Sen. John McCain played advanced political chess back and forth this past week with Sen. Barack Obama over the war in Iraq. Because the Democratic presidential hopeful has been to Iraq only once (more than two years ago), McCain said Obama has a "profound misunderstanding" about the progress made in Iraq.
The fact is John McCain is absolutely right. Barack doesn't have a clue what really is going on in Iraq. And Obama will eat some humble military pie if he goes there. The way I see it, he's going to face at least three major surprises:
— Surprise No. 1: The surge really did work.
I have been to Iraq twice to visit the troops since Obama's single visit. During my two trips (2006 and 2007) to Iraq, I visited 28 bases and shook hands with nearly 40,000 troops. I cannot express the profound pride I feel for our troops. I will remember those experiences for the rest of my life.
One thing that was absolutely apparent in my second visit to Iraq was how well the surge was working. Despite the fact that not one major media outlet at the time reported the positive impact of the surge, I had seen it with my own eyes and could compare the progress between my two visits in more than two dozen locations across the country (many of which were hotbeds of gunfire the year before).
Fewer U.S. troops died in Iraq last month than during almost any other month since the war began five years ago.
A few weeks ago, I had an opportunity to visit Iraq for a third time. I was invited again by Robert Magnus, a four-star general, whose retirement this July completes a truly stellar career in military service from Vietnam to the Iraq war. Unfortunately, I was under publishing deadlines to complete my upcoming (fall release) book, "Black Belt Patriotism," so I could not join him.
— Surprise No. 2: War is not reflected accurately in the news.
So where does Obama get his facts about the war? How is it that he can conclude so confidently that the Iraq war is futile and a result of failed strategy and policies? If he hasn't been to Iraq since the surge even started, how can he truly know anything about the battlefields?
The truth is that Obama gets his knowledge about the war from the same places most of us do: major media, White House press reports, so-called military experts (who are often no longer on the battlefields), our favorite news blogs and Web sites, etc.
But are we truly getting all the facts about the war from those sources? Most of them?
Imagine what our military officers and few political leaders who really understand the ins and outs of the war think when those "on the outside" pontificate about their knowledge of the war. Have you ever had someone try to tell you what it's like to be in your shoes and be dead wrong? Do we expect that our military leaders are honestly going to tell media representatives all the truths about the war so that CNN can splash them around the globe for all the terrorists to hear? If our military leaders actually found WMDs or knew where Osama bin Laden is hidden, are we really so slow to figure out why they could not and would not tell the public? If it's true that we can't judge a book by its cover, do we think we can judge a war by its news coverage? Does Obama?
— Surprise No. 3: All of our service members are absolutely amazing heroes.
Considering how Obama has spoken negatively about the war, for which our troops and their families sacrifice daily, one might think he would experience a cold military reception in Iraq. But those poised souls are much bigger than that. If Obama goes to Iraq, they will offer him the honor and respect he never could give them. The troops deserve admiration from the possible commander in chief. But how can he march them forward when he rejects their cause, has not sat down with their officers and generals, and wants to negotiate with Muslim terrorists?
Whatever the reasons we went in, we're there now. We can fight the constitutional correctness until the cows come home, but our troops are there. And they are fighting for the freedom and democracy of more than 12 million Iraqis, who bravely went to the polls a few years ago to establish a new constitution and government. I am grateful for our troops' service, humbled by their courage, and amazed by their sacrifice. And I believe even Obama will be surprised by their fortitude if he just opens his eyes.
To find out more about Chuck Norris and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.
COPYRIGHT 2008 CHUCK NORRIS
DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS SYNDICATE INC.
|
 |
Comments
|
4 Comments | Post Comment
|
|
You've been there, Chuck, I haven't and therefore I couldn't gainsay any of your observations on the ground. Great that you were able to be an encouragement to your servicemen and women out there. The major concern, though, that I believe preoccupies most folk in the US and the UK is, how long will the Coalition commitment have to go on for, both in Iraq and Afghanistan? Because the vital question is, how long would a genuinely democratic, pro-Western regime survive in Iraq (or Afghanistan) without Coalition forces riding shotgun? History, regrettably, is not encouraging in this respect. Back in the late 1950s, Iraq had a an extremely capable prime minister named Nury as Said. He had been Chief of Staff of Emir Feisal's Turkish Army in what was then Palestine in WW1. Said's professional insight brought about the only defeat the Turkish Army inflicted on British General Allenby's forces in the Palestinian campaign. As Prime Minister, Said was a good friend to the West but he was, largely for that reason, brutally murdered in a bloody revolution in Iraq on July 15th 1958. You can read about him on Wikipedia, type in Nuri as Said Wikipedia and you'll get there straightaway. So the questions remain, therefore, even if the West is able to establish a new Iraqi leader as capable as Said, how long will he last unless the Coalition remains in force and how long will this commitment be politically sustainable in the US? These will be serious and pressing problems for your country's new president elect, whoever that individual turns out to be.
Comment: #1
Posted by: Alan O'Reilly
Tue Jun 3, 2008 6:12 AM
|
|
|
|
Surprise number 4: The lives of millions of Iraqis have been ruined on top of all the Iraqi and American lives lost or shattered by injury.
Surprise number 5: Our President and Vice President and their minions are a bunch of liars.
Surprise number 6: We have laws in this country that prohibit "self help" in the fighting of crime. That means very simply that you call the police when you see a crime instead of taking a gun and starting to shoot. We have those laws in large part because when people start shooting, innocent people often get caught in the crossfire and hurt. That's kind of like what we did to the Iraqis. Those heroic draft dodgers Cheney and W. and their gang of thugs had a thing about Hussein and wanted to get him, and they really didn't care about all of the innocent people who would be sacrificed directly or caught in the crossfire. Not only that, they were willing to "bet the farm", as Molly Ivins once put it. That means they were willing to take America's money (not their own) and bet it on their fantasy. Perhaps most ironically of all, they were also willing to bet national security as well, since they knew they were destroying an Iraq-Iran balance of power that had been the cornerstone of middle east stability in U.S. strategy to which Cheney himself had contributed substantially for decades.
Surprise number 7: They really didn't care. They wanted to get their man.
Comment: #2
Posted by: Masako
Sat Jun 7, 2008 7:46 AM
|
|
|
|
P.S. Chuck, there really are no surprises here. You are recycling the same old right wing hooey with a new improved wrapper. Why don't you do something worthwhile and take a hard look at the fact that, under the Bush Administration, the United States has never sent troops to nations that desperately need us but have no oil to steal? We couldn't even finish the job in Afghanistan, let alone do something to stop genocide in Africa or massive fatalities in Myanmar. We haven't done anything just with our military might since...guess who? Think hard Chuck... Bill Clinton, a man with many faults, but alas, not a mass murderer. And by the way, as a man who actually served in the military, don't you find it just a tad reprehensible that our safe and comfy president and vice president just couldn't get enough distance between themselves and a uniform when it was their time to serve?
Comment: #3
Posted by: Masako
Sat Jun 7, 2008 6:11 PM
|
|
|
|
Sir,
With all due respect; if the surge was working it would be done by now. What do you consider a surge of adrenaline or electricity if it just keeps going and going and going? Maybe it is a slow motion surge like the slow fall of a party from power. I am sorry if you think a president's job is to put himself in harm's way. I think his job is to minimize the chances that any one in the military will have to do more than stand ready. You can't have your cake and eat it too, and you can't use up your military and have it too. One of our more militaristic and better presidents said: speak softly and carry a big stick. He did not say to beat your stick into a toothpick on every tin horn tyrant in the universe. Instead of trying to make history, presidents should try to read as much history as they can so they may avoid history like everyone else. Idiots and Aholes want to make history, but that invariably means they have failed to do anything right. My advice to presidents is stay out of the way. lead from the rear, and make friends rather than enemies. Certainly, presidents should make a stand, right here, defensively with the rest of us. All us poor working class stiffs are trying to defend all we have with all we got. A Big, stupid, avoidable conflagration on the other side of the planet is not any intelligent person's idea of good government.
Comment: #4
Posted by: James A, Sweeney
Sun Jun 8, 2008 9:56 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
