Lieberman: The Bush surge might deliver security, Harry Reid's retreat will only bring defeat

Yesterday the Democrat-controlled Senate voted to put a timetable on withdrawal from Iraq.  Senator Joe Lieberman opposed the Democrat 'strategy' and every word of his floor speech - republished below - is worth reading.

(Meanwhile the Washington-based Thatcher Center has published a paper contrasting the British Government's willingness to commit several thousand troops to Iraq for another five years with the Democrats' 'troops out' message.  Read Dr Nile Gardiner's short paper here).

"Mr. President, the supplemental appropriations bill we are debating today contains language that would have Congress take control of the direction of our military strategy in Iraq.

Earlier this week the Senate Majority Leader spoke at the Woodrow Wilson Center and laid out the case for why he believes we must do this—why the bill now before this chamber, in his view, offers a viable alternative strategy for Iraq.

I have great respect for my friend from Nevada. I believe he has offered this proposal in good faith, and therefore want to take it up in good faith, and examine its arguments and ideas carefully and in depth, for this is a very serious discussion for our country.

In his speech Monday, the Majority Leader described the several steps that this new strategy for Iraq would entail. Its first step, he said, is to "transition the U.S. mission away from policing a civil war—to training and equipping Iraqi security forces, protecting U.S. forces, and conducting targeted counter-terror operations."

I ask my colleagues to take a step back for a moment and consider this plan.

When we say that U.S. troops shouldn't be "policing a civil war," that their operations should be restricted to this narrow list of missions, what does this actually mean?

To begin with, it means that our troops will not be allowed to protect the Iraqi people from the insurgents and militias who are trying to terrorize and kill them. Instead of restoring basic security, which General Petraeus has argued should be the central focus of any counterinsurgency campaign, it means our soldiers would instead be ordered, by force of this proposed law, not to stop the sectarian violence happening all around them—no matter how vicious or horrific it becomes.

In short, it means telling our troops to deliberately and consciously turn their backs on ethnic cleansing, to turn their backs on the slaughter of innocent civilians—men, women, and children singled out and killed on the basis of their religion alone. It means turning our backs on the policies that led us to intervene in the civil war in Yugoslavia in the 1990s, the principles that today lead many of us to call for intervention in Darfur.

This makes no moral sense at all.

It also makes no strategic or military sense either.

Al Qaeda's own leaders have repeatedly said that one of the ways they intend to achieve victory in Iraq is to provoke civil war. They are trying to kill as many people as possible today, precisely in the hope of igniting sectarian violence, because they know that this is their best way to collapse Iraq's political center, overthrow Iraq's elected government, radicalize its population, and create a failed state in the heart of the Middle East that they can use as a base.

That is why Al Qaeda blew up the Golden Mosque in Samarra last year. And that is why we are seeing mass casualty suicide bombings by Al Qaeda in Baghdad now.

The sectarian violence that the Majority Leader says he wants to order American troops to stop policing, in other words, is the very same sectarian violence that Al Qaeda hopes to ride to victory. The suggestion that we can draw a bright legislative line between stopping terrorists in Iraq and stopping civil war in Iraq flies in the face of this reality.

I do not know how to say it more plainly: it is Al Qaeda that is trying to cause a full-fledged civil war in Iraq.

The Majority Leader said on Monday that he believes U.S. troops will still be able to conduct "targeted counter-terror operations" under his plan. Even if we stop trying to protect civilians in Iraq, in other words, we can still go after the bad guys.

But again, I ask my colleagues, how would this translate into military reality on the ground? How would we find these terrorists, who do not gather on conventional military bases or fight in conventional formations?

By definition, targeted counterterrorism requires our forces to know where, when, and against whom to strike—and that in turn requires accurate, actionable, real-time intelligence.

This is the kind of intelligence that can only come from ordinary Iraqis, the sea of people among whom the terrorists hide. And that, in turn, requires interacting with the Iraqi people on a close, personal, daily basis. It requires winning individual Iraqis to our side, gaining their trust, convincing them that they can count on us to keep them safe from the terrorists if they share valuable information about them. This is no great secret. This is at the heart of the new strategy that General Petraeus and his troops are carrying out.

And yet, if we pass this legislation, according to the Majority Leader, U.S. forces will no longer be permitted to patrol Iraq's neighborhoods or protect Iraqi civilians. They won't, in his words, be "interjecting themselves between warring factions" or "trying to sort friend from foe."

Therefore, I ask the supporters of this legislation: How, exactly, are U.S. forces to gather intelligence about where, when, and against whom to strike, after you have ordered them walled off from the Iraqi population? How, exactly, are U.S. forces to carry out targeted counter-terror operations, after you have ordered them cut off from the very source of intelligence that drives these operations?

This is precisely why the congressional micromanagement of life-and-death decisions about how, where, and when our troops can fight is such a bad idea, especially on a complex and changing battlefield.

In sum, you can't have it both ways. You can't withdraw combat troops from Iraq and still fight Al Qaeda there. If you believe there is no hope of winning in Iraq, or that the costs of victory there are not worth it, then you should be for complete withdrawal as soon as possible.

There is another irony here as well.

For most of the past four years, under Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, the United States did not try to establish basic security in Iraq. Rather than deploying enough troops necessary to protect the Iraqi people, the focus of our military has been on training and equipping Iraqi forces, protecting our own forces, and conducting targeted sweeps and raids—in other words, the very same missions proposed by the proponents of the legislation before us.

That strategy failed—and we know why it failed. It failed because we didn't have enough troops to ensure security, which in turn created an opening for Al Qaeda and its allies to exploit. They stepped into this security vacuum and, through horrific violence, created a climate of fear and insecurity in which political and economic progress became impossible.

For years, many members of Congress recognized this. We talked about this. We called for more troops, and a new strategy, and—for that matter—a new secretary of defense.

And yet, now, just as President Bush has come around—just as he has recognized the mistakes his administration has made, and the need to focus on basic security in Iraq, and to install a new secretary of defense and a new commander in Iraq—now his critics in Congress have changed their minds and decided that the old, failed strategy wasn't so bad after all.

What is going on here? What has changed so that the strategy that we criticized and rejected in 2006 suddenly makes sense in 2007?

The second element in the plan outlined by the Majority Leader on Monday is "the phased redeployment of our troops no later than October 1, 2007."

Let us be absolutely clear what this means. This legislation would impose a binding deadline for U.S. troops to begin retreating from Iraq. This withdrawal would happen regardless of conditions on the ground, regardless of the recommendations of General Petraeus, in short regardless of reality on October 1, 2007.

As far as I can tell, none of the supporters of withdrawal have attempted to explain why October 1 is the magic date—what strategic or military significance this holds. Why not September 1? Or January 1? This is a date as arbitrary as it is inflexible—a deadline for defeat.

How do proponents of this deadline defend it? On Monday, Senator Reid gave several reasons. First, he said, a date for withdrawal puts "pressure on the Iraqis to make the desperately needed political compromises."

But will it? According to the legislation now before us, the withdrawal will happen regardless of what the Iraqi government does.

How, then, if you are an Iraqi government official, does this give you any incentive to make the right choices?

On the contrary, there is compelling reason to think a legislatively directed withdrawal of American troops will have exactly the opposite effect than its Senate sponsors intend.

This, in fact, is exactly what the most recent National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq predicted. A withdrawal of U.S. troops in the months ahead, it said, would "almost certainly lead to a significant increase in the scale and scope of sectarian conflict, intensify Sunni resistance, and have adverse effects on national reconciliation."

Second, the Majority Leader said that withdrawing our troops, and again I quote, will "reduce the specter of the U.S. occupation which gives fuel to the insurgency."

My colleague from Nevada, in other words, is suggesting that the insurgency is being provoked by the very presence of American troops. By diminishing that presence, then, he believes the insurgency will diminish.

But I ask my colleagues—where is the evidence to support this theory? Since 2003, and before General Petraeus took command, U.S. forces were ordered on several occasions to pull back from Iraqi cities and regions, including Mosul and Fallujah and Tel'Afar and Baghdad. And what happened in these places? Did they stabilize when American troops left? Did the insurgency go away?

On the contrary—in each of these places where U.S. forces pulled back, Al Qaeda rushed in. Rather than becoming islands of peace, they became safe havens for terrorists, islands of fear and violence.

So I ask advocates of withdrawal: on what evidence, on what data, have you concluded that pulling U.S. troops out will weaken the insurgency, when every single experience we have had since 2003 suggests that this legislation will strengthen it?

Consider the words of Sheikh Abdul Sattar, one of the leading Sunni tribal leaders in Anbar province who is now fighting on our side against Al Qaeda. This is what he told the New York Times when asked last month what would happen if U.S. troops withdraw. "In my personal opinion, and in the opinion of most of the wise men of Anbar," he said, "if the American forces leave right now, there will be civil war and the area will fall into total chaos."

This is a man whose father was killed by Al Qaeda, who is risking his life every day to work with us—a man who was described by one Army officer as "the most effective local leader in Ramadi I believe the coalition has worked with... in Anbar [since] 2003."

In his remarks earlier this week, the Majority Leader observed that there is "a large and growing population of millions—who sit precariously on the fence. They will either condemn or contribute to terrorism in the years ahead. We must convince them of the goodness of America and Americans. We must win them over."

On this, I completely agree with my friend from Nevada. My question to him, however, and to the supporters of this legislation, is this: how does the strategy you propose in this bill possibly help win over this population of millions in Iraq, who sit precariously on the fence?

What message, I ask, does this legislation announce to those people in Iraq? How will they respond when we tell them that we will no longer make any effort to protect them against insurgents and death squads? How will they respond when we declare that we will be withdrawing our forces—regardless of whether they make progress in the next six months towards political reconciliation? Where will their hopes for a better life be when we withdraw the troops that are the necessary precondition for the security and stability they yearn for?

Do my friends really believe that this is the way to convince Iraqis, and the world, of the goodness of America and Americans? Does anyone in this chamber really believe that, by announcing a date certain for withdrawal, we will empower Iraqi moderates, or enable Iraq's reconstruction, or open more schools for their children, or more hospitals for their families, or freedom for everyone?

Mr. President, with all due respect, this is fantasy.

The third step the Majority Leader proposes is to impose "tangible, measurable, and achievable benchmarks on the Iraqi government."

I am all for such benchmarks. In fact, Senator McCain and I were among the first to propose legislation to apply such benchmarks on the Iraqi government.

But I don't see how this plan will encourage Iraqis to meet these or any other benchmarks, given its ironclad commitment to abandon them—regardless of how they behave.

We should of course be making every effort to encourage reconciliation in Iraq and the development of a decent political order that Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds can agree on.

But even if today that political solution was found, we cannot rationally think that our terrorist enemies like Al Qaeda in Iraq will simply vanish.

Al Qaeda is not mass murdering civilians on the streets of Baghdad because it wants a more equitable distribution of oil revenues. Its aim in Iraq is not to get a seat at the political table.

It wants to blow up the table—along with everyone seated at it. Al Qaeda wants to destroy any prospect for democracy in Iraq, and it will not be negotiated or reasoned out of existence. It must be fought and defeated through force of arms. And there can be no withdrawal, no redeployment from this reality.

The fourth step that the Majority Leader proposed on Monday is a "diplomatic, economic, and political offensive... starting with a regional conference working toward a long-term framework for stability in the region."

I understand why we are tempted by these ideas. All of us are aware of the justified frustration, fatigue, and disappointment of the American people. And all of us would like to believe that there is a quick and easy solution to the challenges we face in Iraq.

But none of this gives us an excuse to paper over hard truths. We delude ourselves if we think we can wave a legislative wand and suddenly our troops in the field will be able to distinguish between Al Qaeda terrorism and sectarian violence, or that Iraqis will suddenly settle their political differences because our troops are leaving, or that sweet reason alone will suddenly convince Iran and Syria to stop destabilizing Iraq.

Mr. President, what we need now is a sober assessment of the progress we have made and a recognition of the challenges we face. There are still many uncertainties before us, many complexities. Barely half of the new troops that General Petraeus has requested have even arrived in Iraq, and, as we heard from him yesterday, it will still be months before we will know just how effective his new strategy is.

In following General Petraeus' path, there is no guarantee of success—but there is hope, and a new plan, for success.

The plan embedded in this legislation, on the other hand, contains no such hope. It is a strategy of catchphrases and bromides, rather than military realities in Iraq. It does not learn from the many mistakes we have made in Iraq. Rather, it promises to repeat them.

Let me be absolutely clear: In my opinion, Iraq is not yet lost—but if we follow this plan, it will be. And so, I fear, much of our hope for stability in the Middle East and security from terrorism here at home.

I yield the floor."

Comments

[Simon]

Are you offering an alternative to anti-americanism, or an alternative to anti-Republican attitudes?

[Editor]

Lieberman is not a Republican Simon.

This site is first and foremost dedicated to the interests that our two countries share - including the defeat of al-Qaeda in Iraq.

The interests are summarised here.

[Steevo]

"This makes no moral sense at all.

"It also makes no strategic or military sense either."

The alternative is hope over death.

[JF]

Tim, thanks for this post. I realize that this site is primarily aimed at a British audience, but for the sake of the Americans who visit this site, can you please also post on the British equivalent of Senator Lieberman? I don't see much defense of the war along these lines coming from the British political class, with discussion seeming to focus more on how well the British armed forces are equipped than on the merits of continuing participation in Iraq. It's my hope that I am simply not looking in the right places, as opposed to the serious possibility that there is no British equivalent of Sen. Lieberman. Thus, any insight you can provide would be much appreciated.

[Editor]

The nearest UK equivalent of Lieberman is Iain Duncan Smith, JF. Click here for an account of how British Conservatives contributed to the recent Commons debate on Iraq. IDS was almost alone in backing the surge and he backed an increase in troops and change of strategy from 2004.

I'm not sure the site is "primarily aimed at a British audience" although the previous masthead suggested that - and was partly replaced for that reason.

I'll keep remembering to put analysis of the UK scene on here for US readers. Thanks for the prompt.

[JF]

Many thanks, Tim.

[John Hayward, The Difference]

I'd be interested to know what you think of Tenet's book and interview, Tim: At the Center of the Storm

[Teddy Bear]

This Tenet? Seems like he's trying to 'wash his hands' of his complicity by pushing the blame elsewhere.

From Wikipedia:
Tenet and Iraq WMD controversy
According to a report by veteran investigative journalist Bob Woodward in his book Plan of Attack, Tenet privately lent his personal authority to the intelligence reports about weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) in Iraq. At a meeting on December 12, 2002, he assured the President that the evidence against Saddam Hussein amounted to a "slam dunk case." After several months of refusing to confirm this statement, Tenet later stated that this remark was taken out of context. [10] The search following the 2003 invasion of Iraq by U.S., British and international forces has proved unproductive and no stockpiles of WMD were found following the occupation of the country. The case of the invading governments for a legitimate war against Iraq had been based largely on the threat of WMDs in the hands of Saddam Hussein, supposedly on the strength of reliable intelligence assessments, including evidence that could not itself be made public. Thus a failure subsequently to find any banned weapons or programs became a considerable embarrassment for Tenet and the CIA.

[TomTom]

The nearest UK equivalent of Lieberman is Iain Duncan Smith,

I disagree. Duncan Smith has not been ejected from his party nor had to run against Conservatives in his seat. He is not an Orthodox Jew nor has he been a candidate for presidency, and he certainly cannot be classed at odds with his own party as he was over Maastricht.

There is no analogy unless you consider the behaviour of Churchill over India in 1935.

IF Bush wants to play hardball with the Democrats he can go on TV and state he will veto any such Bill and while he is President US soldiers will not run short of ammunition, food, equipment - and if Congress tries to do this he will take funds from elsewhere rather than leave US soldiers naked in the face of the enemy.

That should destroy Democrats nicely

[Steevo]

I think the basic analogy with regards to JF's specific question was concerning a stance on the war.

Also, Bush will not destroy the Dems by going on TV. Many of the major broadcasters who are on the Left may not even show him. But if they did it could be totally edited with Dems and liberal journos using it as an opportunity for propaganda. That's how it is here. He will veto the bill but the Democrats are surrendercrats and our troops and the terrorists know that: the damage is done; the consequences remain to be seen.

[Dennis]

I love the new reality being created by the political establishments of US/UK.
If you listened to or believed anything Republicans/Democrats or Labour/Conservative politicians say then:
a) The problems in Iraq are the fault of Iraqi's, as opposed to our illegal invasion.
b)It is possible to distinguish between Al-qaeda and Iraqi freedom fighters(insurgents).
c) The US/UK have the moral authority to direct Iraq to a democratic future.
d) The world is a safer place due to our continued involvement in Iraq

Al-qaeda's operatives in Iraq are mostly Iraqi's. It's power is not in insurgency or sectarian conflict.
Al-qaeda's strength lies in it's teachings, message and the ideas it implants in the Iraqi conciousness.
The view of us as ruthless invaders determined to destroy their Muslim ways of life and pillage their natural resources.
We could land a further 100,000 troops in Iraq and it would make no difference to the outcome.
How can you possibly fight an idea, so attractive to an occupied,brutalised people?
Iraqi's have died in numbers so great, yet we do not even bother to count their dead.
They can see us display our un-ashamed hypocracy with our professions of 'democracy and freedom while continuing to deny them exactly that commodity.
Shock and Awe, Abu-Ghraib, Falluja, Haditha, etc have all etched themselves on the Iraqi conscience and cannot be overcome with a 'troop surge'
Our polticians patronise the Iraqi's with decisions made in our governments and our troops pay with their lives for all the worng decisions.

[Steevo]

a) Illegal yeah if you wanna side with Russia, China and France. They had no illegal ulterior motives now did they? A mute point anyway. Its irrelevent. We are dealing with the present. No no-WMD mantras at this point.

b) Iraqis who truly want freedom from terror (the majority) don't call the terrorists "freedom fighters." They call them murderers of men, women and children. The terrorists don't call themselves freedom fighters. YOU on the other side of this world call them freedom fighters, Dennis.

c) The majority of Iraqi people who truly want freedom from genocide and beheaded hell have their fate in our hands. Moral "authority." Call it what you will in your shallow hardness, Leftist. I call it moral obligation.

d) The world was getting unsafe damn fast. We lost 2500 of our citizens and we weren't there, but they were coming here. Right now... right now if we don't stay this course and beat them there then this world will end a much unsafer place in our own back yards. They are coming there because they know that's where they have to win. You Dennis would allow that to happen by withdrawal.

It appears most but not all of al-Qaeda's members in positions of authority are not from Iraq. It can be hard to tell with the typical low-rung suicider if you know what I mean. Their power is in brutal mass murder and igniting sectarian conflict. Why do you think they do it? The overwhelming majority of Iraqis are against them because of that. They want peace and the freedom to pursue their aspirations and... without Sharia law!

The view of us as invaders there to destroy and take is YOUR view Dennis and that of the beheaders. Just like the insurgents are "freedom fighters." Most Iraqis know we are there to fight and hopefully destroy those who are trying to destroy their nation. They do not want us to leave because they know what will happen. You've got it so totally backwards in your Leftist spite.

"We could land a further 100,000 troops in Iraq and it would make no difference to the outcome." Don't you wish!

You are the hypocrite blaming those putting their lives on the line to fight evil in a nation dying to be free. YOU would forsake them.

People have to question why you are here. You're so resentful at the possibilities to unite in efforts and ideology for cause you hate. Do you think you're convincing anyone who is here for its intent? You are the BBC; you are the Guardian, Independent, Mirror... ad nauseum.

Try going over there and convince the good Iraqis. You do believe they do exist and want the terroists killed, don't you? Do you think they would be in agreement with you to have our troops leave? They'd spit, in, your, face.

[JF]

Dennis, I'm not sure what propaganda the BBC is broadcasting these days, but nothing you've stated is the position of the Republicans in the US.

a) The problems in Iraq are the fault of Iraqi's, as opposed to our illegal invasion.

No, the problems in Iraq are your fault. Had the Left been more loyal to the US, we could have conducted this war as we intended. Instead, the Left aids and abets the terrorists.

b)It is possible to distinguish between Al-qaeda and Iraqi freedom fighters(insurgents).

Actually, we make no effort to distinguish. Both are disruptive forces. Only a Leftists is interested in parsing out "freedom fighters" who bomb civilians. The rest of us see them for what they are: terrorists.

c) The US/UK have the moral authority to direct Iraq to a democratic future.

No, the people of Iraq have the moral authority after having suffered for decades under the tyranny of Saddam Hussein. Only you believe you have moral authority, and ironically, you have the least of any party. Your calls for genocide of the Iraqi people are an abomination.

d) The world is a safer place due to our continued involvement in Iraq

No one claimed that the world was. The US certainly is.

Dennis, when can we look forward to you joining up with the "freedom fighters" to do something about the oppression of the evil US?

[Dennis]

Steevo, take a breath buddy
I do want a unity of purpose between the UK/US. Why do you doubt me?
I just don't believe in deluding myself that we can have constructive discussions without admitting and taking into account our misdeeds.
The world is waking up to us,countries are maturing and taking covert steps to thwart US/UK overtures, regardless of how earnestly professed. In order to counter this and move forward , we have to realign our thought processes to allow for the change.
Part of this process is the realisation that 'actions we take, guide world opinion of us for years'
Steevo writes'The view of us as invaders there to destroy and take is YOUR view Dennis and that of the beheaders.'
That makes me cringe,
Did we invade their country?
Has there been widespread destruction?
Have we passed Hydrocarbon laws to allow the exploitation of their natural resources?
The answer to all these questions is Yes

Steevo writes-b) 'Iraqis who truly want freedom from terror (the majority) don't call the terrorists "freedom fighters." They call them murderers of men, women and children.'
We too cause them terror, we too murder their men, women and children.
I suppose i should be deluding myself that they view us as liberators, in order to participate in this forum.

Steevo writes-'Most Iraqis know we are there to fight and hopefully destroy those who are trying to destroy their nation.'
Steevo with people as deluded as you in the vanguard of cross Atlantic relations, we are surely doomed to a future of 'perpetual misunderstanding'

[Steevo]

You can't admit reality. You can't admit who you are.

The only meaningful discussion you contribute is we pull out and they go to hell. That's it. Your answer.

You have given absolutely nothing to counter that.

Like I said try doing it in Iraq with those Iraqis who want genuine freedom and don't want their own genocide and they will spit in your face.

End of your story. Buddy.

[Andrew Ian Dodge]

Good to see Lieberman is speaking his mind and goine against the surrender-monkey attitude of the rest of his Democratic brood. He understands what a retreat would do to millions of Iraqis who want peace (never mind the Kurds).

I love the "illegal war" line. I wonder how many people who prattle on about that are pushing for going to into Darfur to stop genocide there. There is not strategic interest in Darfur.

The Kurds/marsh Arabs were suffering genocide. Saddam was funding people who sought to wipe Jews off the face of the earth in and around Israel.

[Dennis]

JF wrote..
Actually, we make no effort to distinguish. Both are disruptive forces. Only a Leftists is interested in parsing out "freedom fighters" who bomb civilians. The rest of us see them for what they are: terrorists.

I might add that the rest of the world is starting to see us as we are..with the advent of the information revolution, it could be easy to describe us as 'disruptive forces who 'bomb civillians'.

Why the clamour to designate me a leftie?
How can you possibly determine my political stance based on a few ideas exchanged on a subjective forum?

Have any of you had a chance to read about the findings of the US State Dep's Annual Terrorism report 2006 (released 30/04/07)?
A 25% increase in terrorist attacks & a 40% increase in deaths from terrorism. 45% of the attacks occured in Iraq
Have you had a chance to read the interview Ex C.I.A chief George Tenet gave yesterday and Senator Rick Durbin gave on the senate floor on 28/04/07?
The personalities involved in the creation of this debacle are still in charge.
The laws they passed in the process, continue to erode the US Constitution, Bill of Rights and the UK 'Magna Carta'

I think it is important to concentrate on the mistakes, as the only viable, long-term future of trans-atlantic relations is dependent on the US/UK being at the forefront of transforming international diplomacy and security co-operation.
We should not and can not fight the world.

The use of military posturing as a first line of conflict resolution is based on 'a retarded fundamentalist idiocy' whether it takes the form of a Republican President or Taliban Mullah.
Despite 5yrs of the 'war on terror', entrenched positions validated by the use of violence & terror are still the norm worldwide.
Regardless of whether the purveyors of the terrorism are our 'official combatants' or the 'designated terrorists' the human cost remains the 'perverse constant'.
These entrenched positions are validated by cheerleaders from the left/right of the (republican, democrat, conservative, labour, taliban or moderate muslim) divide all consumed by their individual ideological, financial, political goals.

JF, Steevo... with this in mind I find you are closer to the Taliban due to your failure to stop wearing the intellectual 'Gimp mask & costume' that attempts to pass as right wing thought & rhetoric

[JF]

Dennis, the UK is lucky you weren't in charge during WWI, or the UK would have lost. The UK is lucky you weren't in charge during WWII, or the UK would have lost. The Iraqi people are lucky you aren't in charge now, or they would be slaughtered until the Tigris and Euphrates ran red.

Call me Taliban if it makes you feel better. Better that you feel good and hundreds of thousands live than the alternative. I'm sorry you can't see it.

[Teddy Bear]

Dim
Dhimmi
or
already brainwashed Islamists pretending to be lefties.

They keep repeating the same tripe, regardless of being presented with facts which oppose. I don't trust them and believe they have an agenda. My bet is the latter.