The things you read on the internet.

The left wing UK Prospect magazine has a long article here, stating that the UN approved coalition of troops in Iraq essentially have won the war.

Huh?

Even I wasn’t aware of that first fact:

 The UN approved the coalition’s role in May 2003, and the mandate has been renewed annually since then, most recently this August.

The UN approved the US/UK/Georgian/Australian/Polish/Korean/etc. mission in Iraq?

Who wudda known?

But I was sort of aware of the second fact. The war is over, Bush won, and only a prolonged and murderous mopping up exercize has to be done.
Back in June, StrategyPage whispered that the war in Iraq was over, with most of the Baathists supporting terror either dead or captured or fled, with the civilians deciding for various reasons to either flee or change sides.

Then last week, Greyhawk at Mudville Gazette said the same thing.

And now Osama says the same thing.

Horrors. Does Katy Couric know this? Actually, yes...if you saw her reports. As for the rest of the media, read Michael Yon on the failure of too many papers to send reporters.

But isn’t this like VietNam, where the freedom fighters are popular? Well, maybe not:

Meanwhile, the other side in this war are among the worst people in global politics: Baathists, the Nazis of the middle east; Sunni fundamentalists, the chief opponents of progress in Islam’s struggle with modernity; and the government of Iran. Ethically, causes do not come much clearer than this one.

The rest of the Prospect article might open the eyes of those who think the Move On guys and Chomsky know what they are talking about .

It says that the Sunni Baathists assumed Bush was Carter. When Bush didn’t blink, they assumed Bush was Johnson and manipulated the press/congress with massacres. But that’s not working either. Indeed, it turned most Muslims against them: The average Muslim was horrified at children being killed in the name of their religion, and turned against the extremists.

Who’s left to fight? Virgin loving Saudi Jihadis and Iranian supplied gangs and a lot of local criminals.Put it this way: When even the Washington Post reports they are losing, and  Osama is complaining, then maybe something hopeful is going on.

Will the war continue? Yes, but at a low level:

Iranian-made rockets will continue to kill British and American soldiers. Saudi Wahhabis will continue to blow up marketplaces, employment queues and Shia mosques when they can. Iraqi criminals will continue to bully their neighbourhoods…
But in terms of national politics, there is nothing left to fight for. The only Iraqis still fighting for more than local factional advantage and criminal dominance are the irrational actors ….Even today, for all the bloodshed it causes, the violence hardly affects the bigger picture: suicide bombs go off, dozens of innocents die, the Shias mostly hold back and Iraq’s tough life goes on.

But the Philippines has lived for 50 years with various “insurgencies” and thugs (who often overlap), because most of the communists and Muslims now are willing to work with the government. In the meanwhile, most of us live nicely, things are improving, there is a growing middle class, and even the farmers now have cellphones and electricity, and use microcredit to buy high yield seeds, fertilizer, and handplows.
That is why I have written before that Iraq is not VietNam, but Luzon.

And apparantly even Hillary is willing to pretend she just can’t stop the war. Bush, figuring she’ll win, has filled her in on the details, and she’s smart enough to know to play her cards close to her chest with the looney left.

After all, a president has to deal with reality, not a Chomskyite out of touch left wing fantasy world.

———————–

Nancy Reyes is a retired physician living in the Philippines. Her website is Finest Kind Clinic and Fishmarket. She has a son in law in Iraq.

Be Sociable, Share!