Seeing how it’s the 3rd anniversary of our invasion into Iraq the MSM has bombarded us with the doomday calls. The latest comes from Ayad Allawi, the man kicked out of office in Iraq, who is telling anyone who will listen in the MSM that Iraq is in a civil war:
Iraq is in the middle of a civil war, former Prime Minister Ayad Allawi said in a TV interview aired Sunday.
His comments were immediately rejected by Britain’s defense secretary.
Allawi told the British Broadcasting Corp. there was no other way to describe the increasing violence across the country. “It is unfortunate that we are in civil war. We are losing each day as an average 50 to 60 people throughout the country, if not more,” Allawi told the BBC. “If this is not civil war, then God knows what civil war is.”
Recall that this guy has been struggling to gain power again, unsuccessfully, and has been saying this crap for over a year. Last July he said this:
IRAQ?S former interim prime minister Iyad Allawi has warned that his country is facing civil war and has predicted dire consequences for Europe and America as well as the Middle East if the crisis is not resolved.
In Feb ’05 he said:
“To get religion and politics mixed together could spell disaster for us, frankly,” Allawi told me and my Post colleague Anthony Shadid this week in what amounted to a farewell interview. He’s afraid that the next government, dominated by a coalition of Shiite religious parties blessed by Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, will push its agenda so aggressively that the country will divide along its religious, ethnic and political fault lines. “If this happens, then this dream is dead,” he said.[…]Allawi’s comments could be taken as sour grapes, given that his party garnered only 14 percent of the votes in the Jan. 30 elections and finished a distant third, behind the Sistani coalition’s 48 percent and the Kurdish parties’ 26 percent. It could be argued, too, that as a former Baathist himself, Allawi was engaging in special pleading.
Obviously he is a one trick pony sideshow for Iraq. He has been saying this over and over for well over a year and needs to be proven correct I suppose. Why he chose now is beyond me since the facts on the ground show us that this is gang warfare, not a civil war. There is a functioning government, with a constitution, in Iraq. The Iraqi government is slowly evolving while the Iraqi military is starting to become a real fighting force:
I had a chance to see the new counterinsurgency doctrine in practice here this week. U.S. troops are handing off to the Iraqi army a growing share of the security burden. As the Iraqis step up, the Americans are stepping back into a training and advisory role. This is the way it should have happened from the beginning.
A brutal stress test came on Feb. 22, when Sunni insurgents destroyed a revered Shiite mosque in Samarra. For a moment, Iraq seemed to be slipping toward civil war, but the Iraqi army performed surprisingly well. In many areas Iraqi forces — backed up by overwhelming U.S. firepower — helped restore order. “You never know the tipping point until you’re past it,” says Gen. George Casey, the commander of American forces here. With many other U.S. and Iraqi officials, he hopes Samarra may have been such a tipping point, for the better.
So I’m guessing Allawi’s point in coming out now with his doomsday speech is that HE will make it all better if only they put him in charge.
Another example of the doomsday calls comes from the SF Chronicle:
When the U.S.-led coalition attacked Iraq three years ago, the Bush administration was brimming with confidence that this would be a war only in the sense that a lot of bombs would be dropped and the military would seize, temporarily, a foreign capital. It was going to be swift, high-tech, clean.
Really? Bush said it was going to be a cakewalk?
These people are too much. Bush said from the beginning that this was going to be a long difficult war. Iraq is just the current front in our War on Terror. Bush said soon after 9/11 that this war would not be like Kosovo:
This war will not be like the war against Iraq a decade ago, with a decisive liberation of territory and a swift conclusion. It will not look like the air war above Kosovo two years ago, where no ground troops were used and not a single American was lost in combat.
Our response involves far more than instant retaliation and isolated strikes. Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign, unlike any other we have ever seen. It may include dramatic strikes, visible on TV, and covert operations, secret even in success. We will starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another, drive them from place to place, until there is no refuge or no rest. And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism.
Saddam provided aid to terrorists and was connected to Al-Qaeda, he would not abide by the cease fire, and he failed to abide the dozen or so UN resolutions. Add in the fact that the days of keeping Saddam contained was coming to an end in 2003:
“After years of failed diplomacy and limited military pressure to restrain Saddam Hussein, President Bush made the difficult decision to liberate Iraq. Those who criticize that decision would have us believe that the choice was between a status quo that was well enough left alone and war. But there was no status quo to be left alone. The years of keeping Saddam in a box were coming to a close. The international consensus that he be kept isolated and unarmed had eroded to the point that many critics of military action had decided the time had come again to do business with Saddam, despite his near daily attacks on our pilots, and his refusal, until his last day in power, to allow the unrestricted inspection of his arsenal. Our choice wasn’t between a benign status quo and the bloodshed of war. It was between war and a graver threat. Don’t let anyone tell you otherwise. Not our critics abroad. Not our political opponents.” – Senator John McCain
So Bush took him out, thankfully. Imagine what would have happened if we had not. Security Watchtower has a great post today where he goes over the possibilities.
Taking him out was easy, rebuilding a country that Saddam destroyed over 20 years is not. And no one said it would be.
William Odom, a retired lieutenant general who ran Army intelligence and later the National Security Agency during the Reagan administration, has called the Iraqi adventure “the greatest strategic disaster in our history.”
Say what? Is this guy on crack? This is how unhinged the left has become, saying Iraq is our greatest disaster when it a great accomplishment. Look how far this country has come in just 3 years. They have a working government with their own military and police, a judicial system, and a growing economy. Want some REAL disasters? A freeper has a few examples:
-Not confronting Hitler during his military buildup, millions killed, large sections of Europe destroyed
-Underestimating the Japanese willingness to go to war, having to fight a two front world war.
-Not supporting the Nationalist Chinese enough after WWII and allowing the Reds to take China with massive assistance from the Soviets.
-Not forseeing the entry of the Red Chinese in the Korean War, heavy casualties, leaving the North under Communist control, 50 years later having a rogue nation playing with Nukes.
-Vietnam. Letting the Tet Offensive shift the momentum in the war despite the Communists taking massive casualties. Allowing restricted bombing in the North.
-Communism. Not seeing it for what it was, an international conspiracy to oppress people. By allowing it to exist we sentenced ourselves to the cost of the cold war, 100,000 dead in two hot wars.
It’s the age of instant gratification. Unless we can topple a government and install a new one in a few short weeks they will consider it a “disaster”.
These people are too much. Bush said from the beginning that this was going to be a long difficult war. Iraq is just the current front in our War on Terror. Bush said soon after 9/11 that this war would not be like Kosovo