Webloggin » Does Unwillingness to Employ Force Demonstrate Weakness?

According to AlJazeera, “Lieutenant-General Raymond Odierno said that about 80 per cent of those fighting US forces were thought to be ready to join Iraq’s political process.” Think about that for a minute. If true, that leaves only 20% of the bad guys to deal with. That sounds manageable to me. But what guarantees do we have that the 80% is an accurate number and that they will keep their word?

He said: “We’re talking about ceasefires and maybe signing some things that say they won’t conduct operations against the government of Iraq or against coalition forces.

US commanders hope to convince local Iraqi resistance groups to split from groups such as al-Qaeda in Iraq.

Ben Shapiro at Family Security Matters Surrender to Iran?, has a different take:

Middle Eastern politics works on the basis of force. Threat of force can achieve policy goals; unwillingness to employ force demonstrates weakness to the enemy. The Bush Administration has recognized this basic truth since the beginning of the decade. Yet on Monday, the Administration thrust that truth aside in favor a listless foreign policy based on the wild hope that somehow, some way, we can all just get along.

What happened last Monday? Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker met with Iranian envoy Hassan Kazemi Qomi in the Iraqi Green Zone, while two Iranian-American scholars — “Haleh Esfandiari and Kian Tajbakhsh; peace activist Ali Shakeri –all three being held on suspicions of spying or acting against state interests. Also a fourth, Parnaz Azima, a reporter with Radio Farda, a joint project of Voice of America and RFE/RL — has been charged with disseminating propaganda and is free on bail awaiting trial.”

One British consultant in Iraq has four body guards — all five were kidnapped. I wonder if that ratio of 1 to 4 is the norm in Iraq? A Shiite militia is being blamed. Translated, that means Muqtada al-Sadr’s Mahdi Army or one of the rogue groups that have splintered off from Sadr … possibly operating under the influence of Iranian intelligence. But don’t jump yet, Iranians in Iraq are also being blamed for the British-napping. The incident is described as “very strange.”

The United States is being blamed for the killing of Palestinians in Lebanon by al-Qaeda terrorists. Somebody please explain this to me.

Now the Palestinians (translated Hamas) are emboldened, according to WND:

Washington’s announcement of talks with Iraqi militants about a cease-fire arrangement is a “big victory” for the insurgency and demonstrates the U.S. now recognizes the legitimacy of so-called terror groups,

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates has confirmed plans for a long-term American troop presence in Iraq.

“What I’m thinking in terms of is a mutual agreement where some force of Americans — mutually agreed with mutually agreed missions — is present for a protracted period of time,” he said, comparing the scenario to the continued U.S. military presence in South Korea.”

This should not be a surprise to anyone, but I’m not sure how the 80% of insurgents who are planning to cooperate with the coalition will take this news.

As I said weeks ago, the U.S. will negotiate with anyone in order to get out of Iraq.

While you were out:

Too Bad - President Bush has torn the conservative coalition asunder. Peggy Noonan
It’s Official: George Bush IS an idiot!, Texas Fred

Osama’s House of Horrors at FrontPageMag

[Discuss This Article With Debbie Hamilton at Right Truth]