished, which is what the banner celebrated. Liberals, of course, have never let reality get in the way of good narrative within the community-based reality, so we've been treated to their fantasies--your apparent reality--as a result.
More than 2/3 of Iraq's provinces are in Iraq control, including several once almost written off. More Americans have now died in Chicago than in Iraq in recent months. There is no longer a threat of civil war in Iraq. There is no longer a threat of terrorists or Sunni insurgents toppling the government. Iranian surrogates like al Sadr have become "community organizers," having lost the ability to wage war or exert the political power they once held.
Our soldiers who are there now, tell us the war in won, and that victory is ours in the ways that matter. some of our best war correspondents, far better traveled and more educated that the MSM, tell us the war is over, and victory is ours. Independent contractors on the ground tell us we've won.
The conditions for victory exist, hence, there is a victory. We've simply grown tired of a media unwilling to give credit to those who fought, bled, were broken, and occasionally died to win that victory, and so we chose to recognize their hard-fought success, when you and others like you would not.
I'm sorry that this disappoints you, but then, I suspect you're more interested in finding a way to claim Bush didn't win, than declaring American and Iraqi forces did.
More than 2/3 of Iraq's provinces are in Iraq control, including several once almost written off. More Americans have now died in Chicago than in Iraq in recent months. There is no longer a threat of civil war in Iraq. There is no longer a threat of terrorists or Sunni insurgents toppling the government. Iranian surrogates like al Sadr have become "community organizers," having lost the ability to wage war or exert the political power they once held.
Our soldiers who are there now, tell us the war in won, and that victory is ours in the ways that matter. some of our best war correspondents, far better traveled and more educated that the MSM, tell us the war is over, and victory is ours. Independent contractors on the ground tell us we've won.
The conditions for victory exist, hence, there is a victory. We've simply grown tired of a media unwilling to give credit to those who fought, bled, were broken, and occasionally died to win that victory, and so we chose to recognize their hard-fought success, when you and others like you would not.
I'm sorry that this disappoints you, but then, I suspect you're more interested in finding a way to claim Bush didn't win, than declaring American and Iraqi forces did.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at November 23, 2008 03:12 PM (HcgFD)
20
larrys
You remind me of the scene from Monty and the Holy Grail, where the Black Knight fights King Arthur and loses both arms and both legs, but keeps insisting he is not beaten. Well, have fun wiggling the stumps of your missing arms and hobbling around on the stumps of your missing legs, the rest of us will be moving on.
PS - I suppose you didn't consider WWII won either until the Japenese Representative put his signature on the Surrender Document aboard the Missouri, never mind that their offensive capability was effectively destroyed and that they were basically at the mercy of the allied forces.
You remind me of the scene from Monty and the Holy Grail, where the Black Knight fights King Arthur and loses both arms and both legs, but keeps insisting he is not beaten. Well, have fun wiggling the stumps of your missing arms and hobbling around on the stumps of your missing legs, the rest of us will be moving on.
PS - I suppose you didn't consider WWII won either until the Japenese Representative put his signature on the Surrender Document aboard the Missouri, never mind that their offensive capability was effectively destroyed and that they were basically at the mercy of the allied forces.
Posted by: Todd at November 23, 2008 03:31 PM (Pyq82)
21
Larry, apparently you missed the news that we've been bringing troops home for months now.
It takes time, you know, this ain't Star Trek where you can just "beam" them from their FOB to their living room.
Oh, and declaring that you're not "A" and "B" doesn't necessarily preclude that you may be "C." There's plenty of anti-war lefty moonbats who are neither still wet behind the ear nor took acid in the 60s.
Crawl back to whatever lefty blog sent you here, willya?
It takes time, you know, this ain't Star Trek where you can just "beam" them from their FOB to their living room.
Oh, and declaring that you're not "A" and "B" doesn't necessarily preclude that you may be "C." There's plenty of anti-war lefty moonbats who are neither still wet behind the ear nor took acid in the 60s.
Crawl back to whatever lefty blog sent you here, willya?
Posted by: ConservativeWanderer (formerly C-C-G) at November 23, 2008 03:49 PM (Jqe+A)
22
C'mon, the banner wasn't for one carrier finishing her tour. That's just flat out a lie. Bush and his cronies had Bush fly in, had the banner made, etc etc etc NO WAY that was meant to say that the Lincoln's tour was over. If you're gonna offer lame excuses, at least make it semi-plausible.
And no, I don't think you have to wait for a signed armistice. But I'm also not thinking that a PR stunt by right wingnut bloggers makes ot even semi-official, either. How come Bushie hasn't been announcing a victory? Or the Big Dick?
Get real, people. Or, at the very least, be honest.
And no, I don't think you have to wait for a signed armistice. But I'm also not thinking that a PR stunt by right wingnut bloggers makes ot even semi-official, either. How come Bushie hasn't been announcing a victory? Or the Big Dick?
Get real, people. Or, at the very least, be honest.
Posted by: larrys at November 23, 2008 11:18 PM (PMlL4)
23
C'mon, the banner wasn't for one carrier finishing her tour. That's just flat out a lie. Bush and his cronies had Bush fly in, had the banner made, etc etc etc NO WAY that was meant to say that the Lincoln's tour was over. If you're gonna offer lame excuses, at least make it semi-plausible.
If you're going to cling to BDS fantasies, larrys, make one that's mildly plausible.
If you're going to cling to BDS fantasies, larrys, make one that's mildly plausible.
Posted by: Patrick Chester at November 24, 2008 01:21 AM (RezbN)
Posted by: Pablo at November 24, 2008 07:00 AM (yTndK)
25
As I said: larrys is an idiot:
The banner stating "Mission Accomplished" was a focal point of controversy and criticism. Navy Commander and Pentagon spokesman Conrad Chun said the banner referred specifically to the aircraft carrier's 10-month deployment (which was the longest deployment of a carrier since the Vietnam War) and not the war itself, saying "It truly did signify a mission accomplished for the crew."
And if I forgot to say he was an idiot before, I'm saying it now.
The banner stating "Mission Accomplished" was a focal point of controversy and criticism. Navy Commander and Pentagon spokesman Conrad Chun said the banner referred specifically to the aircraft carrier's 10-month deployment (which was the longest deployment of a carrier since the Vietnam War) and not the war itself, saying "It truly did signify a mission accomplished for the crew."
And if I forgot to say he was an idiot before, I'm saying it now.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at November 24, 2008 07:34 AM (HcgFD)
26
CY, it wasn't really necessary to say that larrys is an idiot.
That is, to borrow a phrase, self-evident.
That is, to borrow a phrase, self-evident.
Posted by: ConservativeWanderer (formerly C-C-G) at November 24, 2008 08:18 AM (Jqe+A)
27
"...there is no longer any violence of violence occurring in Iraq that can be properly be called a war"
-- ConfederateYankee
Here is a list of American military deaths in Iraq for November, 2008 (so far). Please look it over.
I don't care whether you think of them as war dead, or not, CY. It's time to end this thing.
-- ConfederateYankee
Here is a list of American military deaths in Iraq for November, 2008 (so far). Please look it over.
I don't care whether you think of them as war dead, or not, CY. It's time to end this thing.
Posted by: M. Onan Batterload at November 25, 2008 12:15 AM (Wxuv7)
28
The military has casualties whether it's at war or not. Note that the majority of casualties listed were non-hostile in nature.
Perhaps we should just disband the military altogether, eh Onan?
Perhaps we should just disband the military altogether, eh Onan?
Posted by: Pablo at November 25, 2008 06:47 AM (yTndK)
29
The military has casualties whether it's at war or not.
Seventy-seven American soldiers have died in Iraq since August 1st, 2008. That's roughly one every day-and-a-half.
Are you saying this is routine, Pablo?
Seventy-seven American soldiers have died in Iraq since August 1st, 2008. That's roughly one every day-and-a-half.
Are you saying this is routine, Pablo?
Posted by: M. Onan Batterload at November 25, 2008 02:46 PM (R19Gs)
30
WARNING: Take your Dramamine before getting sucked into the spin machine created by the Bushie White House and the Pentagon, and continued ad nauseum by Rebel Yank.
CY, it appears that you may be the idiot for quoting a Pentagon source and ignoring your blessed Commander-in-Chief:
"Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed."
That's from the whitehouse.gov press release on May 1, 2003 of the text of Bushie's speech aboard the Lincoln... under the headline "President Bush Announces Major Combat Operations in Iraq Have Ended". Not "President Bush Announces U.S.S. Lincoln Has Ended Its Long Tour of Duty".
Yeah, this sure confirms that Pentagon PR hack who tried to cover for the President much later.
It was the Navy's idea and the Navy's banner, was the first cover story.
No, not quite right: it was the Navy's idea, but it was White House personnel that made the banner. But the Navy put it up.
Noooo, still not quite right: it was the Navy's idea, for sure, but it was White House personnel that made the banner AND it was a White House advance team that put it up aboard the Lincoln. But ABSOLUTELY, it was the Navy's idea. And it only meant to celebrate the end of the Lincoln's tour of duty. Uh huh, yessir!
And all that talk about major combat operations in Iraq ending, and the United States prevailed, in May 2003? Guess that never happened?
CY, it appears that you may be the idiot for quoting a Pentagon source and ignoring your blessed Commander-in-Chief:
"Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed."
That's from the whitehouse.gov press release on May 1, 2003 of the text of Bushie's speech aboard the Lincoln... under the headline "President Bush Announces Major Combat Operations in Iraq Have Ended". Not "President Bush Announces U.S.S. Lincoln Has Ended Its Long Tour of Duty".
Yeah, this sure confirms that Pentagon PR hack who tried to cover for the President much later.
It was the Navy's idea and the Navy's banner, was the first cover story.
No, not quite right: it was the Navy's idea, but it was White House personnel that made the banner. But the Navy put it up.
Noooo, still not quite right: it was the Navy's idea, for sure, but it was White House personnel that made the banner AND it was a White House advance team that put it up aboard the Lincoln. But ABSOLUTELY, it was the Navy's idea. And it only meant to celebrate the end of the Lincoln's tour of duty. Uh huh, yessir!
And all that talk about major combat operations in Iraq ending, and the United States prevailed, in May 2003? Guess that never happened?
Posted by: larrys at November 26, 2008 08:21 PM (PMlL4)
Processing 0.01, elapsed 0.0147 seconds.
18 queries taking 0.0093 seconds, 38 records returned.
Page size 26 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.