home

Abizaid: "The insurgency will go on long [after] we are gone"

(Guest Post by Big Tent Democrat)

Yesterday I wrote about President Bush's citing General John Abizaid as saying "If we withdraw before the job is done, the enemy will follow us here." And in fact, General Abizaid said something much different. It is indeed a fascinating read about Abizaid from March 2005 on many levels. Specifically on what Bush discussed though, I want to excerpt at some length from two discussions Gen. Abizaid had with soldiers in Iraq:

Capt. John Benoit, an artilleryman from the Louisiana National Guard, looked Gen. John Abizaid squarely in the eye and asked bluntly: How's the war going? . . . The insurgency, Abizaid acknowledged, has grown worse over the past year. [Remember this was March 2005!!] There's no defensiveness on that point, though, as he segues into a discussion of why the insurgents--particularly the radical Islamists--must be confronted. "What we can't allow to happen is guys like Abu Musab Zarqawi to get started," Abizaid told Benoit and the soldiers of the 1-141 Field Artillery. "It's the same way that we turned our back when Hitler was getting going and Lenin was getting going. You just cannot turn your back on these types of people. You have to stand up and fight."

. . . A day after he met with the Louisiana guardsmen, Abizaid flew to Al Anbar province to bid goodbye to Maj. Gen. John Sattler before his force is replaced with a new rotation of marines. Generals across Iraq have been talking about the need to have Iraqi forces take on an increased role in fighting insurgents. On the wall of the marines' conference room hangs a sign quoting Lawrence of Arabia. "Better the Arabs do it tolerably than you do it perfectly," it reads in part. "It is their war, and you are to help them, not to win it for them . . . . " Abizaid drove home the same point. "The hardest thing your successors need to do is take their hand off the wheel. What we have to do is set the Iraqis in front to fight the insurgency," he told the marines. "The insurgency will go on long past the time we are gone."

How would the insurgency go on if the insurgents follow us home? It would not of course. Abizaid did not mean what Bush means. Yet again the President of the United States chooses to lie to the American People. It is now old hat. But Abizaid is an interesting figure and there is more to discuss about his statements. I'll do so in extended copy.

Here is the passage Bush relied upon:

"We didn't have the guts to get out in front of the fascists or the Bolsheviks. This time we have to get in front. This time we have a chance. If we don't fight this fight here, we will fight it at home. I would ask you to please talk to your captains, young gunnery sergeants, and tell them we need them. We need them to fight that long war.

Fight THIS. Islamic extremism is what Abizaid is referring to. Not the Iraqi insurgency, which, Abizaid says, will be here "long after we are gone." And Abizaid does not equate the Iraqi insurgency with Islamic extremisim. Nor does he think of the sectarian violence in Iraq as part of Islamic extremism:

In policy circles, there continues to be debate about the nature of the Iraqi insurgency--the role of disaffected Sunnis, of Iraqi nationalists, and of foreign jihadists. The most important enemy, Abizaid argues, is Iraqis who have come to follow the brand of extremist Islamic fascism preached by Zarqawi or al Qaeda. Those are the insurgents, Abizaid argues, on whom the military must focus. "There are all kinds of complexities," the general says. "But . . . the point is, there is a main enemy in the theater, and it is al Qaeda-inspired, [with an] ideological desire to dominate the region."

Of course, Abizaid has been quite wrong in much of his assesssment from a year and a half ago. He has admitted it. He has admitted his mistakes. But President Bush will rely on Abizaid's mistakes for his own political purposes.

The fact is President Bush took a statement from General Abizaid from March 2005 distorted it, pulled it out of context, ignored all the statements around it and then pile don some outright mendacitiies to top it off.

Seems to me that is how we got started into this mess. So Bush has "stayed the course" - especially on the lying part.

< Huge Award in False Confessions Case | Hawaii High Court: Can't Fire Solely for Past Conviction >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    For obvious reasons, military officers are not allowed to speak the whole truth. Though not as bad as that of Bush, much of these statements are still nonsense. We turned our back when Lenin got going? Like the US military was supposed to go and re-install the tsar? Once again I will post the most relevant quote from a senior officer concerning U.S. overseas military involvement: "I believe that if we had and would keep our dirty, bloody, dollar-soaked fingers out of the business of these [Third World] nations so full of depressed, exploited people, they will arrive at a solution of their own... And if unfortunately their revolution must be of the violent type because the "haves" refuse to share with the "have-nots" by any peaceful method, at least what they get will be their own, and not the American style, which they don't want and above all don't want crammed down their throats by Americans." General David Shoup, former US Marine Commandant,1966

    Re: Abizaid: "The insurgency will go on long [afte (none / 0) (#2)
    by John Mann on Fri Sep 01, 2006 at 11:40:39 AM EST
    We in the West need instant gratification, and the war on Iraq has come up pretty short in that respect. These "insurgents" are in it for the long haul, just as Americans would be if the U.S. was invaded and occupied by a foreign power. The difference is that if this were happening in the States, the "insurgents" would be called "freedom fighters" or "the resistance" - and if they sawed off a few heads, they'd be considered heroes. The U.S. can't "win" the war on Iraq, just as the Russians couldn't win the war on Afghanistan, and the price of this fool's errand is far too high.

    Re: Abizaid: "The insurgency will go on long [afte (none / 0) (#3)
    by spoonful on Fri Sep 01, 2006 at 04:36:36 PM EST
    Just as water seeks its own level, so will Iraq eventually stabilize as the Balkans, once it is partitioned into separate Kurdish, Sunni and Shia states. Natural law says that the terms of such partition should be negotiated by the respective parties. If such

    Re: Abizaid: "The insurgency will go on long [afte (none / 0) (#4)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Sep 01, 2006 at 06:15:12 PM EST
    Big Tent writes:
    How would the insurgency go on if the insurgents follow us home? It would not of course.
    Big Tent, could you explain that? Are you saying that if they follow us home, none will be left there? Can you explain your basis for that conclusion? Some it looks totally irrational and unproveable to me.

    Re: Abizaid: "The insurgency will go on long [afte (none / 0) (#5)
    by Sailor on Fri Sep 01, 2006 at 06:31:20 PM EST
    why would insurgents follow us home? It's a civil war, and all the factions including the few AQ folks there are fighting each other. We could probably step out of the way and nobody'd notice.