Showing posts with label George W. Bush. Show all posts
Showing posts with label George W. Bush. Show all posts

Saturday, September 10, 2011

September 11 2001 - Remembering The Day Our World Changed Forever - The Tenth Anniversary

I’m an old retired guy now, but on September 11, 2001, I was a police detective in Altamonte Springs, Florida. When the attacks began, I was standing in the Clerk of the Court’s office in Sanford while I taught a new detective how to get an arrest warrant issued.

One of the county employees rushed out and said a plane had just hit the World Trade Center. By the time we got back to the police department, the second plane had also struck. The first war of the 21st century had begun.

Since the attacks of 9/11, I managed to squeeze in almost four years of Army Reserve active duty. Some of it was stateside, training and mobilizing troops who then served in Iraq or Afghanistan. I spent some of my active duty in Iraq where I led a Protective Service Detail in Baghdad. Our mission was to protect a general in the Green Zone and during his travels throughout Iraq.

It’s still hard to think about September 11th and the tragedy that unfolded before our eyes. We were glued to the television, helpless as American souls threw themselves out of skyscraper windows, died under the crushing weight of steel and concrete, or fought to the death as warriors on Flight 93.

When I watched President Bush, President Clinton, and Vice President Biden speak at the dedication of the Flight 93 Memorial in Pennsylvania, it was a pleasure to see American leaders who seldom agree politically join together to honor the courage and sacrifice of the forty heroes on Flight 93.

Our parents always recall where they were when Pearl Harbor was attacked in 1941. We will always remember how our own lives changed forever on September 11, 2001, but we shall never waiver in our resolve to be strong in the face of those who wish to harm us.

We paid a heavy price on 9/11, but our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines have taken the fight to the enemy. Thousands of terrorists have been killed or captured, and bullets fired by American warriors ensured that Osama Bin Laden, the architect of 9/11, finally paid for his mortal sins.

The message to the terrorists has never been clearer. If you attack our nation and kill or injure our citizens, there is no place on earth to hide. We will hunt you down no matter how long it takes. When we find you, surrender. If you do not, we will destroy you.

So help us God…

Charles M. Grist
www.MyLastWar.com

Monday, November 24, 2008

Operation Iraqi Freedom is a Success - Now Its Up to The Iraqis


The following assessment of the current situation in Iraq is one of the best I’ve seen:

* * * *

A Framework for Success in Iraq

By Michael Gerson
Roger Hertog Senior Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations

Friday, November 21, 2008;
Op-ed, Washington Post, A23

A war that once seemed likely to end in a panic of helicopters fleeing the American Embassy now seems destined to conclude as the result of a parliamentary process. A landmark status-of-forces agreement (SOFA) -- requiring the withdrawal of U.S. combat troops from Iraqi cities by the end of June and from Iraq itself by the end of 2011 -- is headed for a final reading in the Iraqi parliament next week.

The approval of the SOFA would leave a chapter of history decorated with paradoxes. President Bush -- who once called withdrawal timelines "arbitrary" and "unacceptable" -- ends his term accepting them. President-elect Barack Obama will inherit a more peaceful Iraq because of policies he strongly opposed. And the Iraqi government -- so often criticized by Americans as weak and ineffectual -- is now asserting its sovereignty in a decisive manner, for good or ill.

The withdrawal deadlines contained in the SOFA seem like concessions from the Bush administration -- and they are. Officials are careful to point out that the June withdrawal from Iraqi cities merely codifies the current process of transferring provincial control to Iraqi forces -- and that both sides are free to renegotiate the agreement when it expires in three years. But the deadlines in the SOFA do limit the tactical flexibility of the next president in ways the current president would not have preferred.

Yet President Bush can take comfort from the fact that these deadlines are conceivable only because of the success of his surge strategy -- because al-Qaeda in Iraq has been decimated and the Sunni revolt has died down. Put another way: The more successful the surge has been, the less dangerous the deadlines for withdrawal have become. And this, after all, was the whole purpose of the surge -- it was intended to be a "bridge strategy" from the failures of 2005 and 2006 to a situation where an orderly withdrawal would be possible.

The SOFA also may seem to be a vindication of the Obama approach to Iraq, but it isn't. Candidate Obama proposed the withdrawal of all combat brigades from Iraq by March 31, 2008 -- a policy that would have left chaos and perhaps genocide in its wake. He stuck with a strategy of precipitate withdrawal even after the successes of the surge became evident. The new, more responsible timetables of the SOFA became possible not because of Obama's views but in spite of them.

Yet both leaders are likely to see benefit from the agreement. If a broadly based Iraqi government emerges as American troops withdraw, Bush's Iraq policy will demand and deserve a major historical reassessment. And the SOFA should allow President Obama to reinterpret his campaign pledges on Iraq in a more responsible manner – giving deference to the best military advice during the next three years and avoiding destabilizing actions.

The success of the surge has achieved some extraordinary things – not only the possibility of peace in Iraq but also a convergence in American politics. Bush's and Obama's modified positions on Iraq are quite close. Both leaders have accepted a responsible, gradual withdrawal and the possibility of leaving behind success instead of failure.

Much of that success, of course, will depend on the Iraqis themselves - particularly on Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and his leadership. If he acts the part of a benign nationalist, he could father a stable and unified nation. If he uses the military we have built, in the vacuum left by U.S. withdrawal, to attack his enemies and consolidate his personal power, he could provoke another civil war with the Sunnis.

Administration officials believe they have taken precautions that will encourage Iraqi nationalism over a destructive pan-Shiism. Iraqi security forces and police have been carefully integrated. Provincial elections in January will give greater influence to disenfranchised Sunnis (who foolishly boycotted the last elections). And national elections set for December of next year could act as a check on Maliki's ambitions and abuses.

Dealing with the new Iraq will not be easy. It has become a prickly nation, jealous of its sovereignty and determined to avoid even the appearance of American imperialism. But this also means it is becoming a "normal," self-governing country, in the midst of a national debate on its security just six years after the end of a vicious tyranny.

The cost of this success has been high for America, and some may argue that it has not been worth the price. But it is still a success.


* * * *

Our efforts to build this nation have been successful. The Iraqis want to be completely on their own and that is their right as a sovereign nation. However, they must continue the path of peace and cooperation between their various factions. To do otherwise will turn our joint victory into ashes.

Let us hope that their own history will record the sacrifices by the warriors of the United States and other Coalition countries that made their freedom a reality.

Charles M. Grist
www.TheCobraTeam.com
www.AmericanRanger.blogspot.com

Saturday, May 5, 2007

The Enemy Waits for Our Retreat


Today’s op-ed page in the Orlando Sentinel featured a great piece by syndicated columnist Cal Thomas. His analysis is on the money. The cut and run strategy of the Democrats has emboldened our terrorist enemy and these fundamentalist animals are salivating at the prospect of our withdrawal:

CAL THOMAS: Defeat, retreat and repeat

Cal Thomas | Tribune Media Services
Posted May 4, 2007

For the sake of argument, let's say former CIA Director George Tenet is right in his book and that Vice President Dick Cheney pushed too hard with questionable or inaccurate intelligence because of a predisposition to go to war in Iraq and topple Saddam Hussein. So what? We can't go back and fix the mistakes of the past. Only two choices are available: victory or defeat.

Let us assume the Democratic left is right and we should pull U.S. forces out as early as Oct. 1, or perhaps a few months later, but certainly before the next president takes office, because the Bush administration's policy in Iraq has completely failed and, in the words of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, "the war is lost."

What next? Does the United States not suffer a loss of credibility in the world's eyes for again failing to finish a job it started? Do the millions who voted for the first elected government in Iraq conclude they risked their lives for nothing? What would be the consequences of pulling out before Iraq is stabilized sufficiently to stand on its own? And, most importantly, what would a U.S. retreat do to the confidence of the enemy that wishes to dominate the world by force?

We have the answer to that last question. Statements declaring all but victory for the Islamists are posted on numerous Islamic Web sites. Various statements by American leaders critical of the war are cited as evidence that the United States is about to quit. Ubaidah Al-Saif, who is associated with Al-Fajr Media in Iraq, as part of what is called "The Islamic State of Iraq," said on April 25: "The plans of the cross worshippers and their henchmen have collapsed." He quotes "House Majority Leader Harry Reid" (he means Senate majority leader) as saying, "The Iraqi war is hopeless and the situation in Iraq is the same as it was in Vietnam."

Al-Saif declares American morale is declining and "...our battle against the enemy is first and foremost the will to fight and the length of the battle does not rest with the cross worshippers." He calls for his fighters to "be patient" and Allah will give them victory. Patience is not one of America's virtues.

Do the war's opponents realize, or care, that every critical statement they make is reported by the enemy's media and passed on to homicide bombers and fighters to encourage them to keep killing Americans and Iraqis?

The official Palestinian Authority broadcast media have cranked up hate propaganda against America, Israel and Jews. On April 22, in addition to the usual scenes of "martyred" female homicide bombers clad in white and floating beneficently across the screen, viewers were treated to this: "Be certain that America is on its way to utter destruction, America is wallowing (in blood) today in Iraq and Afghanistan, America is defeated and Israel is defeated, and was defeated in Lebanon and Palestine. ... Make us victorious over the community of infidels. ... Allah, take the Jews and their allies, Allah, take the Americans and their allies ... Allah, annihilate them completely and do not leave anyone of them."

That's not defeat and retreat talk. That's the talk of victory and self-confidence.

In an April 26 op-ed for The Washington Post, Sen. Joseph Lieberman, Connecticut Democrat - a lonely voice within his party because he favors victory for our side and for Iraq's elected government - said that while progress is slow, it is visible but will take more time. He said even if Iraq's Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds were to achieve a political solution tomorrow, the threat of al-Qaida would not go away.

Lieberman concludes: "The challenge before us, then, is whether we respond to al-Qaida's barbarism by running away, as it hopes we do - abandoning the future of Iraq, the Middle East and ultimately our own security to the very people responsible for last week's atrocities - or whether we stand and fight." Lieberman has chosen to "stand and fight and win," which is better than defeat, retreat and having to repeat the battle somewhere else against a much stronger enemy, with many more casualties.

It's shameful that so many Democrats running for president appear ready to accept defeat and retreat if it advances their presidential prospects, no matter the prospects for the security of Iraq, the Middle East and the United States.

Readers may e-mail Cal Thomas at tmseditors@tribune.com.


* * * *

It would be a complete disgrace for our nation to abandon our struggle in Iraq. The radical Islamic enemy is confident that we will give up there just as we did in Vietnam.

When the going gets tough, the liberals get going. If we do it their way, the enemy will once again view us as paper tigers and their determined efforts to kill us will only increase.

SFC Chuck Grist
www.AmericanRanger.blogspot.com