Knowing what I know now, I'd still authorize the invasion of Iraq had I been President George Bush.
Laura Ingraham hammers Jeb Bush on his response to an interview question. The question involved a hypothetical scenario. In this scenario, Jeb Bush was in the same point in time as his brother was in the months leading to the Iraq invasion.
Laura Ingraham's response to his response assumed that the anti-WMD propaganda, of the left, was "true":
During the run-up to the Iraq war, President George Bush advanced more than one argument as to why we needed to go into Iraq. His explanations were consistent with his initial speeches after the attacks of September 11, 2001.
Mainly, that this war was not like any other war before. This war was one where you were going to have both visible and invisible parts to the public. This was a multidimensional war.
The war in Afghanistan was the opening salvo, but not the final campaign in this currently ongoing Global War on Terror.
Or, as I'd like to call it, "Our reaction to the terrorist war to exterminate Western Civilization and to establish global Islamic law."
George Bush explained multiple reasons to why we had to engage this war. This war includes the Iraq war. This greater war was going to involve a financial, economic, political, etc., as well as military leg. One main theme involved "freedom." In the case of Iraq, it included, "Weapons of Mass Destruction."
There's a reason to why it was called, "Operation Iraqi Freedom."
Because of the successful media perpetrated propaganda campaign, the majority of the public thinks that there were "no" Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq.
Perhaps Laura Ingraham could tell those soldiers, attacked by chemical agent laced IEDs in Iraq, that there were "no" WMD in Iraq.
Laura Ingraham, I dare you to tell those soldiers, who were attacked by sarin, mustard, and blister agent laced improvised explosive devices in Iraq... that there were "no" Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq.
From the beginning of the invasion and throughout our involvement in Iraq... That's the time frames for US military units and coalition members discovering chemical agents in Iraq. Chemical agents are one part of Weapons of Mass Destruction. Hence, WMD were in Iraq.
If the mainstream media did its job, and emphasized these discoveries as much as they did the propaganda that there were "no" WMD, this would've been common knowledge.
As part of basic military training/basic combat training, new service members learn about Weapons of Mass Destruction. One of the things that they learn is that WMD comes in one of three main forms.
We have biological warfare agents, chemical warfare agents, and nuclear warfare agents. All three constitute WMD.
Sarin, mustard, and blister agents are examples of chemical agents, hence "weapons of mass destruction." In other words, WMD were found in Iraq post invasion. Whether or not these were made prior to 1991 is irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that they were found post invasion, justifying one of President George Bush's arguments for going into Iraq.
But, that wasn't his only argument for invading Iraq.
In order to successfully combat terrorism, we have to take them on in different arenas. President George Bush consistently talked about these different arenas.
Going into Iraq was a logical next step in the War on Terror. From an asymmetrical warfare standpoint, this was an act of brilliance. Take a look at the map of the Middle East.
With Afghanistan on one side, and Iraq on the other side, Iran would have a hard time trying to maintain their status quo. The pressure, from economic and democratic change within the flanking countries, would make it harder to suppress the desires of the Iranian people.
Here's another angle on what's going on in the Middle East. With Israel, and a democratic Iraq, to the north of Saudi Arabia; and Lebanon, a democratic Iraq, Israel, and Turkey flanking Syria, we create similar situations for Syria... In the long term... That we created with Iran.
The invasion of Iraq created a checkerboard pattern of countries, in the Middle East, in different forms of democracy.
Herein lies the bigger element of President George Bush's ultimate plan for the Middle East. With countries in different stages of economic and democratic development, we could apply the other elements of asymmetrical warfare more.
The biggest one, offered by economic development, creates a situation to where we have something like Japan, South Korea, Germany etc., in the heart of the Middle East. From there, it's a matter time before the people in the other countries want the same thing.
Hence, the demonstrations that took place in the Middle East. A part of the Iraq invasion plan was a projected democratic "ripple effect." It was supposed to kick in and bring democracy to the rest of the Middle East.
We saw that in the form of the "Arab Spring". It was up to Washington D.C. to leverage the Arab Spring. They were supposed to help bring about, and catalyze, positive economic and democratic change in the Middle East.
This included finding groups, within these countries, to support. Washington D.C. fell short of what it needed to do.
Now, people would point to ISIS, and what's going on in Iraq and Syria today. People would say, "We should not have gone into Iraq." That's a wrongheaded way to look at things.
This isn't like a project at home, where you try to construct something and it fell apart. Then you respond by saying, "I should not have built that." The fate of the United States does not hinge on your construction. However, it hinges on whether we succeed in the Middle East or not.
We won the Iraq war with a straight cut victory, it was up to Washington D.C. to carry it through.
The cold hard fact is that the American-led coalition won the Iraq War with a straight cut victory. The Iraqi military demonstrated competency. For the most part, the population supported this military. Within the Iraqi ranks, there was general respect up and down the chain.
The Iraqi military and security force showed competency. They tended to give the terrorists a bad day.
The US military, toward the end of the Iraq involvement, saw a need to keep a residual force behind. All that was needed was a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA). At first, the Iraqis did not want to have a situation to where US military was outside Iraqi law. However; they turned more toward giving us a SOFA on favorable terms for the US military.
The initial resistance was simply a negotiation ploy. It was a way to see if we would give them more of what they wanted before negotiations progressed. They were willing to push the envelope until they couldn't push it anymore.
When they couldn't, they ultimately agreed to favorable terms.
Unfortunately, there was no will in the White House to get the military what it needed. In this case, to build up the Iraqi military and its capability to keep Iraq secure.
Consequently, what the US military helped create from March 2003 through December 2011 deteriorated rapidly. This allowed for ISIS to make rapid advances into Iraq. This is a feat that would not have happened had the US military received the support it needed post OIF.
So yes, Laura Ingraham, knowing what I know now, I still would've ordered the invasion. If I were president in the months leading up to the Iraq war, I would've given the same order that George Bush ultimately gave.
Fickleness in Washington D.C. should never be the cause for us losing the will to fight. The enemy has a vote. The ones that the West is fighting now has every intention of establishing radical Islamic law in the United States and elsewhere.
They brag about it. This is what they're thinking about when they brag about placing the flag of Islam on top of the White House.
Anybody that says that we should not have invaded Iraq becomes a voluntary mouthpiece for the enemy. In this case, for ISIS. By attacking the justifications for going into Iraq, one contributes to the erosion of the will to fight. This works in our enemies' favors.
The question is not whether we should have gone into Iraq or not. That was the right decision. History will see it that way. That's a non-argument.
What should be looked at is the White House's failure to take the military's advise to heart in order to secure the victory. Based on that, ways to more effectively combat our enemies in the Middle East should receive the heaviest attention. People need to quit "next day" quarter backing.
Laura Ingraham hammers Jeb Bush on his response to an interview question. The question involved a hypothetical scenario. In this scenario, Jeb Bush was in the same point in time as his brother was in the months leading to the Iraq invasion.
Laura Ingraham's response to his response assumed that the anti-WMD propaganda, of the left, was "true":
Originally stated by Laura Ingraham:
When he's asked a simple question, good on Megan Kelly by the way, what was the question? Knowing what we know now, not if you are in the same exact circumstances your brother would you have authorized this war, no no no, knowing what we know now, mainly that there were no WMDs, we got bad intelligence, if you had known all those things, would you have, he said, "Yes, I still authorize the war. That, in my mind, reveals, it's a sneak peek as to what Jeb is going to face come general election should he win the nomination. Megan gave him a little taste of that, it's going to go way beyond would you authorize the war in Iraq?
During the run-up to the Iraq war, President George Bush advanced more than one argument as to why we needed to go into Iraq. His explanations were consistent with his initial speeches after the attacks of September 11, 2001.
Mainly, that this war was not like any other war before. This war was one where you were going to have both visible and invisible parts to the public. This was a multidimensional war.
The war in Afghanistan was the opening salvo, but not the final campaign in this currently ongoing Global War on Terror.
Or, as I'd like to call it, "Our reaction to the terrorist war to exterminate Western Civilization and to establish global Islamic law."
George Bush explained multiple reasons to why we had to engage this war. This war includes the Iraq war. This greater war was going to involve a financial, economic, political, etc., as well as military leg. One main theme involved "freedom." In the case of Iraq, it included, "Weapons of Mass Destruction."
There's a reason to why it was called, "Operation Iraqi Freedom."
Because of the successful media perpetrated propaganda campaign, the majority of the public thinks that there were "no" Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq.
Perhaps Laura Ingraham could tell those soldiers, attacked by chemical agent laced IEDs in Iraq, that there were "no" WMD in Iraq.
Laura Ingraham, I dare you to tell those soldiers, who were attacked by sarin, mustard, and blister agent laced improvised explosive devices in Iraq... that there were "no" Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq.
From the beginning of the invasion and throughout our involvement in Iraq... That's the time frames for US military units and coalition members discovering chemical agents in Iraq. Chemical agents are one part of Weapons of Mass Destruction. Hence, WMD were in Iraq.
If the mainstream media did its job, and emphasized these discoveries as much as they did the propaganda that there were "no" WMD, this would've been common knowledge.
As part of basic military training/basic combat training, new service members learn about Weapons of Mass Destruction. One of the things that they learn is that WMD comes in one of three main forms.
We have biological warfare agents, chemical warfare agents, and nuclear warfare agents. All three constitute WMD.
Sarin, mustard, and blister agents are examples of chemical agents, hence "weapons of mass destruction." In other words, WMD were found in Iraq post invasion. Whether or not these were made prior to 1991 is irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that they were found post invasion, justifying one of President George Bush's arguments for going into Iraq.
But, that wasn't his only argument for invading Iraq.
In order to successfully combat terrorism, we have to take them on in different arenas. President George Bush consistently talked about these different arenas.
Going into Iraq was a logical next step in the War on Terror. From an asymmetrical warfare standpoint, this was an act of brilliance. Take a look at the map of the Middle East.
With Afghanistan on one side, and Iraq on the other side, Iran would have a hard time trying to maintain their status quo. The pressure, from economic and democratic change within the flanking countries, would make it harder to suppress the desires of the Iranian people.
Here's another angle on what's going on in the Middle East. With Israel, and a democratic Iraq, to the north of Saudi Arabia; and Lebanon, a democratic Iraq, Israel, and Turkey flanking Syria, we create similar situations for Syria... In the long term... That we created with Iran.
The invasion of Iraq created a checkerboard pattern of countries, in the Middle East, in different forms of democracy.
Herein lies the bigger element of President George Bush's ultimate plan for the Middle East. With countries in different stages of economic and democratic development, we could apply the other elements of asymmetrical warfare more.
The biggest one, offered by economic development, creates a situation to where we have something like Japan, South Korea, Germany etc., in the heart of the Middle East. From there, it's a matter time before the people in the other countries want the same thing.
Hence, the demonstrations that took place in the Middle East. A part of the Iraq invasion plan was a projected democratic "ripple effect." It was supposed to kick in and bring democracy to the rest of the Middle East.
We saw that in the form of the "Arab Spring". It was up to Washington D.C. to leverage the Arab Spring. They were supposed to help bring about, and catalyze, positive economic and democratic change in the Middle East.
This included finding groups, within these countries, to support. Washington D.C. fell short of what it needed to do.
Now, people would point to ISIS, and what's going on in Iraq and Syria today. People would say, "We should not have gone into Iraq." That's a wrongheaded way to look at things.
This isn't like a project at home, where you try to construct something and it fell apart. Then you respond by saying, "I should not have built that." The fate of the United States does not hinge on your construction. However, it hinges on whether we succeed in the Middle East or not.
We won the Iraq war with a straight cut victory, it was up to Washington D.C. to carry it through.
The cold hard fact is that the American-led coalition won the Iraq War with a straight cut victory. The Iraqi military demonstrated competency. For the most part, the population supported this military. Within the Iraqi ranks, there was general respect up and down the chain.
The Iraqi military and security force showed competency. They tended to give the terrorists a bad day.
The US military, toward the end of the Iraq involvement, saw a need to keep a residual force behind. All that was needed was a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA). At first, the Iraqis did not want to have a situation to where US military was outside Iraqi law. However; they turned more toward giving us a SOFA on favorable terms for the US military.
The initial resistance was simply a negotiation ploy. It was a way to see if we would give them more of what they wanted before negotiations progressed. They were willing to push the envelope until they couldn't push it anymore.
When they couldn't, they ultimately agreed to favorable terms.
Unfortunately, there was no will in the White House to get the military what it needed. In this case, to build up the Iraqi military and its capability to keep Iraq secure.
Consequently, what the US military helped create from March 2003 through December 2011 deteriorated rapidly. This allowed for ISIS to make rapid advances into Iraq. This is a feat that would not have happened had the US military received the support it needed post OIF.
So yes, Laura Ingraham, knowing what I know now, I still would've ordered the invasion. If I were president in the months leading up to the Iraq war, I would've given the same order that George Bush ultimately gave.
Fickleness in Washington D.C. should never be the cause for us losing the will to fight. The enemy has a vote. The ones that the West is fighting now has every intention of establishing radical Islamic law in the United States and elsewhere.
They brag about it. This is what they're thinking about when they brag about placing the flag of Islam on top of the White House.
Anybody that says that we should not have invaded Iraq becomes a voluntary mouthpiece for the enemy. In this case, for ISIS. By attacking the justifications for going into Iraq, one contributes to the erosion of the will to fight. This works in our enemies' favors.
The question is not whether we should have gone into Iraq or not. That was the right decision. History will see it that way. That's a non-argument.
What should be looked at is the White House's failure to take the military's advise to heart in order to secure the victory. Based on that, ways to more effectively combat our enemies in the Middle East should receive the heaviest attention. People need to quit "next day" quarter backing.
No comments:
Post a Comment