Archive for ‘Iraq’

May 10, 2009

Brit Army Lasses Preggers in Iraq!

Sort of a Fleet Street headline for this story from the Daily Star:

At least 133 Brit servicewomen have been sent home from Afghanistan and Iraq after getting pregnant.
The Daily Star Sunday has learned 102 of Our Girls returned early from Iraq between January 1, 2003 and February 28 of this year because they were expecting. And at least 31 female squaddies were fl own home from Afghanistan for the same reason.
Of those, 50 returned early from Iraq or Afghanistan between April 1, 2007 and February 28, 2009.
A total of 5,600 women have been sent to war so far and the Ministry of Defence admitted there may be even more cases which have not been recorded.

Shocker! Send women to war and they’ll be women, not warriors. And lads will be lads, after all . . .

September 17, 2008

Earth to Obama: Ruh-roh

Obama tried to delay U.S. withdrawal from Iraq:

The Obama campaign spent more than five hours on Monday attempting to figure out the best refutation of the explosive New York Post report that quoted Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari as saying that Barack Obama during his July visit to Baghdad demanded that Iraq not negotiate with the Bush Administration on the withdrawal of American troops. Instead, he asked that they delay such negotiations until after the presidential handover at the end of January.
The three problems, according to campaign sources: The report was true, there were at least three other people in the room with Obama and Zebari to confirm the conversation, and there was concern that there were enough aggressive reporters based in Baghdad with the sources to confirm the conversation that to deny the comments would create a bigger problem.
Instead, Obama’s national security spokeswoman Wendy Morigi told reporters that Obama told the Iraqis that they should not rush through what she termed a “Strategic Framework Agreement” governing the future of U.S. forces until after President Bush left office. In other words, the Iraqis should not negotiate an American troop withdrawal.

Look, if that’s not a Logan Act violation, I don’t know what is. And it’s so cynical, it’s breathtaking.

July 25, 2008

‘Had we listened to Obama …’

Jamie Kirchick in the Politico:

Had we listened to Obama back in January 2007, the effects of the surge would never have materialized, and we would not be in the place we are today, where talking about victory in Iraq no longer seems preposterous. So manifestly wrong was Obama about the surge that his spokesmen are saying he always believed it would reduce violence, and earlier this month his campaign removed negative references to it on his website.
We are incessantly told, without any real evidence other than a compromise bill here and there in the Illinois state Senate, that Obama is an incomparably thoughtful politician, the likes of which we have never seen before. . . .
To admit that his judgment was wanting on the subject of the surge would irreparably damage — if not kill — the Democratic narrative of the war.

What’s really weird about this past week is that Obama has thrust the focus onto foreign affairs at a time that (a) polls indicate voters are most concerned about domestic economic policy, and (b) the success of the surge is taking the wind out of the sails of the anti-war issue.

We’re kind of where we were in 1972 when George McGovern ran an anti-war campaign, only to discover that — once Nixon started “Vietnamization” and ended the draft — the peace movement has lost its oomph.

July 24, 2008

McCain attacks keep surging

Having launched an offensive, the McCain campaign continues its steady drumbeat of attacks against Obama for his opposition to the surge in Iraq. A press release from the campaign this morning notes that Obama will be interviewed tonight on NBC News and points out:

[W]hile Barack Obama was trying to score political points in the Democratic primaries by calling the surge a failure, NBC News was reporting the progress being made in Iraq because of the surge.

The McCain press office provides three video clips of Obama criticizing the surge on NBC. Jan. 10, 2007, Obama says the surge will make things worse in Iraq:

July 18, 2007, Obama says the surge hasn’t worked:

Nov. 11, 2007, Obama says the surge is “potentially worsening” the situation in Iraq:

Obama may be able to defend, but he clearly cannot deny, his opposition to the surge.

July 22, 2008

Good news for troops in Iraq

The celebrity hooters are coming!

Heidi Montag says her late stepbrother — who fought in Iraq and Afghanistan — has inspired her to visit the Middle East to perform for U.S. troops.
“My brother was an airborne ranger in Afghanistan and Iraq,” the Hills star tells Extra in a new interview. “It’s very important to me and important to Spencer to support the troops and go over there.”
Montag’s stepbrother, Eric O’Hara, 24, who was a veteran of combat missions in Iraq and Afghanistan, died in an accident in March at the Steamboat Springs, Colo., hotel where he worked.
While Montag and Pratt are eagerly planning their trip — they may be getting a little help with travel arrangements from friend Meghan McCain, the daughter of presumptive Republican presidential nominee John McCain.

I’m sure the troops will stand up and salute — she’ll get a reception that makes Obamamania seem lame.
July 22, 2008

Obama: ‘Don’t ask me tough questions!’

AllahPundit catches Obama at his favorite game, trying to avoid giving a straight answer:

Q: If you had to do it over again, knowing what you know now, would you support the surge?
A: No, because, keep in mind that…
Q: You wouldn’t?
A: Keep in mind… These kinds of hypotheticals are very difficult. Hindsight is 20/20. But I think that, what I’m absolutely convinced of, is that at that time we had to change the political debate because the view of the Bush administration at that time was one that I just disagreed with.

Obama refuses to defend his earlier outspoken opposition to the surge. Rather, he wants to debate “the view of the Bush administration at that time.” In other words, “Never mind that I was wrong, in a way that brings into question my judgment of military affairs. This election is about giving the people a chance to vote against a third Bush term.”

The Harvard-educated Obama has the quality of intellectuals that most annoys ordinary Americans: A preference for abstraction over reality, for words over action. His desire to “change the political debate” is more important to him than the obvious truth that, despite his opposition, the surge stabilized the situation in Iraq.

And yet liberals bash Bush because he has been reluctant to admit his mistakes . . .

July 22, 2008

The logic of war

In reading John McCain’s op-ed column that was rejected by the New York Times, I was struck by this paragraph:

I am also dismayed that [Obama] never talks about winning the war — only of ending it. But if we don’t win the war, our enemies will. A triumph for the terrorists would be a disaster for us. That is something I will not allow to happen as president.

That’s the nub of it. It is one thing to oppose war before the shooting starts. Once the war begins, however, the only choices are victory or defeat — glory or dishonor.

The possibility of defeat is among the reasons why war should be avoided if possible. I am reminded of Nicias, the Athenian general who argued against undertaking the fateful Sicilian expedition in the Pelopponesian War but who, once the decision was made to undertake the expedition, insisted that it be made with all available force. Athens could afford the expedition, but could not afford defeat.

John McCain has indicated his disdain of Bush’s jocular “f— Saddam, we’re taking him out” attitude — an attitude he says the president manifested a year before the invasion. But McCain has steadfastly insisted that, if we were going to fight in Iraq, we make the fight full-strength. Fight to win, or don’t fight at all.

Obama considers defeat an acceptable outcome; McCain doesn’t. This is the real difference.