Say It, Damn You: I Believe In Fairies!

The Fadhil brothers at IRAQ THE MODEL continue to act as loyal stooges for their neocon masters in Washington.

Today Mohammed looks at what he calls American mistakes in Iraq. It all sounds strangely familiar:

Perhaps America's biggest mistake was the hesitation in keeping up the strategy of preemptive war.

Yes, America used that strategy in Iraq but failed to go on, and instead of chasing terrorists, America stopped at Iraq and sat waiting for terrorists to come in.

Michael Ledeen could not have said it better! Mohammed also defends the decision to use minimal US troops, arguing that additional US troops would only have made things worse:

If we look back at the record of the war since April 2003 we'll see that adding more troops on the ground resulted only in making the enemy call for more reinforcements and the war kept getting more violent.

In fact, says Mo, there are already more US troops than needed. And anyway, Mo says, these guys have "no meaningful objective" but "to protect the political structure of post-Saddam Iraq". What about protection of civilians? Irrelevant.

In fact, Mo says it is "unfair" to expect the USA's huge military machine to fight a guerrilla war against nasty little insurgents (who BTW "depend on foreign support for money, training, technology and in some cases men"). The US military machine would be better employed doing what it does best: pre-emptive invasions!

Here's the logic, such as it is, according to Mo:

We all saw how Saddam's regime collapsed in two weeks and we learned then how fragile and weak that regime and similar regimes are. And we discovered how ridiculous and futile the rage and warnings of the "Arab and Muslim street" were.

The same thing can happen to Syria or Iran; there's every reason to believe that regimes and armies will fall apart and surrender in the same manner that we saw in Iraq, and few will volunteer to stop Asad or Ahmedinejad from falling.

When this happens it will recharge the war on terror with great momentum and then Syria and Iran will no longer serve as training camps and recreation resorts for terrorists. The entire region from Afghanistan to the Mediterranean will be a dangerous place for terrorists just like Iraq and Afghanistan are and terrorists will have to keep running and hiding and will not be capable of launching organized campaigns from secure bases.

By expanding the war on terror to engulf these major terror hideouts, the huge military force will once again resume playing its logical role as a hunter not as a target trying to defend itself against incoming enemies.

Like what happened with OIF, the price of the operation itself would be much lower than the price of waiting and when the troops finish their primary objectives the peoples of the liberated countries and the troops will have the advantage over the remaining terrorists who will have their finance and support network disrupted.

So there you have it. More wars to be fought, more people to be "liberated", so the "terrorists" can stay on the run just like they are today in Iraq and Afghanistan. Got it?

If you ever wonder how anyone in the USA can still support Bush, let the Fadhil brothers be the key to your enlightenment. Just look at where their target audience lives, and remember we are one month out from US mid-term elections:


PS: For newcomers, some background on the Fadhil brother's bizarre blog here.