Today In History: US Surrenders In Iraq

Had Obama had his way back in January 2007:

The Iraq War De-escalation Act of 2007

The Obama plan offers a responsible yet effective alternative to the President's failed policy of escalation. Realizing there can be no military solution in Iraq, it focuses instead on reaching a political solution in Iraq, protecting our interests in the region, and bringing this war to a responsible end. The legislation commences redeployment of U.S. forces no later than May 1, 2007 with the goal of removing all combat brigades from Iraq by March 31, 2008, a date that is consistent with the expectation of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group.

In case you were in a haze back in the winter of '07, "escalation" meant "The Surge." Per Obama, it was a predetermined failure before it was even fully launched.

Do you know how hard it is to find any pics of "American surrender" on Google? That's why I chose the iconic Saigon chopper. It's our version of the blubbering Frenchman. Indeed, the only picture of American surrender I could find was this one of Corregidor in the Philippines, 1942:

So that's what American surrender looks like. Do you want to know what actual American defeat sounds like? Listen to this haunting message, the last Morse code transmission sent before Corregidor fell to the Japanese.

Had enough? No? Vote for this naive American loser:

UPDATE: Welcome, National Review --- both The Corner and Campaign Spot (thanks, Lisa & Jim). Hello again, Instapundit! That uproven US missile defense system Obama wants to scrap? This one. It's one thing to embrace defeat overseas, but to actively neglect the defense of our very soil? Unacceptable.

Comments

[Sean M.]

I still can't believe that Obama clip. Can the RNC legally run that?

[Benjamin9]

Isn't that wonderful. The Correigidor audio was awe inspiring and sad.

The BO vid is just sad. Soros proxy/zombie.

Give em hell HRC! Do not surrender!

2012, Jindal/Rice

[Libertyship46]

How many times, HOW MANY TIMES, must we re-learn the lessons found in history? I don't think Obama has cracked open a history book for the past 25 years, and even if he did he wouldn't learn anything from it. Does he actually think our victory over the Soviet Union was an accident? Those nuclear weapons he's so anxious to get rid of have prevented another World War from taking place since 1945. It has also kept a large number of petty dictators and megalomaniacs from attacking us as well. But what I think is really amazing about that film clip of Obama is that he said that he would prevent other countries from developing fissile materials. Oh really? So what does he plan on doing about Iran? Oh, I know, he'll probably want to put all of his faith in the United Nations. Yes, that will work, right? After all, the U.N. would never let us down, right? If this man is ever elected president you'd better start investing in some bomb shelters real fast.

[david]

I presume Barack can be afford to be naive in the face of radical Islam with a middle name of Hussein protecting him. Unfortunately for him he is still a:

a. apostate,

b. infidel,

c. non-believer,

d. all of the above.

Disarming is a wonderful way to lead in an assymetrical world bent on our destruction. I keep forgetting, Farrakhan and BHO's rabid preacher visited Qaddafi duck years ago for a job briefing.

Connect the dots!

[Ron S.]

I happen to agree with Sen. Obama, that we had no fucking business invading and occupying Iraq in the first place.

Yes, we needed to go after Bin Laden in Afghanistan; but Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11, and we have enough problems at home before wasting $550 billion and losing 4,000 lives (and counting) on "nation building."

If this is such a righteous war, why was the invasion predicated on lies (WMDs), and why aren't deserter Bush's and draft-dodger Cheney's kids over there?

[Tim Sumner]

Thank you for posting this and reminding us.

In the War on Terror, there is no place to run from here. While Barack Obama does not know what that means, we do.

[Nice Deb]

Honey! You just got a link from NRO!

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NDQ3YTdhYTk5NWQ5MTc4ODE3MmUwNTkwMzgwZDIxZWY=

I am so jealous!

[Cuffy Meigs]

I happen to agree with Sen. Obama, that we had no fucking business invading and occupying Iraq in the first place.

I'm really getting tired of keeping your A.D.D. in check --- this post is about getting out of Iraq, not how we got in. Obama wants to surrender. And so do you.

I now await your next volley of "chickenhawk progeny" accusations. To save you time, John McCain's Marine son just returned from Iraq:

http://perfunction.typepad.com/perfunction/2008/02/slowly-coming-a.html

[Richard D. Terrell]

Here is an updated image of the Iraq Evacuation:

http://picasaweb.google.com/2aftermath/IraqEvac/photo#5183927652652951650

R Terrell

[Clyde]

Ron S.: First, take your meds. You're gonna blow out a blood vessel if you're not careful. Being a compassionate conservative, I don't want to see that happen to you.

Second, at the time of the invasion, EVERYONE (including the Democrats) believed that Saddam Hussein still had WMDs, because he had not proven to the UN inspectors that he had gotten rid of them. In fact, he actively hindered the UN inspectors. The LIE is that the invasion was "predicated on lies."

Third, President Bush's and Vice-President Cheney's children aren't in Iraq because they didn't CHOOSE to join the military. Guess what, Ron S.? We've had an ALL-VOLUNTEER military since the 1970s. Nobody is in Iraq or Afghanistan who didn't voluntarily join the military. Your chicken-hawk argument is nothing but chicken-crap. And I say that as a veteran myself.

Have a nice day!

[Cuffy Meigs]

Thanks for the heads-up, Nice Deb -- feel the power of the Moronosphere!

[JBH]

Obama is totally clueless. Sad, he is going to be pres but he will self-destruct quickly.

[tim maguire]

It's too late for Obama to weaponize space. The Chinese already did it.

[Jake DH]

I just do not understand how those who cry "We must not surrender!" from their computers can minimize the fact that any American death in Iraq was wholly unnecessary because the entire premise for the war was ridiculous. Any American life lost in Iraq should be unacceptable, since our presence does nothing to solve the underlying problems in Iraqi society. If we are in Iraq until we "win", define "win".

[CA]

No shots of Beruit? Mogadishu?

[Al Fin]

Barack "McGovern" Obama plans to run a historic campaign. Make it so.

[JES]

If you want to fight the next world war on US soil, then vote for Obama or Clinton, whoever wins the nomination. I personally do not want my children, grandchilren, or great-grandchildren to have to fight fascists of any sort, but if they must let it definitely not be in our backyard.

You so called experts on whether this fight is right need leave this country, NOW!

[Vicki]

My Solution to Iraq Is to Never Have Gone There
An Editorial by Senator Barack Obama
Posted by Frank J. at 11:02 AM | 16 blog reactions | Comments (49)

Iraq continues to be a serious problem, and the Bush administration has done nothing but increase the problem and cause unnecessary deaths. It is a mess, but I have a solution: I would never have gone there.

The Iraq War will be a big problem to inherit, but it would not be if we hadn't have gone there. That's why that is my solution. People ask me, "Won't leaving Iraq now be abandoning the Iraqi people?" Well, it wouldn't be abandoning them if we hadn't had gone there. "What about a civil war?" others ask, to which I say there would be no civil war if Saddam were still in charge because we didn't go to Iraq. As you can see, not having gone to Iraq easily solves all these problems.

"I do have experience: Experience at not going to war." As for Al Qaeda in Iraq, I don't think they would be a problem if we hadn't had gone. Maybe they already were there and working with some support from Saddam, but I still think not having gone there is a risk worth taking. You may worry about all the terrorists there and whether they have intentions for attacking America, but you wouldn't if we hadn't had gone.

Senator John McCain questions whether I have experience enough to deal with Iraq, but the fact is that he's old. No one faints at his rallies... unless they forgot their heart medication because they're as old as he is. And I do have experience: Experience at not going to war. That's why not having gone to Iraq is the perfect solution for me. It's one I'm uniquely able to espouse and have been consistent on. Years ago I said we shouldn't invade Iraq, and that is still my solution.

A few have said that not going to Iraq isn't a solution anymore since we already have gone there. I hear your concern and I have three words for you: Hope. Change. The future.

That's right: The future. And not just any future; a future where we look forward and say, "We shouldn't have gone to Iraq."

Barack Obama is a U.S. Senator from Illinois who enjoys nap time and finger painting. He is running for president.

http://www.imao.us/archives/009710.html

[Ted B. (Charging Rhino)]

If you want an image that should fill any American with both shame and anger...remember the cheering Somali civilians and "technicals" dragging the naked corpse of the US Ranger(?) during the Blackhawk Down incident. A true Imperial Power would have gone-in there with tanks, bulldozers and gunships, slain everyone in a 100-meter-radius...man, woman, child...and bulldozed a dusty, flat dead-zone a 1000-meters across from that spot as a reminder.

Oh, that's right....we were under the Clinton-the-First regime and the great Gen. Powell.

[Dan]

"If this is such a righteous war, why was the invasion predicated on lies...."

A comment that is a lie itself.

The intelligence was bad, not trumped up. Did Bush the glass full or half empty? That's his call...but not a lie.

[Timetheos]

You mean Iraq would now be trading partners instead of a drain on our economy?

Fewer American dead?

Sign me up!

(Seriously, your big problem with this post is that Iraq is not Vietnam, even though they were/are both quagmires. Vietnam was pretty much a 2 party war. Iraq is a multi-party occupation.)

[The Person Persoon]

If we had pulled out of Iraq last year, Iraq might now have an actual functioning government.

Instead, the surge happened, violence went up (coming down only when Sadr declared a cease-fire and made up for the miserable failure of Petraeus), and now violence is going back up again with no actual reconciliation or functioning Iraqi government in sight.

In other words, if we'd listened to Obama (or for that matter the American people, who wanted out of Iraq), Iraq might have been saved. Instead Bush ordered the surge, thereby ensuring the defeat of America and Iraq.

Republicans stand for American defeat and humiliation, because there is no greater defeat and humiliation than staying in Iraq and continuing to fuel the civil war. Democrats want to avoid American defeat and humiliation. Vote Republican, and hand a victory to Al-Qaeda and Iran.

[The Person Persoon]

Obama wants to surrender. And so do you.

Surrender to whom, Cuffy? Nearly all the violence in Iraq is being caused by Iraqis. Is it "surrender" to leave Iraq to the Iraqis?

You seem to think that we've "surrendered" if we allow the Iraqis to control their own country. That sums up the Bush-cultist thinking: the war in Iraq is a war against the Iraqis, and if we ever allow the Iraqis to be free, we've "surrendered."

Some of us would prefer to let the Iraqis settle their own civil war, just as the Americans settled our own civil war, and go somewhere to fight Al-Qaeda (as opposed to "Al-Qaeda in Iraq," which consists almost entirely of native Iraqis). But you think it's "surrender" for us to fight America's enemies instead of fighting Iraqis - because, like Bush, you want to appease our enemies (the way Bush appeased Al-Qaeda by taking out their enemy Saddam).

[MarkJ]

"Republicans stand for American defeat and humiliation, because there is no greater defeat and humiliation than staying in Iraq and continuing to fuel the civil war. Democrats want to avoid American defeat and humiliation. Vote Republican, and hand a victory to Al-Qaeda and Iran."

Oh, is this the new fiendishly clever, field-tested, thoroughly focus-grouped moonie talking point?

"Win the war...by losing it!"

Let's try these, shall we?

"Beat the South and free the slaves...by withdrawing north of the Ohio River!"

"Defeat Hitler...by advancing backward to Brighton!

"Slap the Japs...by high-tailing it to California!"

Please do us--and yourselves--a favor: strategically withdraw back to DU and Kos and hang out there. We're full up on crazy here and don't need any more.

[Person Persoon]

"Win the war...by losing it!"

Who said anything about "winning?" Only the Iraqis can "win" an Iraqi civil war. Since we don't have an actual enemy in Iraq (is it the Sunnis? The Shi'ites? One or another of the Shi'ite groups that were fighting in Basra?), we can't "win" or "defeat the enemy." So if we withdraw, we haven't lost anything. But if we stay, wasting lives and money for years to come, yes, that's a defeat. And it's defeat that you want.

Let's try these, shall we?

"Beat the South and free the slaves...by withdrawing north of the Ohio River!"

Well, you didn't see any other country deciding they had to protect America by invading to stop the civil war, did you? No?

That's because only one American side or the other could win the American civil war. Same for Iraq. You don't understand that because you don't understand that Iraq isn't our country and we can't "win" their civil war, we can only lose by staying forever as defeatist surrender monkey Bush wants.

[Ron S.]

"If we are in Iraq until we "win", define "win"."
- Jake DH

"Until the entire ME is a parking lot...As long as it's somebody ELSE or THEIR kids dying over there."
- Typical conservative Chickenhawk response

[Eric]

Define victory in Iraq? Oh, I don't know, how about: al Qaeda is defeated and rejected; and Iraq develops a stable, liberal democracy and a long-term ally in the region to displace Saudi Arabia. Thanks to the surge, we're now well on our way to achieving both ends, especially the former. al Qaeda has been defeated in what's supposed to be their heartland, and partly by those who were supposed to support it. That's huge. We couldn't achieve that in Afghanistan, not even if we killed Osama and Zawahiri. It's doubtful that al Qaeda can ever recover from such a loss.

Speaking of Zawahiri, that Pentagon report about Iraq and terrorism said that Saddam had supported Zawahiri's organization before it merged with al Qaeda. In fact, Saddam had a long history of not dealing with al Qaeda, just their affiliates like Ansar al Islam in Kurdistan, which Saddam funded, and who by the way were trying their darndest to produce chemical weapons like ricin. So, please cease with the gumdrops and candy-cane fantasies of Saddam's Iraq.

Now's probably about the time you're formulating a chickenhawk type of rebuttal. Fine, but how many anti-war types have put their asses on the line for peace. Where were you stationed as a human shield?

[Eric]

Speaking of Chickenhawks, how's Obama ever going to have the moral authority go to war? As president, he has to be able to exercise that authority, but I don't recall him ever participating in any war. Follow the chickenhawk argument to its logical end and McCain is the only candidate qualified for the presidency, unless you count HRC's heroics in Bosnia.

[geoff]

Well, you didn't see any other country deciding they had to protect America by invading to stop the civil war, did you? No?

What a moronic comment. If they were already in America, having toppled the previous regime, then perhaps you might have a point. Otherwise there is no parallel in your analogy, unlike the original analogy, whose parallels survive.

[Boyd]

I assume all those pushing the chicken hawk argument are voting for McCain. Or would that be too consistant?

[geoff]

Nearly all the violence in Iraq is being caused by Iraqis.

That's not very accurate. Nearly all the violence over the past week is being caused by Iraqis funded, armed, and encouraged by Iran. But the prevailing source of violence for the past 8 months has been Al Qaeda, which has a multinational composition, and which is directed by leaders outside of Iraq.

[Eric]

To amplify geoff's point, even if you assume that invading Iraq was a distraction from fighting al Qaeda, it nevertheless is the central front in the war against al Qaeda now. Sure, you can point out that al Qaeda itself was not in Iraq at the time--just some of its affiliates--and the invasion brough al Qaeda to Iraq, but without a time machine, that argument is now irrelevant. And even though it was not the intent at the time, the war in Iraq has given us an incredible opportunity to damage al Qaeda far worse than we could fighting them in Afghanistan, or by martyring bin Laden. Smart people can argue the provenance of invading Iraq as a matter of history, but idiots don't recognize the current situation's potential.

[Ron Hardin]

The morse isn't morse ; I gather it's meant just as a sound effect, like Walter Winchell did.

Speedwise it's about 20 words per minute, if it were actual characters, so about a word every three seconds. The guy is talking many times faster than that.

But it's not actual characters.

[bmac]

It's laughable to me how the rhetoric about Iraq has been pared down to WMD, and only WMD.

We had so many legitimate reasons to go in there it's ridiculous, but foremost is the fact that we were enforcing the U.N's OWN RESOLUTIONS THAT THEY REFUSED TO ENFORCE. For oh, about 12 years.

How many more resolutions should have gone unheeded before something was done? 20? 40? 100? 1000? What would be the magic number? Infinity?

Bush's mistake was he kept re-defining this "war" every time support slipped, instead of pointing out the obvious. We are doing the work the U.N. cannot, and will not, do.

[Cuffy Meigs]

Good point, bmac. We are currently in Iraq under the authority of UN Resolution 1770 (Aug 2007).

All of you Democrats: why do you hate the United Nations?

[Cuffy Meigs]

Details of the UN mandate here:

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2007/sc9095.doc.htm

It breaks my heart that you liberals spurn the United Nations. For shame.

[cranky]

Ron S., so only veterans can have an opinion of war? That would eliminate many of the Democrat senators, including your two frontrunners for the nomination, and representatives from having any standing to make any statement on this, or any other war. I guess since I did five times the service you did that my opinion swamps yours and makes your opinion completely irrelevant.

[cranky]

Good point, bmac. So is Kos, Soros, and their subsidiary, the Democrat Party, going to demand we pull out of the U.N.? Because that is a Democrat platform point I could support.

[Cuffy Meigs]

cranky, even your service doesn't matter; have your offspring fought in Iraq? That's the new chickenhawk goalpost according to Ron S.

Which John McCain trumps. Again.

[bmac]

This is what bothers me about Republicans. They just can't seem to come out and speak some truth about Iraq, and it wouldn't be hard to do. It wouldn't be hard at all to put a little perspective on what we're doing there, and make it understandable to John Q. "why are we there?"

Instead, they just sit there like choads, and let the MSM and the Dems create a meta-narrative that has become accepted as gospel truth by....well just about everybody.

[Cuffy Meigs]

yep, bmac. Bush/GOP leadership really punted. Wait, forget I said that --- we are "Bush-cultists", remember?

[mesablue]

Well, isn't this special?

Next time, how about an earlier heads up?

Would have saved me from that whole beta male thing at AoS. And more fun.

[mesablue]

Oh, and good post. Congrats on all of the linkage -- no matter who it drug in.

[Cuffy Meigs]

maybe if you blogrolled me, mesa, you would've dropped in earlier! ;-)

[Ron S.]

"Which John McCain trumps. Again."
(Cuffy)

And whose service draft-dodger Karl Rove slimed during the 2000 GOP primary.

[Cuffy Meigs]

^We. Get. It. You're not voting for Rove, Bush or Cheney this year. NEWSFLASH, Einstein: you can't vote for them.

McCain, however, surpasses your most important chickenhawky criteria. And he thanks you for your vote.

[bmac]

Well, somebody's gotta defend the guy. At least on Iraq.

Conservative bloggers-doing the work the GOP cannot, and will not, do.

[mesablue]

Heh, an oversight easily corrected.

Not intentional by any means -- I think I thought I already had. I usually get here through the Hostages link.

[Cuffy Meigs]

thanks, mesa. Thing is, I tipped Ace first. Nuthin. He must've been busy today; pretty light posting.

[mesablue]

Done.