OPINION & EDITORIAL
Victory in Iraq war possible
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Mike Hahn:
- Recent polls reveal... absolutely nothing (December 4, 2007)
- 'Right to bear arms' stands up to scrutiny (November 27, 2007)
- Democrats play dangerous game (November 20, 2007)
- The pitfalls of holistic admissions (November 13, 2007)
Related Stories:
- Democracy extends to war (April 13, 2007)
- Baker-Hamilton report offers ideas, but only Bush can act (December 12, 2006)
- Column distorts troop funding bill (April 11, 2007)
- Vote "No" on war referendum (April 4, 2006)
- Fresh chance for Bush (December 8, 2006)
by Mike Hahn
Thursday, February 22, 2007
The president's "New Way Forward" in Iraq has been dismissed by many as nothing more than more of the same. President Bush has been chastised for sending more brave soldiers to fight a "failed war." He has been ridiculed for ignoring the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group. Members of his own party are now questioning his leadership. Sen. John Kerry has even dusted off his Vietnam-era slogan of "How do you ask a man to be the last person to die for a mistake?"
Actually, this whole notion that this new strategy is equivalent to "stay the course" is a lie, pure and simple. It is a lie that has been furthered by irresponsible members of Congress and the media who have been blinded to reality by their hatred for President Bush.
In truth, the new way forward is a very real change in strategy that is in large part the result of input from the new commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, Gen. David Petraeus.
Before Gen. Petraeus took command, once an area had been cleared of insurgents or terrorists, the soldiers simply moved on to the next enemy-held region. That is no longer the case. Now when an area is cleared by coalition forces— American and Iraqi — some soldiers are left in place to ensure that it does not fall back into enemy hands. In addition, the number of trainers for the Iraqi army has also increased.
The Army is constantly changing and adapting its tactics and techniques for dealing with the insurgency. Gen. Petraeus was in command of the 101st Airborne when it captured the city of Mosul in northern Iraq at the beginning of the war. Under his leadership and tactics, the city was moving fast toward self-sufficiency and security. It was only after Gen. Petraeus was rotated out of Mosul that violence in the city erupted.
The bottom line is that the strategy has changed and now we have a man in command who has actually gotten results in Iraq before. If anyone can lead our forces to victory, surely it is Gen. Petraeus.
Unfortunately, the Democrats in Congress do not want to give him that chance. A majority in both the House and the Senate are opposed to the troop surge. Many say it is needlessly putting American lives at risk and ignoring the facts on the ground in Iraq. Yet while all of this is going on, Gen. Petraeus — the man who is asking President Bush for the additional troops — was unanimously confirmed by the Senate. Why would they do that?
The answer is simple: The Democrats in Congress are cowards.
Others may not want to say it, but that is exactly what they are. They refuse to do anything of substance on the war, instead opting to pass meaningless resolutions and wring their hands about the war's futility. They almost universally condemn the surge yet confirm its architect. They claim to support the troops while some threaten to remove their funding.
If the Democrats believe President Bush is wrong, then they should stop funding the war. They should not pass resolutions that have no meaning other than to stick a knife in the back of the troops — "We support you, we just don't think you can win."
Yesterday, Prime Minister Tony Blair announced that British forces in southern Iraq would be reduced substantially over the next several months, prompting a parade of democratic, presidential hopefuls to proclaim that we must do the same. This time, it is the Democrats who are showing their ignorance. Southern Iraq, specifically Basra, is not Baghdad. Even when I was there in 2005, the south was by far the most stable and secure region in Iraq. The city of Basra is almost entirely Shi'a — as opposed to the very diverse population of Baghdad — and therefore more easily secured.
I take criticism of the war personally because I spent a year of my life serving all over Iraq in a transportation unit. There have been mistakes made in planning and tactics, but this is not a lost cause and progress has been made. In the year I was there, Iraqis participated in three national elections. Schools, bridges, hospitals and infrastructure of all kinds were improved or rebuilt. The violence may be bad, but I assure you the enemy we face is as cold-blooded and evil as any in our history. Were we to retreat now — before victory is achieved, and by victory I mean a free and stable Iraq — our terrorist enemies would only be emboldened to strike.
In the end, this is a war that we can win. If it is lost it will not be by our military, but by ignorant and weak politicians that wish for the false hope of a peace through withdrawal rather than hard-won victory.
Mike Hahn (mhahn@badgerherald.com) is a senior majoring in history and political science.
Anonymous (February 22, 2007 @ 7:48am):
1) Agreed, democrats are weak.
2) This war is over, because the British would rather go home than go to Baghdad.
3) If you're so defensive about the war, why don't you go back and help your fellow soldiers? Cowboy-up, don't cut and run.
4) We already won the war that we set out to win. We CANNOT win a civil war, because we have no horse in the race.
5) When does the Cheney war crimes trial begin?
6) Didn't we go to Kuwait the first time because Saddam invaded a sovereign nation? It's bad when he did it, but it's OK when we do it.
Anonymous (February 22, 2007 @ 9:28am):
I appreciate your service, so go back and win one for the "Decider". You and the Bush administration admit that mistakes where made in the planning and tactics, but only after last falls elections when the "Cowards" won back control of the Congress. These Cowards have at least have some courage to stand up against a bull headed President that's believes he can do no wrong. Unlike the very brave Republicans that echoed the President's rhetoric while hiding behind twisted CIA intelligence. By the way, why where you fighting in Iraq? Was it because of the WMDS? Or maybe it was the Al Qaeda in Iraq that flew planes into the Twin Towers, oh wait those guys where from Saudi Arabia. When are going to invade them? Or are we just going to watch President Bush holding hands with his Oil boyfriend?
The past for years have cost the US an enormous amount of blood and treasure and we have seen very little return. I agree that the Democrats need to stand up and pull funding for the war and stop this non-binding B.S. and accept the fact that the President and his lackey Republicans will say that the Democrats don't support the troops. But then it's up to the Democrats to repeatably say it was the Republicans that sent our troops into a war on false and twisted intelligence, and sent our troops without proper armor. It was the republicans that sent our troops into a war without a plan to win the peace. It was the republicans that sent our troops into a war thinking that the Iraqis would lay down and kiss our feet as saviors. It was the republicans that sent our troops into a war without knowing what the difference between a Sunni or Shite Muslims. It was the republicans that refused to pay our troops enough to live on, (There are active duty military in the San Diego area that are homeless). It was the republicans that refuse to fund the V.A. hospitals so that they don't have mice infestations, or soldiers drinking themselves to death in their hospital rooms. Lastly it was the republicans that sent our troops into a war because our dry alcoholic President wanted to prove that he could do what his daddy couldn't.
If we pull out things will get worse before they get better, if they get better at all. If we stay the violence is going to get worse, our military equipment is going to get more out of repair and our soldiers more disillusioned. If we pull back, give our guys a chance to breath and rest, put the money into our military that is need to fix and replace equipment, and keep an eye on things there is no reason we can't go back the way we should have gone in the first time.
Anonymous (February 22, 2007 @ 9:36am):
i agree with the first comment wholeheartedly, except for the first statement. democrats and republicans are equally powerless in this matter. regardless, first comment, you took the words from my...fingers.
Anonymous (February 22, 2007 @ 9:53am):
I would just like to say that I agree completely with all of the statements that you have said. The war in Iraq is NOT a lost cause! I am nineteen years old and have already had my uncle serve over there and one of my friends. Also two of my other friends are going to be sent over there in the next couple months.
When my uncle came back from Iraq, he said that this is the best thing that we, as Americans, could be doing.
My one friend who just came back, came back on medical leave. He was blown up in a jeep and watched his friends die right next to him. Yes, it's sad and yes there will be people dying, but when you go into the military you are taking that risk. He now wants to go back to Iraq because he believes that it is the right thing to do.
I believe that the media has a huge impact on what people believe about the war. All of the news shows and papers show the casualties and bad things that are going on in Iraq. There is nothing good that they show at all. The only way people know is from someone that who has been over there and experienced what was going on. Like I said, I have talked to many people in the service and not once have I heard something come out of their mouths that was negative. I think if people actually saw the progress that was taking place, then their decisions about the war would change.
I also want to thank those people who have served for not only our Country, but the people who live here. Because if it was not for them, then we would have a war in our own front yards.
Thank you for all you do!
Anonymous (February 22, 2007 @ 10:22am):
1) Defeatocrats are craven cowards.
2) Defeatocrats WISH this war was over and would rather we submit to Islam than fight for anything.
3) Since ONLY those who fight in Iraq should be allowed to speak to the issue, why won't Defeatocrats shut their frickin' pieholes?
4) Apparently Defeatocrats forgot to tell the Islamo-fascists in Tehran and Damascus that we've already won the war. Apparently, these terrorist regimes still think they can defeat our newly democratic Iraqi allies-- and still have their terrorist horses in that race.
5) When does Clinton's Bosnian war crimes trial begin? Where was Bubbah's UN authorization? US Senate authorization?
6) Didn't FDR liberate Europe because Hitler invaded sovereign nations? It's bad when Hitler did it, but it's OK when we invaded and occupied Germany? Well, yes, duh?
Anonymous (February 22, 2007 @ 10:44am):
"President Bush has been chastised for sending more brave soldiers to fight a "failed war.""
He should be taken to Abu Graib and placed in solitary confinement. He and his entire administration should be stripped naked and forced to make a pyramid.
"The answer is simple: The Democrats in Congress are cowards."
Yeah, just like the rest of us who were opposed to going to Iraq in the first place. Coward? Yo mama.
"If the Democrats believe President Bush is wrong, then they should stop funding the war."
Uh, Mike, in case you haven't noticed that's exactly what the Democrats currently serving in Congress are trying to accomplish.
"They should not pass resolutions that have no meaning other than to stick a knife in the back of the troops..."
Bush and self-aggrandizing morons like yourself are the ones stabbing them in the back by sending them off to fight this stupid war in the first place!
"The violence may be bad, but I assure you the enemy we face is as cold-blooded and evil as any in our history."
So that gives us room to criticize? Shaddup!!
"In the end, this is a war that we can win. If it is lost it will not be by our military, but by ignorant and weak politicians that wish for the false hope of a peace through withdrawal rather than hard-won victory."
Uh, Mike, you're not the coming Antichrist by any chance, are you?
Anonymous (February 22, 2007 @ 11:22am):
So we're a bunch of cowards because we don't support the war, eh? OK, let's see how YOU handle a little name-calling. Here goes:
Hey Mike, you fascist, war-monging, baby-killing jerk! How many little kids did you kill while you were over there? How many teenage Iraqi girls did you rape? How many illegitimate kids will you leave behind? Don't expect any respect or sympathy when you get back. After all, you're a killer, a murderer.
There, Mike. Didn't feel too good, did it? Well, you he-men used to always cry because those hippies spat on you and called you names when you came back from Vietnam. At the same time, you he-men were calling draft-dodgers cowards. If you're gonna dish it out, learn to take it. Otherwise, shut up.
Anonymous (February 22, 2007 @ 11:32am):
Gotta agree, man up and go back if you believe so strongly in the war and the course it is taking.
Drop the Alex P. Keaton act and think about this -- you are a history major -- just about every U.S. military conflict since WWII has been a bust and few people, regardless of political affiliation, would deny that.
Iraq's destiny should be in their own hands; what makes the U.S. so special to think they can decide the fate of other nations?
This war is not going to end until people like Mr. Hahn begin to admit and own the mistakes that the U.S. (namely the Bush administration) has made. Why cling to the belief that what we're doing there is just? How do you "win" a war like the one in Iraq?
Ironically, this slavish devotion to Bush will only contribute to what he's going down in history as -- a president stupid enough (on myriad levels) to get this country involved in another quagmire like Vietnam. Editorials like this illustrate that there is another generation of short-sighted apologists who try so aggresively and pathetically to justify war. BTW, how many Vietnam apologists are out there now? Exactly.
And before I'm branded unsupportive of soldiers or unpatriotic, know that I have family who have served in Iraq and a cousin who just re-upped with the army (his previous duty in Iraq? Guarding police stations in Baghdad. Fun, huh?). I think I'm doing the patriotic and pro-soldier thing by speaking out against the war.
Anonymous (February 22, 2007 @ 11:45am):
here are some great images of the peace the United States has brought to Iraq! Look at those faces full of gratitude!!!
http://www.robert-fisk.com/iraqwarvictims_mar2003.htm
Anonymous (February 22, 2007 @ 12:46pm):
comment @ 11:22. Whoa. Chill out. Everything you just said is wildly inappropriate. You are a hippy. Go smoke some grass and leave it up to us to protect you. i actually want the U.S. to pull the troops out too. Then the terrorists can use oil profits to incease their terrorist activities and have a safe haven for it. I hope they come here to the U.S. and blow up more of us. Then when all you liberals finally say we need to do something about it, i hope the military says, "nope, too bad. you had your chance and now look what has happened" but yeah. lets pull out. im betting 9/11 is a cakewalk compared to some of the crazy things they have planned. But hey. lets not risk another soldiers life fighting over there. please let them come here. maybe your grandma is good at hand to hand combat.
Anonymous (February 22, 2007 @ 12:47pm):
My $2 yellow ribbon magnet proves that I support the troops... and Jesus.
Anonymous (February 22, 2007 @ 12:54pm):
"My $2 yellow ribbon magnet proves that I support the troops... and Jesus."
And my middle finger up in your face proves that your are full of s#*%! And Jesus was a fake!
Anonymous (February 22, 2007 @ 1:00pm):
"comment @ 11:22. Whoa. Chill out. Everything you just said is wildly inappropriate. You are a hippy."
F#*^ you, Republican asshole! You have yet to prove the 9/11 attacks weren't a plan by the Bush Administration to justify a war in the Middle-East so they can take over the oil fields while young American kids-among others-die for it. You're all murderers and baby-killers. Look at what you wrote. Obviously your are just some redneck farm-boy who can't get any respect, so you take up this gung-ho patriot routine to try to be cool. Well, it's time to grow up, ya stupid hick! We aren't buying it anymore! Go to Iraq of go to Hell. Either place is fine, just go!
Anonymous (February 22, 2007 @ 1:36pm):
When I finished reading Mike's comments I wondered how long it would take for the name calling to begin. As I suspected not long. Yes he did call the Democrats cowards but how else would you describe someone who does not have the courage to actually do something other than make a totally worthless political statement.
Now on to the meat of the posted comments. Do any of you detractors have any ideas as to what should be done? No, of course not, you bring up the same tired old rhetoric that has been used for forty years now. From Hanoi Jane to Murtha the left has comforted the enemy (yes that is what you are doing) and been beatified for doing so. Yet have any individual take the position opposite the left and the vitriol begins. I am amazed at how devoid of ideas the left is. You have only two, pull out of Iraq and charge the Bush administration with war crimes how completely disingenuous you are. I did not hear those same complaints about Bosnia or Somalia.
As for the name calling that is further proof that you are lacking any ideas but also that you have the morals and character of ... Never mind I refuse to stoop to your level.
Finally, I would like to thank Mike Hahn and all his fellow soldiers for serving our country (yes it is OUR, left or right, country).
Anonymous (February 22, 2007 @ 3:49pm):
F#*^ you, anonymous Defeatocrat asshole @ 1:00pm! You have yet to prove Reno's WACO assault wasn't a plan by the Clinton Administration to incinerate women and children to justify taking away our blessed 2nd Amendment Rights that countless heroic young men and women died to secure. All Defeatocrat hypocrits support murderous genocidal Marxist thugs (Stalin, Mao, Castro, Pol Pot, etc., ad nauseum). Look at what you advocate. Obviously you're just some pencil-necked Ward Churchill wannabee who can't get tenure, so you take up this hate-America routine to pick on patriotic students. Well, it's time to drop dead, you dried up Stalinist corpse! I thought we already buried you! Go to Cuba or go back to Hell. Either place is fine, just go!
Anonymous (February 22, 2007 @ 7:01pm):
I kind of doubt those using the fascist word have a clue as to what it means. I must say, there are many medical miracles posting here, assuming they can walk, I am impressed because I was told it was impossible to do without a spine!
Anonymous (February 22, 2007 @ 10:32pm):
we've lost; lets get over it and start anew
Anonymous (February 22, 2007 @ 10:33pm):
To 7:01 -- Yes, I too am stunned these war-mongerers are able to stand up without the aid of a spine. What takes more bravery? Staying the course as some sort of mouth-breathing, line-towing toady, or standing up and insisting that this war needs to end?
I can imagine your retort: war-supporters are in the minority and it's braver to buck the majority. Well, there's a reason that anti-war people are in the majority... Do yourself a favor and recognize that we're spinning our wheels (and that's euphemistic and very generous) in Iraq.
One last thing: how long have you been just pitching a tent to use the walking medical miracle/no spine bit? Save it for your 10 minutes on amateur night at the Yuk Yuk Factory.
Anonymous (February 22, 2007 @ 11:18pm):
Bring the troops home - from Germany and Japan and Korea - FIRST!
***
Now, "If you talk to these sheiks, they'll tell you that they're in no hurry to see the Americans leave al-Anbar," he said.
"One thing Sheikh Sattar keeps saying is he wants al-Anbar to be like Germany and Japan and South Korea were after their respective wars, with a long-term American presence helping ... put them back together," MacFarland said. "The negative example he cites is Vietnam. He says, yeah, so, Vietnam beat the Americans, and what did it get them? You know, 30 years later, they're still living in poverty."
http://alphabetcity.blogspot.com/2007/02/ramadi-shaykhs-in-no-hurry-to-see.html
Anonymous (February 23, 2007 @ 7:27pm):
Thank you to everyone for keeping the debate here civil. I am surprised, though, at the level of indignation at being called a coward expressed by ANONYMOUS commentors.
Mike makes a very good argument, but he is fundamentally wrong. We can't win. Victory is not possible, not in the way that it was in WWI, WWII. I don't see anyone willingly giving up or signing a peace treaty anytime soon. How long have the IRA, the Basques, the Tamil Tigers, the Palestinians, etc. been fighting?
The question that should be debated is whether or not what we are doing now is having a positive impact. I know that just saying Iraq needs international military support to control the fighting is less sexy than promising that we will win, but it will attract a lot less ranting from the left than the unquestioning support of Bush and the partisan ****-waving in the editorial.
Anonymous (February 24, 2007 @ 7:17am):
Mike try this on for size
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/columns/shoptalk_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003548374
Anonymous (February 24, 2007 @ 8:28pm):
You should have respect for someone who is willing to put their name next to their opinion. Although you may not agree with his opinion, you have no right to make inappropriate insults against him. I think
many of you are cowards for not putting your names next to your ridiculous assertions. As a Democrat, I'm ashamed of your blatant
lack of ability to make any reasonable argument.
Anonymous (February 24, 2007 @ 8:28pm):
your ignorance to the realities of the time under the Bush administration amazes me. you are blinded by your unwavering boner for bush.
Anonymous (February 26, 2007 @ 6:00pm):
I had posted earlier (February 23, 2007 @ 7:27pm) criticizing all the anonymous commenters. I detract that part of the comment and wish to redirect my ire toward the webmaster of this site and its faulty registration system.
connor gyles (April 17, 2007 @ 2:45pm):
I just have one thing to say, to all that disagree with the war in Iraq THERE ARE THINGS WE DON'T GET TO KNOW, you liberal idiots. do you honestly believe that we get to know why we are there and what we are doing NO we get some of the reason, otherwise the enemy knows what we know. By the way I'm only a freshman in high school. I saw the website by accident, good comments REPUBLI-CANS. Not you surrender monkey, democrats, and yes I am very aware of the world around me, I know what I'm talking about.
Add a comment
We welcome your thoughts, but please keep your feedback thoughtful, on-topic and respectful. Offensive language, personal attacks, or irrelevant comments may be deleted.
Login...
Not registered? Sign up now.
It's quick, free, and the email address you provide will not be sold or solicited.
