Losers

[thedrifter]

Losers
by Oliver North
Posted 04/27/2007 ET
Updated 04/27/2007 ET

WASHINGTON -- If Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is right, nearly 60 percent of Americans agree with him that the war in Iraq is already lost. And if he is correct in saying that losing the war will increase Democrat majorities in future elections, then it may be fair to conclude that Americans now love losers. I'm not buying any of it -- and neither are the troops who are fighting this war.

In the days since Reid announced "this war is lost," I have heard from dozens of the soldiers, sailors, airmen, Guardsmen and Marines that I have covered in eight trips to Iraq and two to Afghanistan for FOX News. Some of those who correspond with me are there now, others are home. Some are preparing to deploy again. None of them agree with Reid's assessment.

One e-mail from Ramadi, Iraq observed: "Good thing this guy Reid wasn't around in 1940 when Winston Churchill promised the people of Great Britain nothing but 'blood, toil, tears and sweat.'" Another, a Guardsman who recently returned from Mesopotamia with a Purple Heart, noted that Reid has become "Al Qaeda's most powerful ally." A Marine corporal I last saw along the banks of the Tigris River -- now a Mississippi State University student -- asked me, "Do those people who think we've lost this war have any idea what things will be like if we really do lose?" It's an important question that none of the potentates on the Potomac who just voted to withdraw U.S. troops appear willing to address.

According to military folklore, Napoleon kept a corporal at his side to ensure that the orders issued in battle were understandable by the troops who had to carry them out. Whether true or not, it's time for Reid and Nancy Pelosi to find such a corporal who will ask them such questions, for if the Democrats continue their current course, we may well lose this war -- and they will have embraced defeat and all that comes with it.

What would losing the war in Iraq mean? It's a picture so dark and depressing that it makes the collapse in Vietnam, 32 years ago next week, look like a Sunday school picnic. The fall of Saigon was horrific for the people of Vietnam and their neighbors in Cambodia and Laos. More than 5 million became refugees and by the most conservative estimates at least a million others perished.

For most Americans, the consequences were minimal. The vast majority of the 2.8 million of us who had fought and bled there mourned the loss of 58,253 of our comrades, swallowed the bitterness of defeat and got on with our lives. Our nation spent a few hundred million tax dollars on refugee relief and resettlement, and tried to forget what people in Reid's party called "the long nightmare of Vietnam."

But classified U.S. intelligence assessments, military contingency plans and staff studies evaluating the consequences of a precipitous U.S. withdrawal from Iraq, coupled with the lack of funding for political reform measures, as contained in the legislation just passed by Reid's party, paint a far more dismal picture than anything that happened after Vietnam.

-- Within months, an immediate upsurge in vicious sectarian violence fomented by Iranian intervention on behalf of Shiite militias and Wahabbi-supported, Al Qaeda-affiliated terror groups. As U.S. forces retreat to a half-dozen staging areas for retrograde through Kuwait and Jordan, American casualties will dramatically increase as suicide bombers seek "martyrdom" in their victory.

-- Inside of 18 months, the fragile democratically elected government in Baghdad will collapse, precipitating a real sectarian civil war and the creation of Taliban-like "regional governments" that will impose brutal, misogynistic rule throughout the country. The ensuing flood of refuges into Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria, Turkey and Iran will overwhelm relief organizations, creating a humanitarian disaster making what's happening in Darfur pale by comparison.

-- The Kurds in northern Iraq are likely to declare an autonomous region that could well result in Turkish, Iranian and even Syrian military intervention.

-- In the course of withdrawing U.S. combat brigades and support units, billions of dollars in American military equipment and ordnance will have to be destroyed or left behind. More than $40 billion in reconstruction projects for schools, health-care facilities, sanitation, clean water, electrical distribution and agricultural development will be abandoned. Plans to exploit the new West Qurna oil field in southeastern Iraq will be forsaken.

-- The governments of Kuwait, Jordan, Abu Dhabi and Bahrain, intimidated by Iranian boldness in acquiring nuclear weapons, will likely insist on the withdrawal of American military bases from their territories. Such a move will jeopardize U.S. naval operations in the Persian Gulf and logistics, intelligence collection and command and control facilities supporting operations in Afghanistan.

-- As Iraq becomes a battleground for the centuries-long Sunni-Shia conflict, radical Islamic terror organizations will use the territories they control to prepare and launch increasingly deadly terror attacks around the globe against U.S. citizens, businesses and interests.

Reid and his cohorts in Congress who believe "this war is lost" have acted to ensure that it will be. No one asked them: "If we lost, who won?" The answer should be obvious.

Ellie

[drumcorpssnare]

I am convinced, beyond a doubt, that the Democrats want our troops out of Iraq by April 2008 for one reason, and one reason only. The Democrats want to be able to say, for years to come, "This was a Republican war, LOST by a Republican administration! Look at the billions of dollars, and thousands of American lives lost...by the Republicans! Remember, this war didn't happen on the Democrat's watch! It's the Republican's fault!!!"

THAT, is the reason the Dems want us out now. For if the troops were to stay until after the 2008 election, and we end up with a Democrat for President...and then we pull out, then some might say, "It was the Democrats who gave up, and lost this war!"

After Truman and Korea...Johnston and Vietnam...the last thing the Democrats would want to have remembered is ?Clinton? and Iraq.

drumcorpssnare

[JinxJr]

Isn't it a dam shame that they can't act like they're all on the SAME side?

[drumcorpssnare]

JinxJr- That is exactly the problem! They "act" like they are working together, instead of "actually" working together.

drumcorpssnare

[fmoyer]

They are all jerks that really need to be removed from office !!!!!!!!

[JinxJr]

If they ("Reid and his cohorts") would spend as much time talking to troops in Iraq as they've spent with their collective noses up the Syrian Presidents' backside...

[Dave Coup]

I don't think people understand. The terrorists are infinitely patient. When and if they get the opportunity they will bring on an attack that will make 9/11 seem like a Sunday picnic. If we pull out of Iraq, thier chances go way up. I know 10th et.al will call me a sheep but, oh well, that's what I believe and I've yet to hear an argument that convinces me otherwise.

SF

Dave

[bootlace15]

WWWWWWWWWWaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!
Its everyones fault. The dems did'nt receive a 100% straight party vote.Having said that vote all the bums out in 08 and 2012 and in between. They all suck.........7 planes 7 bombs 48 men drop and flop........

bootlace15 out

[10thzodiac]

After one term they know how to steal to good, why would you want to keep them for another term ? Don't tell me it is because it is your party. Vote all incumbents out until they start representing the people instead of special interests.

"I will not vote for or support any candidate for Congress or President who does not make a speedy end to the war in Iraq, and preventing any future war of aggression, a public position in his or her campaign."

SF

10thzodiac

[fmoyer]

Well 10th Found something I can agree with you on vote them out of office after one term yes. Well agreeing with 50% of what you said is pretty good . Semper Fi

[Kegler300]

Pure political BS by the left at the expense of our military and our nation.

[Scottyva]

Once again we have people who will do or say anything just to curry favor to get reelected.

I wonder how they would complain if instead of Marines we had police officers trying to restore order in Iraq?

[drumcorpssnare]

Can you guys imagine how Reid, Pelosi, Murtha, Kennedy, etc. would have reacted, if they were in Congress during WW II?
In just 131 days worth of battle in the Pacific alone...over 20,000 KIA's between Tarawa, Iwo Jima, and Okinawa.
Not to take away from the value of the supreme sacrifice that 3,000 plus Americans have made in the last four years, but by comparison....the KIA and WIA numbers are miniscule in Iraq.

Iraq war....avg. 2 KIA per day. (1450 days)

Tarawa, Iwo Jima, Okinawa...avg. 152 KIA per day. (131 days)

drumcorpssnare

[Scottyva]

Drum we now have 24/7 News Coverage and when there are US Casualties that Generates Breaking News Coverage. Having Journalists Imbeded is a two-edged sword.

Going to the casualties numbers you think that this is a result of improved training or battlefield tactics?

[drumcorpssnare]

Going to the casualties numbers you think that this is a result of improved training or battlefield tactics?

I don't really understand your question. Sorry.
drumcorpssnare