Fool Me Once, Twice, Three Times....

June 7, 2007 

There’s an old Chinese proverb that warns, “Fool me once, shame on you; Fool me twice, shame on me”.   

In it’s desperation to find a panty-ass way out of Iraq, the U.S. government is about to allow itself to be fooled for the third, fourth or fifth time. 

And shame on all the so-called “leaders” of this country who talk big and act little. 

It was recently reported that “U.S. military commanders are talking with Iraqi militants about cease-fires and other arrangements to try to stop the violence”.   

Lieutenant General Raymond T. Odierno, Commanding General of Multinational Corps – Iraq, waxes that, “We are talking about cease-fires, and maybe signing some things that say they won't conduct operations against the government of Iraq or against coalition forces”. 

Oh come on...this sounds frighteningly familiar. 

Let’s think about the lessons of “cease-fires”. 

On January 27, 1973 the U.S. enacted an in-place cease-fire (both sides’ forces would hold their current positions on the ground) in Vietnam following peace talks in Paris. 

Of course the first part of this agreement called for the U.S. to withdraw its forces from Vietnam and the release of U.S. POWs.  Only after the withdrawal of U.S. forces would reunification of Vietnam be "carried out step by step through peaceful means” and “further negotiations”.  

Despite this “agreement, South Vietnam fell as U.S. troops were being lifted from the embassy roof.  As Henry Kissinger explains it, South Vietnam fell as a result of...“a massive North Vietnamese invasion, in blatant violation of existing agreements, to which the nations that had endorsed these agreements turned their backs”. 

So much for that “cease-fire”. 

And then there was the 2001 “cease-fire” in Afghanistan. 

As I wrote in 2004: 

During the initial stages of the Afghan invasion in 2001, American forces bottled-up the Taliban in the White Mountain region of Tora Bora on the Pakistani border.  Taking a break to sip a cool one at the 19th hole, the American commanders honored a 48 hour cease-fire...arranged between the Taliban and the Northern Alliance.   

By the end of those 48 hours, the Taliban leadership had escaped destruction by slipping over the border into Pakistan and...regrouping.  Three months later, the Pakistani military was convinced that it had al-Qaeda number two, Ayman al-Zawahri, cornered.  So, Pakistan declared a cease-fire with the al-Qaeda leadership to discus surrender terms.  Al-Zawahri used this opportunity to slip back over the border from Pakistan into Afghanistan. 

Then, in April of 2004 when that Tattoo-looking Iraqi “cleric” Moqtada al-Sadr attacked U.S. forces, “American commanders reacted with overwhelming resources and vows to end Sadr’s insurgency.  But, cowered by the thought of offending the peaceful Muslims with an attack on the Imam Ali Mosque, the Americans agreed to cease-fire talks that afforded Sadr the opportunity to, ‘build his militia and advance himself as the authentic leader of Shiite resistance to American military occupation’.” 

Although by August of 2004, U.S. forces were “Poised on Thursday to finish Sadr’s reign of Najaf, the Americans agreed to a cease-fire on Friday. Coincidently, little Tattoo sought the cease-fire after his home had been bombed and he had been wounded the previous day.  By 4:00 pm EDT on Friday, Sadr renounced ‘Iraq’s dictatorial interim government’ and the cease-fire”. 

Once again, we find the U.S. “leadership” mumbling about a “cease-fire”...and once again, little Tattoo is hell-bent to murder our troops.   

The AP reports that, “The renegade cleric Muqtada al-Sadr urged the Iraqi army and police to stop cooperating with the United States and told his guerrilla fighters to concentrate on pushing American forces out of the country... al-Sadr...encouraged his followers to attack only American forces”. 

Even funnier is the fact that the U.S. “leadership” thinks it can call a “cease-fire” and negotiate a “peace” but that same “leadership” isn’t even certain where one of the biggest impediments to peace (al-Sadr) is...” The U.S. military says Sadr fled to Iran in January before the Baghdad security plan was launched, but aides to the young cleric insist he never left Iraq.”  Supposedly, al-Sadr is now back in Iraq. 

Let’s really laugh now... White House National Security Council spokesman Gordon Johndroe said "Now that he's back from four months in Iran, we hope he'll play a constructive role in the future of Iraq.” 

Each time the U.S. should have killed, instead declared a “cease-fire”.  And with each “cease-fire”, al-Sadr regrouped, strengthened his position and killed more Americans. 

At this point in the Iraq “war”, a call for a “cease-fire” is nothing but code language for a total surrender.  It is a coward’s way of “cutting and running” under the pseudonym of “victory. 

Cease-fires do not work until one side of a conflict is defeated and I fear that a de facto U.S. defeat is here. 

One can forgive the current U.S. Legislature for cowardice...they are liberals.  But if the most hawkish warrior in D.C. is the President...all is lost. 

Our President thinks that “war” is some gentlemanly sport guided by the equivalent of “The Marquis of Queensbury Rules” and sadly, he has his sycophantic inner-circle and commanders believing it also. 

Our enemies know better.


return to column archives

home - columns - images - bio - contact - links is proudly listed as a RightPage

All content copyright 2000 - 2025