...as evidenced by the recent raid on al-Qaeda terrorists in which 20 of them were killed by coalition forces (U.S., British and Danish troops), and a number of weapons caches were discovered. Of course, one has to wonder, if this was orchestrated as a political ploy since it happened just after the Iraq Study Group report was issued saying that we should cut and run from Iraq, and that we should appease the Iranians and Syrians and bring them in as negotiators. The findings of that report are ludicrous at best. There are other ways to handle the situation in Iraq and to improve our position there while at the same time improving life for the Iraqis.
The best way I can think of to improve the overall situation in Iraq would be for the coalition forces to start acting like we were actually at war in Iraq. I will readily admit, I have zero military experience; however it can still be obvious to even an inexperienced people like me that there are other options than cut and run. One of those options would be to fight the war on an offensive front while utilizing intelligence that has been developed. That we have not been doing so is evidenced by the conditions in Iraq and by the words of a coalition spokesman, Major Charlie Burbridge. See the following quote from the article Iraq 'al-Qaeda militants' killed at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6220518.stm
"This was the largest operation of its kind that we have conducted since the invasion. By that I mean the number of soldiers involved and the complexity of the operation."
Think about those words folks. The war has been ongoing since March 2003, it is now December 2006. Thousands of U.S. and coalition troops have died, many more have suffered horrendous injuries; even more Iraqis have suffered similar fates, and this killing of 20 terrorists is the largest operation that has been carried out since March 2003! Why aren't operations like this being carried out on a regular basis. Why aren't we kicking ass and counting the bodies of our dead enemies. Why are we taking hits like sitting ducks.
I supported our governments decision to invade Iraq. I even supported the president after we found out the intelligence about WMDs was probably incorrect. I still support the war effort if only because it has centralized the fight against al Qaeda for the most part, and when they are centralized they should be easier to find, and therefore our forces should should be able to destroy them. That we can do just that, was evidenced by the above mentioned operation. That we need to do more of it, well folks if you don't know why we need to do more of it, then maybe you are all as out of it as are those who wrote the Iraq Study Group report, or as out of touch as seems to be our president George W. Bush in that he thinks it an interesting idea to bring Syria and Iran into negotiations on Iraq.
The fact is we can win in Iraq without super high casualties, but the fact is also that our government and military leadership as to allow the troops to fight to win - just as they did in this operation with zero coalition casualties according to Major Burbridge. In order to win, we need to be on the offensive, and we need to bull doggedly seek out intelligence, then use it to attack and destroy our enemies, and the enemies of those in Iraq (and the rest of the world) who seek freedom. We are not going to win a war by sitting around waiting to be blown up, nor are we going to win a war by rebuilding Iraq (let the Iraqis do that, it will keep them busy) - we will win it by destroying our enemies, with help from our allies.
Call your elected officials, urge them to support such actions now. Urge them to persuade the president not to follow the suggestions of the Iraq Study Group report, which in the long run will only allow our enemies to strengthen and make it worse for us. Urge them to seek victory in Iraq and over terrorism, otherwise we may get the opposite, and there is only agony in defeat.
All the best,
Glenn B
