« A Case For The Term 'Islamofascism': How Hebollah killed (Arab) Civilians | Main | Interested In Helping TheTerrorists? »

October 29, 2006

To Win In Iraq, Must Rummy And Cheney Go?

Topics: Iraq

Jules Crittenden argues at BostonHerald.com for the replacement of Rummy and Cheney. Although I very strongly believe that the Democratic party leadership and the Left is primarily responsible for our "loosing at home," and I just as strongly believe that getting rid of Rumsfeld and Cheney is wrongly caving in to the Left and its utter failure to realize that the Islamofascist threat is real and deadly to Western civilization, if replacing these two great and talented men with equally great and talented individuals with fresh views will help establish the national political will to continue to prosecute this war - and win, I'm all for it. Crittenden writes:

... The Vietnamization of Iraq. If you Google that phrase, you'll find a slew of articles dating as far back as March 2003. They talk about quagmire, guerrilla war, and the difficulty of getting Iraqi forces on line. Mainly, they are expressions of despair.

... Any moderately serious student of history knows the Vietnam and Iraq wars have little in common. But they share some critical qualities. We lost Vietnam at home. We risk doing the same with Iraq. Like Vietnam, Iraq has ramifications for the United States far beyond the field, and decade, of combat.

... Iraq has become as much a war of domestic politics as it is of foreign conflict. But the political war is being waged largely without regard to some key facts. Foremost: Pulling out of Iraq would be more costly and bloody than staying there, for Iraq and, ultimately, for the United States.

... For the Middle East to retain any semblance of stability, Iraq must survive intact, with a free and democratic government, without the sectarian bloodbath that would make what is happening there now look like a garden party.

... For that to happen, the United States must remain committed to Iraq. We must quietly apply pressure on Iraqi leaders to take control of their country, to look beyond personal, partisan, sectarian objectives. We must increase the number of U.S. advisors attached to Iraqi army and police units. We must put enough troops in Iraq to destroy the Shiite militias, and hand bellicose Iran's proxy forces another defeat, on top of their defeat in Lebanon this year. We must destroy al-Qaeda and the Sunni insurgency. Ruthlessly.

... It is time for Condoleezza Rice to take on the role of strong vice president.
She may be the one best suited to carry forward Bush's vision of America in the world. Even if she chooses not to run, she is better suited to fight for that vision over the next two years.

Continue reading, "To help U.S. win in Iraq, Rummy and Cheney must go."

Replacing Cheney with Rice? Considering what a disaster the State Department has been in dealing with the Islamists, I'm not quite ready to buy in to her. However, I do agree with the basic premise that fresh views are needed from strong people that are ruthlessly aggressive about prosecuting the war on terror.

Posted by Richard at October 29, 2006 9:00 AM

Articles Related to Iraq:

• To Win In Iraq, Must Rummy And Cheney Go? - Oct 29, 2006