« We Will Decisively Win in Iraq...in 2008 - Part I | Main | Why the US Will Still be the Only Superpower in 2030 »


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference We Will Decisively Win in Iraq...in 2008 - Part II:

» dictionary from dictionary
dictionary Your society will be sought by people of taste and refinement. [Read More]


Chuck the Lucky

The media is not done yet. They will be blaming the existence of deserts in Iraq on US imperialism by the end of the summer - just watch.


I hope you are right, Futurist, about it all coming together in 2008. But the 5th column bit is weak, and don't think it goes unnoticed that if 2008 isn't the magic year you have a convenient scapegoat all teed up. This victim mentality conservatives take at the hands of the MSM is outright pathetic.

As a self-respecting liberal I can't frequent a site peddling such rhetoric, so good luck, and again, I do hope you are right about 2008.



You keep insisting that there is no fifth column, but so many other commenters on even this small blog exhibit such traits.

Just refer bak to wilsonkolb's comments in Part I of this article. How do you defend his opposition to even the Afghanistan War and his hope that the US economy fails? There are many other comments like this left throughout this blog.

How do you defend them? Or do you condemn them?


Your analysis is dead on. This place (I'm currently serving in Iraq) is not what the news would have you believe. There's progress every day. Surely it's no picnic and there are Soldiers and Marines dying, and while that's terrible, if it gets this mission accomplished and Future-Iraq is a beacon of democracy instead of a beacon of despotism and terror, all the sacrifices of these great men and women will not have been in vain. I hope your 2008 stablity date becomes a reality.


SGT Tom,

Thanks for your service. The sacrifices you make now will benefit humanity for decades to come. Rarely has so much been owed by so many to so few.

Hang in there, there are just two more years to go *if* the fifth column in America does not succeed in suppressing any good news from Iraq. I think the troops should be aware of how much some in America are doing to undermine them.


Sigh...I said I would move on but I came back because I'm curious what your response would be.

I don't think we can continue this argument because you want me to disprove with facts an opinion you hold that is impervious to facts.

You make the following propositions:

1) America stands for a, b, and c

2) Anyone opposed to a, b, and c is therefore against America and mounting a 5th column.

I can't enter into this argument because

1) I don't think America stands for your a, b, and c- I think it stands for d, e, and f.

2) I don't have a problem with people who are opposed to d, e, and f, and far from seeing people who disagree with me as some kind of 5th column I see your views as integral to America itself.

I don't defend or condemn much of the drivel that flows on blogs, on the right or the left. That drivel IS America. This vile speech is the very kind of thing that fascists won't allow. In America we give it sunlight because we are confident it will wither in the face of reason and human decency.

You asking me to disprove your idea that the moron voicing infantile rants on your blog is emblematic of a vast left-wing conspiracy is like asking me to disprove that the butterfly flapping its wings in your backyard caused Hurricane Katrina. I can't prove for sure one isn't linked to the other, but it's highly unlikely.

In sum, I can't get on board with your inflexible worldview. All I can say is if people with this inflexibility ever attain power in this country, I will mount a 5th column. (Joke!)



Yet those so-called "liberals" say so many anti-American things, and the comments here alone show that they greatly outnumber those, like yourself, who discuss rationally.

Check this out, where Randi Rhodes (who has called for the assassination of the President, is openly siding with those who fight us in Iraq. She also offers no suggestions on how to win the war on terror, but merely opposes everything we do.

Or this, where an extremist states that the US should not have borders, because US wealth should be shared with Hispanics, since 'Republicans hate Latinos'.

Tell us how this is not anti-American. Remember, more and more Americans are convinced of the existence of a fifth column as a result of such displays, something that most Americans did not even suspect before.

I think you will tire of defending the growing number of extremists that make your party look bad, and you will distance yourself from them. Then, I think you will agree with me.


Our disagreement stems from the fact that I believe finding fault with America to be an intrinsically AMERICAN attribute. We are a country with profound PROTESTant roots, full of people breaking with established customs to form their own churches, organizations, etc. Our very system of federalism encourages states to do their own thing.

Is someone who decides he doesn't like the established Protestant churches in this country anti-Protestant? No! Because part of being a Protestant is finding your own relationship with God, and interpreting the bible how you want to.

Same thing with America. People on the right and left disagree with how the government is run, but unless you are advocating the termination of the Constutition you are free to criticize any and everything without being called anti-American. Find me someone on the left who wants to do away with the constitution and I will agree to call that person anti-American. Otherwise, every wacky idea you point to is okay in my book, even if on a personal level I find it repugnant.



You are wrong. Finding fault and OFFERING SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT THAT BENEFIT AMERICA is an intrinsically American attitude.

Offering no suggestions for improvement, while opposing anything and everything the US does to stop terrorists is anti-American activity.

The ACLU opposes the stopping of illegals entering the country. Now they are siding with non-Americans against the rights of Americans. Then again, the ACLU supports NAMBLA, so this hardly the most destructive thing they have done.

Anyway, 5 years ago, most Americans did not believe there was a fifth column. Now many do, and the numerous examples I pointed to occur every day to reconfirm this. The burden of proving this view wrong now rests on those who have conducted a pattern of activities that are harmful to America.


I would have to agree with GK. There is responsible dissent, and there treason and sedition that is cloaked in the mask of 'responsible dissent'.

And yes, some in America have crossed that line.


All the wackos you are talking about do have their own ideas for improving America. They may involve not waging unnecessary wars and letting unlimited immigrants into the country. So what? George Washington held the same attitude on these matters.

Here's the rub: If I felt strongly that our country was being undermined by a 5th column, I would be doing a lot more than just blogging about it. I would organize a movement and try to pass laws to throw these people in jail.

What laws do you propose for dealing with the ACLU? Do you want to send to jail that college kid hosting an ACLU booth at the county fair? Maybe you prefer the Chinese model, where you are free to speak your mind, but the moment you organize a protest of any kind they throw you in jail. Or we could be like France, where they've got a gazillion politically correct laws about what you can and can't say. Since the NSA is already tapping our phones, we can arrest those people who discuss the ACLU. What do you propose?



What do you have to say about the ACLU's position in support of NAMBLA?

Why not have issues like registry of child molestors, homosexuality taught in schools, etc. put up for a vote? Gay marriage was put up for a vote (as it should be).

The most American thing is to let the people decide.

The ACLU knows that if people are allowed to vote, their radical agenda would not get passed.

Here is more on the anti-Americanism of the far left, this time from Cox and Forkum.

Many, maybe more than half of all Americans, agree with me that there is an active fifth column in America.


GK, you don't appear to be reading anything I write regarding the logic of free speech. NAMBLA is a morally reprehensible organization, but free speech is free speech. In 1840, when the conventional scientific wisdom held that blacks were an inferior species to whites, inter-racial marriage was probably viewed as just as vile, if not more, than a NAMBLA relationship. If we had the speech laws you want people supporting eqaulity for blacks and freedom to marry would have been suppressed.

The problem here is that you think you know exactly what is moral and what isn't, like you are some kind of God. I fully admit to having no moral certainty about what is right or wrong, just strong preferences, and therefore we need free speech for our public morality to evolve.

Do I think NAMBLA relationships will be legal in 100 years down the line? Of course not. But there is likely something you and I do right now that we think is normal that most Americans in 2100 will wonder how we tolerated, much live we look back at slavery.

As for more than half of America agreeing with you- you are totally delusional. Liberal, ACLU-supporting Democrats are taking back the House, perhaps the Senate in the fall. Will this fifth column takeover occur in full view?



Don't distort what I said, a typical tactic of the left.

I said 8-10% of the US population is a fifth column. You distort that to suggest that I say all Democrats are fifth-cloumnists. They are not. And if you think all Democrats support the fanatical ACLU, you are far more delusional than any mainstream American could ever be.

Plus, you dodged the question about whether people should be allowed to vote on the issues that the ACLU is trying to ram through. Isn't voting the best form of American democracy and free speech? Or do you feel that they don't know what's best for them, and the ACLU does? If 75-80% voted against gay marriage, it should not occur, under the tradition of American voting and democracy. Period.

And the 'moral equivalence' argument of leftists, where they refuse to condemn terrorism, child molestation, etc. as 'wrong' is something 80-90% of Americans (including most Democrats) find repugnant. Statements like yours cause more moderates to defect to the GOP all the time.

Note that the Patriot Act was renewed 89-11 in the Senate, with most Democrats supporting it. So much for the fifth-column left having control of the Democratic party.

I personally don't think that the GOP will lose either chamber of congress. But that is besides the point. Even if Democrats win, if you think the ACLU is supported by all Democrats, by all means, say that loudly and often. You will do more to benefit the GOP than their own efforts ever could.


I think most Democrats are comfortable with the ACLU. I don't have facts to back that up, just that the only people who bash the ACLU are Republicans. Most people could care less about the ACLU.

Not everything gets a vote. To protect citizens from fanatics, the Founding Fathers wrote in a Bill of Rights that cannot be abridged by any majority short of actually amending the constutition.

Racist rednecks do not have a right to keep blacks out of public schools even if they have a majority vote. Nor can latte liberals in Northern California take away the right to bear arms. We live in a country that protects the right to be in the minority on key issues.

You are bringing up a constitutional question regarding gay marriage- does the 14 amendment clause of equal protection under the law apply to this issue, or does it not? It's a legitimate debate. Some judges think so, others don't.

I don't know where you get moral equivalence. I do condemn terrorism and child molestation, and I support candidates and policies to combat these problems.

Surely you acknowledge that the public sense of what is "moral" has evolved positively over time. It is good that our system of government has built-in mechanisms to accomodate our growing morality. What, do you think we've reached the end, and we know exactly what is right and what is wrong? We don't. And that's why we need free speech, to keep the process going.


The MSM is so intent on keeping a Conservative base out of the White House in 2008 that I sincerely doubt the upscale nature of this analysis will reach American eyes. Expect the MSM to focus on the negative in 2006 and 2008 elections to derail Republicans from Congress. Then expect the Democrats (if indeed, God Forbid, they do win) to utilize the very same instruments the Bush Administration has been using in Iraq. In this way the Democrats can claim the glory if the Bush Administration for Iraq wins or blame the Republicans if it fails. The key is for Americans to see through MSM and Democratic Party duplicity and keep them from attaining power. The only Democratic Party agenda is to perpetuate secular and moral relativity in America. That is bad for America.



Yes, I agree. If the media was even neutral in their Iraq reporting, we would have won already.

However, the data is trending well, and the MSM/far left has used up just abotu every trick they have. Plus, I think some Iraqi bloggers will rise up and blog about how things are improving in Iraq, and counterattack the Western media by 2008.

Brian Coughlan

The only Democratic Party agenda is to perpetuate secular and moral relativity in America. That is bad for America.

I take it from your comment, that you have some religous bedrock that morality should be based on?

Lets hear it. I'd love to hear what the author of the site, a believer in "The singularity", a sort of technological "rapture", has to say about it. Should be a hoot:-)


The 'victory' of the Vietnam era by the journalist hounds brought the neosocialists to power.

The PLAM (political, legal, academic, media) infiltration and concentration was funded by the subsequent 1974 Omnibus Budget Act, which removed Nixons impoundment of Congressional funds (he could stop 'em cold) and instantly created the lobby industry of K Street.

Now consider interlocking boards of directors (Eisenhowers 'military-industrial' complex) and the industry of Newspeak. Add in the Saudi IIIWB media conglomerate (second most powerful in the Western Hemisphere), and their intrusion into media companies, universities, legal firms, prison chaplains, political movements.

Keep yer powder dry!

Ian Ayers

What would victory in Iraq be? That we get all Iraqis to like us and promise not to try to harm Americans? That they adopt western values? That the country has a functioning democracy? What if that democracy puts into power a virulently anti-American, anti-Israeli government that is Iran’s closest ally and co-conspirator? It’s not an academic question since it seems that a truly representative government in Iraq would have to have a strong anti-American tilt. The U.S. backed government there now is already cozying up to Iran.

In the olden days a victor might do almost anything with the vanquished: Disarm them, destroy their cities, extract a heavy sum in gold, force them off their land, or even genocide. But never was there a demand that the vanquished be happy friends of the victor. That seems to have been Israel’s demand of the Palestinians since their total victory in 1967. Is it our goal in Iraq? Isn’t that hopeless and pointless?

Again, in simple terms, what would be victory in Iraq?


Read your whole rambling fantasy a couple of times. Still not sure how you arrive at your conclusions that Iraq will turn around in 6 years, but it does seam to come in multples of 6's. Rummy first said 6 weeks, doubt six months, now it's six years ... and I fully expect to read 6 decades here in 2008.

About the supposed 5th column, GWB does not = America. GWB = GWB, period. Being opposed to GWB's nation-building foreign adventures does not make one opposed to America, just sane.



Like most anti-Americans, it is clear that you want Iraq to fail, even if it means that 1 million innocents die. Leftists sure love it when colored people kill other colored people.

Plus, it appears you are opposed even to the War in Afghanistan. Is that true? Do you oppose even that?

Anyway, I see that you could not refute any of the points of the article, since your memorized talking points have not equipped you to do so. No wonder no Democrat has won 50% of the vote in a Presidential Election since 1976.

Purple Avenger

What laws do you propose for dealing with the ACLU?

How about eliminating the special dispensation they have to charge egregious legal fees when some govt agency loses a case when work on a case was done pro bono on ACLU's behalf by local lawyers?

This isn't exactly "nonprofit" behavior.

In effect, ALCU is feeding at the public trough even when it cost them nothing.

Steve Kraemer

would enjoy discussing the Iraqi economy possibilities more directly
can you please e mail
at skraemer1988@yahoo.com, please?

Steve Kraemer

would enjoy discussing the Iraqi economy possibilities more directly
can you please e mail
at skraemer1988@yahoo.com, please?


I find the debate between nate and gk very interesting. Obviously, I agree with gk, not because nate is wrong, but because logically, one must use reason to extrapolate some facts out of the volumes of information offered. I believe that Dems think they are the majority, as they often cite they are the majority, by voters will. Perhaps that is true, but I do believe they include illegals in their figures, for I also believe they will fight to make a law to allow illegals to vote. They already have the civil rights of a citizen the moment they arrive on our soil. If they wish to lose America, they need only lose this war, and hand it over to those that do not cherish what we fight to improve, not for ourselves, but for our families, and the next generation. I find it rather odd how one can spout rhetoric and declare the first ammendment as worth everything, but are unwilling to actually fight for what we all should love, our country. Words never saved a soul, but they have driven society to corruption. One might argue that words drive everything important, but acts are what bind me to my moral clarity, words are merely used to convince. A pity we do not listen, it is hard to listen while trying so hard to make a point of your own.

Peter Risbergs

The Democratic candidates need to remain Anti-Iraq until the primaries are over, and then expect a major change of rhetoric in an effort to hedge their bets in the event of a victory in Iraq. Expect them to criticize Bush and Rumsfelt and to take credit themselves for any improvement. This will be convoluted and difficult, but I see no alternative for them. If they continue to remain negative in the face of economic and political improvement, they could face electoral disaster against a rational opponent.



Great blog!

We're coming up on the halfway mark from when you wrote your prediction of a "decisive" win in Iraq in '08.

You still think we will win next year?

Personally, I think that the impressive GDP numbers cited in the original Brookings study are flawed. Iraq's GDP is artificial - it's bouyed by the massive U.S. government investment in infrastructure, schools, etc. How much of that impressive GDP number is is "self generated" by the Iraqis themselves?

Secondly, what do you feel about the prospects of a genuine democracy in a muslim country? Is Islam compatible with open, democratic society? It is a very powerful religion - in the middle east it holds tremendous sway in most people's day-to-day lives.

I sincerely hope you are right - I purchased a bunch of Iraqi currency in '03 and still hope to cash in, but I'm beginning to think it was a unwise investment.


We may pull troops out of Iraq in 2008, with the new president, but it would be foolish to expect all of our military to come home. First off, if we made an official timeline of when it's going to end, the terrorist organizations would simply wait until were gone and attack harder than ever, possibly regaining control from a new and unstable government. The best way to win in Iraq is to slowly pull out in accordance with the growth of the new government. We will still have troops over there past 2008.

Brian H

Unfortunately the lack up success in getting oil up and out and abroad has stifled that projected 2006 growth rate; it was closer to 6% than 16%. So things are tracking otherwise than F. projected. But many other events are occurring which have great impact. The two most significant, IMO, are the revelation of suppressed seismic records showing ~ 100 bn bbl of reserves in Anbar (making Sunnis 3X oil-richer per capita than other Iraqis), and the Surge/Awakening combo knockout punch to AQI, which shows signs of recurring with the Sadrists/Badr lot.

Brian H

"lack of success", of course.

Brian H

All that bumpf about criticism being good for America would maybe wash if the same standards were applied to ANYONE else, much less everyone else. The exclusive focus betrays the motivation.


Well its 2008 and guess what. The problem with warmongers; they are in denial.



I see that you are not capable of rebutting the actual points, and have no tactics other than unoriginal namecalling. Which specific aspect of the victory claim do you dispute? None, apparently.

That means that you know that the pro-US side has won, and that your side (the jealous anti-US side) has lost.

tee hee....


Tut tut, still can't handle a debate on its merits and resorting to censorship. Too bad.

You never did answer the "fifth columnist" question. What is your preferred method for dealing with the 30-40M fellow Americans that you despise?



What censorship? Didn't you just make yourself a liar (again) by the act of posting your comment here?

You never did answer the "fifth columnist" question. What is your preferred method for dealing with the 30-40M fellow Americans that you despise?

I did answer it. You just didn't like how the answer outsmarted and humiliated you.

The answer (again) is : Fifth columnists like you need to be encouraged to speak loudly and often. This incites middle America to vote against policies that the fifth column supports.

The great thing about extremists like you is that they always go too far, and inevitably court a backlash from the majority. Works every time.

I don't seek to harm them the way you seek to kill pro-US people (especially if they are people of color).

Plus, my prediction that the US would win in Iraq in 2008 was 100% RIGHT. It was a superb prediction, and a major post detailing the exact details of our comprehensive victory is coming up.

Even Obama and HRC have admitted that the Surge worked. You have collapsed in shambolic humiliation.

Tee hee.....

Until I do an updated post in Iraq's victory, study the reasons why your ideology is unattractive in nature.


What an interesting article. It's now 2010,so.........?



US leaves Iraq as Iran and Turkey trips over each other stepping in.

Very good victory fellas.



That we won in Iraq in 2008 does not preclude Obama destroying the progress in 2014.

In fact, the victory in Iraq was so total that Obama's efforts took 6 years to bear fruit, which is remarkable considering how much easier it is to destroy than to create.

Alas.... Americans voted for Obama, so they own the fruits of Obama..


GK: That we won in Iraq in 2008 does not preclude Obama destroying the progress in 2014.

Sure. And here we thought it was all about macrotrends leading to reliable predictions. Face it. The war never ended. The violence never ended. The political process shut out the Sunni minority, and led to an untenable situation.

The U.S. blew it when they invaded. They blew it when they claimed WMD as a justification for war. They blew it when they dismantled the Iraqi security forces. They blew it when they built a government without recognition of the problem of sectarian divisions. They blew it when they didn't have sufficient troops on the ground. These are the macrotrends that have undeniable consequences.



Face it. The war never ended. The violence never ended.

Gee, you have effectively said Obama sabotaged Iraq by pulling US troops out of there. On that point, I agree.

It was going in the right direction following our victory in 2008, but removal of troops undid the sacrifices made.

The U.S. blew it when......

Wrong. They had succeeded as of 2008 and success continued until 2011. The US blew it by electing Obama, who promptly sabotaged Iraq.

Your second paragraph contradicts your first.


GK: Wrong. They had succeeded as of 2008 and success continued until 2011.

Your claim was that it was a decisive victory *before* the next presidential election. It wasn't. The Americans withdrew according to the Bush Administration's timetable. The country remains divided on sectarian lines based on untenable colonial borders. The violence never stopped.



The violence did stop as of 2008. That it started up again in 2014 after Obama withdrew in 2011, is a separate crisis.

The proof of the decisive victory in 2008 is itself in the fact that ISIS only emerged 3 years after the departure of American troops. It took 3 years (2011-2014) to forment up a new crisis.

Iraq's WMDs were handed off to Syria, which is why even Obama wants to attack Bashar Assad (as this revelation would undo the lie that Iraq did not have WMDs, when in fact they handed them off to Assad).

untenable colonial borders.

Well, yes. That is the fault of Britain and France, from the 1920s..


GK: The violence did stop as of 2008.

Over ten thousand civilians died in 2008 due to sectarian violence. For scale, the U.S. has ten times the population, so that would be the equivalent of 100,000 dead, with bombs going off in Washington on a frequent basis. Five thousand died in 2009, four thousand in 2010 and 2011, hardly a stop in the violence.

GK: The proof of the decisive victory in 2008 is itself in the fact that ISIS only emerged 3 years after the departure of American troops.

Consider this: Each time the Americans tried to force their way into Sunni areas, they faced brutal combat, street-by-street. Fallujah was decimated. On the other hand, Sunni militants simply swept through without any effective resistance. The country is divided by sect, and only brute force can keep it together without a political solution. That's the macrotrend you ignore in your analysis.

GK: Iraq's WMDs were handed off to Syria, which is why even Obama wants to attack Bashar Assad (as this revelation would undo the lie that Iraq did not have WMDs, when in fact they handed them off to Assad).

There's no evidence of that, and a lot of evidence that indicates otherwise.

GK: Well, yes. That is the fault of Britain and France, from the 1920s.

If the borders are untenable, then there was no victory by definition.



Your own link shows a dramatic reduction in 2008, vs. 2007. Since I predicted victory in 2006 when deaths were at their peak, that was accurate.

You are applying a standard of there being no victory unless there are virtually zero deaths. That is absurd.

and a lot of evidence that indicates otherwise.

Oh really? What 'evidence' indicates that the WMDs were not handed off to Syria? Remember, Saddam used chemical weapons against both Iran and the Kurds.


GK: You are applying a standard of there being no victory unless there are virtually zero deaths.

No. Thousands of deaths a month from sectarian violence are not "virtually zero deaths". Frequent bombings in major cities is not a cessation of violence. There was never any victory because the war never ended.

GK: What 'evidence' indicates that the WMDs were not handed off to Syria?

We could start with the obvious. Syria had its own much more advanced weapons programs. They wouldn't want Saddam's inferior, degraded, dangerous to handle, and legally very hot weapons. It makes no sense.

Furthermore, records from the Saddam regime, including recordings of leadership meetings, make clear that Iraq had made every attempt to disarm and to show that they had disarmed.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment