Maybe I should get into the stock prediction business.
As I fully expected, some on the right are in full throated howl over my suggestion that we alter our mission in Iraq. The predictable response of the slack jawed yawpers doesn’t necessarily depress me, although I am not insensate to the barbs . Their personal attacks (in lieu of answering my points with intelligent counters) reveals how truly bereft they are of any understanding of what it will take for the efforts of our troops in tamping down the violence to bear fruit.
Also as I predicted, the left has attacked me for not advocating a complete withdrawal. There are also those who have “congratulated” me for “finally” seeing it there way.
Frankly, that’s hogwash. For more than a year I have been expressing my belief that the Administration’s strategy was not working, that despite the brilliant performance of our troops, any military gains made against he insurgency were lost because of the political inertia that even our best efforts could not affect. The Iraqi government was failing to take the steps necessary to reconcile the various factions and create a viable, democratic state. Just because people vote doesn’t mean democracy is in place. The rifts and divisions in that bloody land are standing in the way of uniting the people behind the idea of nationhood. In order for the idea of “nation” to take hold, there must be an accounting of both ancient history and recent history. And before Iraq can become a nation, Sunnis and Shias will have to look at each other and see a fellow countryman rather than an oppressor or a threat.
Only by accepting the concept of power sharing will the Shia government in Iraq succeed. And only when they are convinced that the Shias are not out to destroy them will the Sunni insurgents lay down their arms and join the government. The sad fact is that the United States military – as bravely as they have carried out their mission – can only create the conditions where this is possible; they cannot unite the factions through any conceivable military action.
What has changed? Clearly, the government of Prime Minister Maliki doesn’t have time to affect the changes necessary that would lead to this reconciliation. By that I mean our efforts at improving security (the largest but by no means the only aspect of our new strategy) will only last as long as we have sufficient troops on the ground to carry out that mission. And the entire point of my article was simple; time is running out. Blame it on the press. Blame it on the Democrats. Blame it on Elvis. The fact is the American people have had enough. And what little support there is for our mission in Iraq will only lessen the closer we get to the 2008 election.
I blame Bush for this. He has been AWOL in using the Presidency as a soap box to consistently, patiently, and honestly explain why we’re in Iraq, what the stakes are, who the enemy is, and why we must fight. His inexplicable silences over the last 4 years – sometimes lasting weeks – allowed the political opposition to hijack the war narrative and twist it for their own political purposes. Every six weeks or so, the President would embark on a 3 or 4 day PR offensive, appearing mostly at military bases and talking up the war. It was never enough. And we’re paying the price for this PR blunder with an American public who have been frustrated with the lack of progress in defeating the insurgency as well as the stalling tactics of the Maliki government.
For in the end, that is where the problem lies. The Prime Minister, the major parties in Iraq (SCIRI, Dawa, the Sadrists) have expressed little interest and less desire in affecting the changes in power sharing, de-Baathification, amnesty, reconciliation, and promised constitutional changes that would alter the political climate and start the Iraqis down the road toward a peaceful society. And again, there is nothing the US military can do to push the government off of square one and get this process moving.
And lest anyone misunderstand me (or, for those of you who simply didn’t bother to read what I wrote) I am not advocating anything more than a token withdrawal of American troops. And that would be as a consequence of cutting a deal with Democrats in Congress who almost certainly would insist on some kind of cutback of troops if they were to sign on to a redefined mission of fighting al-Qaeda, protecting the Iraqi borders (including the Iran-Iraq border), and preventing a humanitarian catastrophe. Only the significant presence of US troops will prevent the massacre of Sunnis by Shias hell bent on revenge as well as those who wish to make Iraq “Sunni free.” That same presence would probably also prevent a general Middle East war as well.
So those who believe I was signing on to the Democrats plan for phased withdrawal are simply wrong. In fact, I think it would be a blunder that would make the blunders made the previous 4 years look tame by comparison. Only those wishing the absolute worst for the United States, Iraq, and the Middle East would advocate such a course of action. Better that we maintain a strong presence in Iraq and allow the various factions to work out their own solutions to the problems facing the country.
My point about dealing with the Democrats is simple common sense. If we are going to stay in Iraq with the numbers of troops necessary to help train the Iraqi army, kill al-Qaeda, and protect the Sunnis, the Democrats are going to have to be aboard so that the political will for such a mission can coalesce and form around both Congressional and White House leadership. For this to happen, Bush will have to make the first move. I’m not expecting much even if Bush were to wear sackcloth and ashes and knee walk up the Capitol steps. But given the alternative – ultimate Democratic success down the road in pushing arbitrary timetables for a withdrawal of the bulk of our troops – what has the President got to lose?
Nothing I’ve written here or in my other post is very original. The political conditions in Iraq are well known if you read enough reports – both from the media and our own government. And the change in mission has been advocated by both Republicans and Democrats in and out of government. I don’t claim authorship only conversion to a point of view.
I guess the overarching point is that our divisions are killing us. Someone, somewhere has to reach out and find the common ground so that we can avoid an unmitigated disaster in Iraq. Judging by some of the comments here and elsewhere, I find it difficult to place much faith in that prospect.
ADDENDUM:
You may note that I have avoided the term “victory” when redefining the mission. Since I believe our original mission has already failed, trying to define “victory” would be an exercise in futility. Better to describe the mission as “staving off disaster.” That would be accurate.
4:48 pm
You make some very good points here. I believe it is fair to acknowledge the plan approved by President Bush for the post-war occupation was whole fully inadequate (and, yes, it’s true that the intelligence consensus did not see the situation coming, but he is the President and “the buck” stops with him. Furthermore, his own political skills, if the truly ever existed, have long since abandoned him. If Iraq is completely lost history will judge George Bush’s part in it.
The Democrats, or at least the leadership, seem not to appreciate, or care not about, the truly disastrous circumstances that are likely to result if the United States were to withdraw at this moment. The situation on the ground is indeed far ground ideal to put it lightly. Indeed I think it’s reasonable to conclude that the situation in South Vietnam before the Hanoi’s invasion less chaotic. However the fact is withdrawing is not, based on history, and what is going on currently on the ground likely to end the conflict nor cause al-Qaeda and it’s allies to view the the US in something other then anything less then a “paper-tiger.”
I fear there may be a unbridgeable gap between the “hawks” and “doves” as there was in the last days of the Vietnam War. Democratic leaders certainly have been careful not to make predictions as to the post-war period, which is probably an indication they intend to lay blame against the George W. Bush for any said occurrences. While I would like to think that Republicans arguing on ethical grounds against a troop withdraw, I doubt that such a position would play with the war-weary American people.
5:14 pm
Hi Rick,
Since you see the Shiite/Sunni divide as essentially intractable, wouldn’t a better definition for continued troop presence be “staving of the seemingly inevitable disaster”?
Yet it may be that the US military can do something to change that. Withdraw.
I know it sounds counter-intuitive but consider that the US presence, which will always be countered by active meddling by other neighbours, especially Iran, acts to keep the current Iraqi political staus quo relatively stable. By withdrawing, the US could create a space for a non-sectarian coalition united by a wish to see the occupation leave and to reassert Iraqi sovereignty free of both US and Iranian influence is possible. There have been signs of such a coalition within the muddle of playing both ends against the middle that comprises Iraqi politics, and I’ve written about some of them in recent weeks. I’m working up a speculative post which will try to tie it all together but I want to think it over some.
Regards, C
5:23 pm
Sir
You say that Pres Bush has not spent the last 4yrs patiently explaining the reason we are in Iraq. This is not true. He and his Admin spokepersons have been extremely busy explaining why we are in Iraq.
The trouble is, their reasons never hold up and have to be replaced by new reasons every few months. I will not detail the shifting and squirming that has occurred; it has been said already many times.
And for all the fine work of many American soldiers, our military leadership was severely lacking from the time of the original invasion. What real commander would have had the 4th Armored Division sitting on ships in the Med while the battle for Baghdad was fought?
The decision to administer Iraq through the Defense Dept instead of the State Dept (where the planning, such as it was, was done) was made in the 30days prior to the invasion.
Garbage in, garbage out.
And yes, I mean to say that the present Admin is garbage.
Thanx
PapawJohn
5:35 pm
If we had 3 or 4 years and the political will to maintain troop levels where they are now, then we would have a real chance to make the difference.
Warbloggers like to make assumptions like that one. When they’re predicting the future things are very clear. But when those predictions don’t come true and things turn out the opposite of what they predicted it’s a “perfect stormâ€.
A perfect storm of almost non-existent public support for our war aims coupled with US pressure on the Iraqis to shoehorn radical changes in their society, their constitution, and their politics into an unrealistic and inevitably, an impossible time frame will ultimately doom our efforts to take any military success achieved via the surge and turn it into progress on the political front.
Who could possibly have known? Oh well, won a few elections and got those tax cuts passed. Heh indeed
6:01 pm
Either instapundit linked to you by mistake, or he’s trying to find a face-saving way of backing down from his rah-rah support for the “surge”. Hopefully the latter, but I doubt it. Yours is a much more nuanced position than can usually be found on either side, but it’s right on the money IMO.
6:01 pm
The problem is, nothing will be done because of the “just turned a corner” syndrome. Just a typical example: HotAir commentators celebrating the good news from Anbar, arguing that it puts to shame Reid, Murtha etc., when in fact it is a perfect justification of Murtha’s talking points: as soon as US leaves, Iraqis (including insurgents) will destroy Al-Qaeda, but the insurgency won’t stop as long as US is around.
The main problem that your right-wing fellows refuse to address (actually they address it sometimes, but then just forget about it) is that Iraqi democracy means nothing. If you watched “Gangs on Iraq”, the impression that SCIRI’s leader Al-Hakim and his man Jabr leave on the visceral level is of pure evil. Not Putin-level evil, not even Ahmadinejad-level, but right there with Hitler. Which is totally not surprising given his background or his family-ties(that video of his brother was, obviously, posted by a Sunni fundamentalist, but it speaks for itself). And Al-Maliki looks not much better. And you can’t do a heck with this “Democracy” trap; as far as I remember, the only way Algeria and Egypt saved themselves from Islamism is by effectively shutting down their democracies. That’s the main problem: however long you fight, you will still be left with those same Islamist crazies as the democratic rulers—some of them, at best, versed in Arafat’s craft of pretending to be normal.
In fact, there are two ugly sides of the debate: Bush that refuses to forget his pipe-dreams about the “democratic unity government that will be our ally in the war against terror”, which is about as much reality-based as Gonzales that was “totally convincing”, on the other—“get out of Iraq” Democrats. The absurdity of Bush’s delusions provokes and justifies absurd answers from the other side. But “get out of Iraq” Democrat’s message is in fact just pandering. What they really mean and legislate is gradual disengagement, relocation, etc.—exactly the things you talk about. To blame them for cynicism for not just defunding the war is wrong because that’s not, in fact, their idea of salvaging the situation.
6:30 pm
Don’t you think that the image problem is secondary to the reality? Is it any good to pretend that you’re not a paper-tiger when in fact you are? Make no mistakes, engaging US in the endless war on the foreign ground was Al-Qaeda’s explicit goal. And there’s absolutely no way you can win the war against suicide bombers, besides building thousands of walls.
Ask yourself a simple question: do you consider Iran a serious threat? Do you believe in the possibility of the military confrontation with Iran? If the answer is yes, it’s hard to understand why would you not argue for the urgent disengagement from Iraq. The attack against Iran is likely to bring Beirut barracks bombing multiplied by 100.
7:35 pm
Rick, as a conservative Democrat, how can I unite with Americans who because of my wish to stategically withdraw from Iraq, refer to me as a defeatocrat, a traitor, scum, filthy democrat etc. ?Like Bush, their view is my way or the highway. They like Bush won’t compromise. Were so polarized I don’t see how the left and right will ever come together. Too much Karl Rove playbook at work in this country. Bush is too stubborn to compromise, the Democrats will have to end this mistake on their own. Thanks for being level headed Rick. I don’t see this country uniting anytime soon.
7:40 pm
The only choices are go large or go home.
When George Bush goes on television to announce an immediate hike of 50 cents in gasoline taxes, support for much tougher milage standards on automobiles, and requests every able bodied man and woman who believes this war must be won right now head down to the Army recuiting centers I’ll believe he understands the stakes of this war.
We must cut back on oil comsumption and yet six years after 9/11 no call to action from the White House.
The military is strained to the breaking point of soliders on their third and fourth deployment. Yet the man in charge has yet take ask the young to take up the fight nor will he cut back on the tax breaks for the rich to pay for it.
Those of us who understand this are called defeatists.
Meanwhile the current “plan”, just enough to lose, goes on.
10:07 pm
Ah, time.
I remember being told in 2004 Iraqis wouldn’t vote or wanted a theocracy. In 2005 we were informed the effort to liberalize Iraq was doomed because they couldn’t agree on a constitution, and in 2006 they couldn’t form a government. This year, the Anbari tribes were never going to join the police.
There’s always something for defeatists to point to. Just pick up your morning paper and the MSM will be trumpeting the insoluble problem du jour.
I agree Bush has not been a great communicator on the war, which is one reason why there is so much excitement about Giuliani despite his social liberalism. With the entire MSM arrayed against the effort, it takes a master orator to put things in their proper contect.
But in Iraq, if not in America, time is on our side not against us: every day the ISF get a little stronger, the insurgents get a little weaker. The tide has turned in Anbar. Petraeus is deFOBbing our troops into small, local garrisons that create security for Iraqis rather than security from Iraqis. Al-Sadr has fled the field and many Shia militias are apparently standing down.
If Rick really thinks the Kurds are just waiting for us to leave so they can declare their Kurdish state, with respect I think he doesn’t understand the region’s political situation very well. Everyone, especially the Kurds, knows that Turkey cannot tolerate a Kurdish state on their border. The Kurds want a federalist Iraq with a PERMANENT American presence, not our departure.
Here’s a simple point that very few Americans understand: Aside from Sunni Arabs, most Iraqis don’t think the current situation in Iraq is that bad right now. Polling shows this over and again, with a majority saying life is going fairly well. How is that possible, with the car bombs going off all over? Well, Iraq isn’t the U.S. or Europe: if you’re Kurdish or Shia, there’s a good chance you’re digging your relatives out of mass graves put there by the last regime, and you’ve certainly spent the last few decades without basic freedoms like assembly, speech, and press—or being allowed to own things like satellite dishes, computers, and cell phones.
Liberalizing Iraq was never going to be easy. We should just be thankful the price isn’t nearly as bloody as in South Korea, Japan, or Germany.
10:20 pm
And only when they are convinced that the Shias are not out to destroy them will the Sunni insurgents lay down their arms and join the government.
As an addendum, I should point out this is in fact happening.
10:26 pm
As a political moderate I have been called every name in the book. I can see by the comments in the other section that my belief that rational and civil discourse exists only in the middle has been reconfirmed. I seriously doubt there will be any attempt to find common ground with the Democrats, both sides are now so polarized and suspicious of the others intentions that I don’t see any possibility of productive dialog. In order to make a meaningful gesture that would be believed Rove would have to go, not very likely. The war will drag on for another two years and the next administration will solve it one way or another, if a Democrat is elected president the Republicans will claim that the war was not lost on their watch and the Democrats were defeatists.
10:56 pm
Richard Bottoms
I agree with every thing you wrote, however, I would add that we need to develop the billions of oil and gas reserves we have in our country that have not been developed. This combined with tougher mileage standards on automobiles would go a long way.
11:04 pm
As I fully expected, some on the right are in full throated howl over my suggestion that we alter our mission in Iraq.
Mr. Moran, you are a jackass. By “alter the mission” what do you mean exactly? The power sharing arrangement that you claim does not exist is a clause in the Iraqi constitution. The main reason the Sunnis feel disenfranchised is because they boycotted the elections. Now they realize that was a big mistake.
there is nothing the US military can do to push the government off of square one and get this process moving.
Really? Can you imagine that Eisenhower would have tolerated the German government failing to live up to promises it made in order to be allowed to function again? Or, can you imagine that McArthur would have allowed the Japanese to get away with that nonsense. There is plenty the US military can do. This is where I think Bush should become more proactive. He should fly to Iraq, meet with the Iraqi government, the entire parliament and all the cabinet ministers and demand an immediate vote on legislation to fulfill the promises that were made. And if they refuse he should tell them that the US military will enforce the constitution if the parliament will not.
11:10 pm
Rick, I’ve been writing multiple long responses, then deleting them for lack of will, as we seem to have no purpose anymore here in the USA.
That lack of purpose is exactly what Bin Laden meant, we Americans simply don’t have the stomach to fight a war, any war, at any time for any reason, because we’ve lost our reason for being.
I mean, sheesh, if we’re such wimps as to call it a lost cause after so short a time, with so low a loss of troops (regardless of the inevitable mistakes made) then we deserve to march on over to the soon to be installed foot-washing stations in Minnesota and take our medicine like good little sheep.
It’s a sad day indeed for the free world, when the USA cannot garner enough courage to beat down a small bunch of insurgents that defile our (and all peoples) values on a daily basis with beheadings and suicide bombings, in support of the people we purported to be in it to save from the get go.
The Iraqis yearning for freedome were not pleased when we screwed them the last time, and they will not be amused in the least when we stick it to them again—and we will not survive unscathed this time, we will truly have shown ourselves to be the weak horse that we are.
Ugh, I apologize in advance to our children.
11:29 pm
Couple of things, came via Balloon Juice, lefty with whatever that entails. Anyhow, generally the position on significant withdrawal is predicated on a couple of things: 1) Disaster Will Come in Iraq, 2) There Is Nothing We Can Do. I think you are pretty clearly seeing 1.
As for 2, you said that the various groups don’t want to power share and trying to lean on them in regards to time constraints is a mistake because it just makes things worse (i.e. we can’t do it in the time we have before 2008). The withdrawal position is that we can’t do it at all. Not unless we had 15-20 years and three times as many soldiers at least (as well as someway to cut through the rampant amount of clueless political appointees and corrupt contractors that we have placed there). Even then, it may already be too late.
Where are those troops going to come from? A draft? No one except Rangel is talking about that. With running insane (Bushian) deficits and a softening economy for everyone making less than $120,000 a year, where will the money to sustain it come from?
Politically in Iraq the civil war will ramp up and we will be there. If we leave we can at least have a shot at keeping it from spilling over into the other countries in the region.
So I guess my lefty summary is: If we go there will be trouble, if we stay it will be double.
11:33 pm
Ah, 1 more thing, that should read “you are pretty clearly seeing 1 as I see it.”
Pointing out that how we view 2 is where we differ but at this point I’m just glad we can have an honest conversation.
11:55 pm
Oops, an errant “e” after freedom in the closing paragraph above.
And support for my position at the “Tank” at National Review: “Remember the Iraqi People?” http://tank.nationalreview.com
4:20 am
“My point about dealing with the Democrats is simple common sense. If we are going to stay in Iraq with the numbers of troops necessary to help train the Iraqi army, kill al-Qaeda, and protect the Sunnis, the Democrats are going to have to be aboard so that the political will for such a mission can coalesce and form around both Congressional and White House leadership. For this to happen, Bush will have to make the first move. I’m not expecting much even if Bush were to wear sackcloth and ashes and knee walk up the Capitol steps. But given the alternative – ultimate Democratic success down the road in pushing arbitrary timetables for a withdrawal of the bulk of our troops – what has the President got to lose?”
1) The Democrats aren’t exactly pushing for immediate unconditional withdrawl, are they? As was the talking point a few months ago about the “Slow Bleed”, they advocate a large contingent of US troops in training roles, a large contingent for force protection and special forces (and whatever is deemed necessary) to go after Al-Q in country.
Of course, that doesn’t deal with the (tediously repetitive) fact that they are staying, fighting and dying for a fundamentalist Islamist, murderous, corrupt bunch of anti-Americans.
2) Bush is never going to compromise with the democrats. To get some idea of why not, try out this simple experiment. Given the complete mess that this war has been, given the obvious clues that it was going to be a mess from the start, the rising power of Iran, the weakening of the US, the money and blood spent, the massive civilian casualties, etc,etc, can you admit that the invasion was the wrong thing to do? Can you simply say
“The US would be in a better position if after forcing Saddam to full disclosure of his WMD position, we had packed up our kit bags and gone home”
Or, to put it more simply;
“The invasion was a mistake”
Bush would regard compromise as equivalent to saying that. Like I say, no chance whatsoever.
8:29 am
Rick, you know you’re doing something right when you begin to take flak from both the left and the right.
I think Bush has been purposely vague about timeframes for us to stay in Iraq. He’s never renounced permanent bases, which makes me suspect that he still thinks the Iraqis will be our friends and partners in the war on terror (something I think is a pipe dream).
I would much more admire him if he would come out and say something like “I think our mission will require us to be there for at least 10 year”.
9:32 am
Web Reconnaissance for 04/30/2007…
A short recon of whatÂ’s out there that might draw your attention….
9:36 am
Trackbacked by The Thunder Run – Web Reconnaissance for 04/30/2007
A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention.
10:36 am
Once again those on the other side of the aisle whine about the names they’ve been called. We’ll I’ve been called far worst by the radical leftists in my community (“baby killer”, “warmonger”, “jingoist”, lying fraud are but mild epithets) AND I’ve received threats in the mail in response to my letters to the editor in the local newspaper.
I remind some of the posters here that it wasn’t long after 9/11, that the anti-war war left trying to recover from the stunning defeat of the Taliban and al Qaeda in Afghanistan began galvanizing their political counter-offensive and began making comparisons between Bush and Hilter, generating ignorant conspiracy theories about “neo-cons” (i.e. Administration Joooooooooooos!) and 9/11 being “an side job” and claiming Bush was sending American soldiers to fight Israel’s war against Muslims (thank you Ms. Cindy Sheehan). And then shortly after that left-wing media blitz terms like “reich-wing”, “kkkonservatives fascists”, “Rethuglicans”, “right wingnuts”, ad nauseam began to find their way into the liberal anti-war lexicon. Yeah, it cuts both ways so how about ditching the faux wounded pride and own up to the rank hypocrisy and ad hominem attacks which also exists on the left side of the aisle in spades.
Also, in earlier debates when conservatives questioned the anti-war left’s often defeatist and divisive policies, we were accused of “questioning their patriotism.” What a strawhorse, particularly in view of the fact that for the last year or so the emboldened anti-war crowd began accusing conservatives of being UNPATRIOTIC for supporting POTUS because … ready for this … he was destroying the country! You see, it wasn’t the anti-war left that was being divisive, but rather it was Bu$Hitler who was provoking liberal Democrats with his divisive policies. What, trying to win a war is “divisive”? I guess it is among those who are essentially claiming the war was lost before we destroyed Saddam’s regime in 21 days. Nothing like snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
I have absolutely no problem with honest dissent, the Constitution guarantees that. I have always been exposed to the Mennonite and Quaker tradition of pacifism thoughout my life so I know what constitutes just cause and just war in the context being a true peacemaker/peacekeeper. But I can’t tolerate a “dissent” in good conscience which is based on its own set of lies and partisan boilerplate that is little more than radical ideological divisiveness. Too much is at stake for that kind political opportunism disguised as principle during these perilous times.
Whether a person prefers to stick their head in the sand regarding the “religion of peace” as practiced by the more radical elements of Islamism or simply bash Bush and blame America for every negative twist and turn in a type of global war which has never fought before against a fascist ideology which knows no borders, the fact remains there is a very real struggle between Islamic jihadism and what’s left of the free world and Iraq is presently just one front on that war, just like Afghanistan. Islamic fascism can no longer be ignored, it cannot be wished away and it cannot be appeased. If we do not continue to make a determined stand on the battlefields of the Middle East, where will we fight this war in the coming decades? The frontiers of freedom must extend beyond our own borders or our posterity will suffer for generations to come. Let it never be said of our spoilt brat boomer generation that we prefer appeasement to a determined resistance against such transparent evil which has demonstrated a clear willingness to target innocent civilians in pizzarias and shopping malls. We cannot go back to a pre-9/11 world despite whatever well-intentioned fantasies certain reality-denying utopians might hold. This delusion will only imperil our own security in the coming years in light of an implacable enemy which loves death more than some of us love life and liberty.
10:51 am
Rick, I recognize what you’re saying about political infighting and recriminations creating an environment whereby terrorists will be embolden and we run the risk of losing that which had been won in June 2003, but I have this observation to make about all the handwringing over American and Iraqi casualities.
Given how the anti-war crowd has essentially determined the war in Iraq is lost on the basis of the deaths of 3300 American soldiers and the 60,000 Iraqi civilians who have subsequently died (95% having been murdered by their own Muslim brethren in acts of terrorism), then by that standard we lost World War II though we’ve deluded ourselves that last 63 years. What with over 292,000 dead American soldiers and civilian casualties in both the Pacific and European theater of operations pegged at around 35 – 40 MILLION, that too must be a disasterous defeat for America … or maybe the Greatest Generation was made of more sterner stuff than us. If perception is reality, then those controlling the perception can determine the reality. That’s why I’m convinced if the American left and the liberal media had been around in World War II, the world would be a far bigger nightmare than it is today with the Third Reich entering its seventh decade and Tojo’s Japan locking us out of any trading relations and the natural resources of the Pacific Rim. Well, at least Vietnam would have never happened, right?
11:38 pm
Well, that is just precious. If the Democrat party somehow gets the American military out of Iraq, they will be responsible for a worse blunder / disaster than what has happened in the war up to now.
Amazing. So, what color is the sky in your world? And please, please don’t answer that you can’t tell because of the smoke from 9/11.
6:12 am
Hankmeister,
Also, in earlier debates when conservatives questioned the anti-war left’s often defeatist and divisive policies, we were accused of “questioning their patriotism.â€
I don’t question the left’s patriotism. I call them the cowards and traitors that they are to their face. There is a very real difference between dissent and giving aid and comfort to an enemy during wartime. I don’t believe for one second that the leftists do not know the difference between the two.
The left has sown the seeds of their own destruction. One of two things is going to happen. The Iraqi government is going to stabilize and the Democrats will flip-flop again and become a complete laughingstock, or, the Democrats will succeed in denying funding to Iraq and get the surrender they want. And, in a few years we will be going back to the Middle East and perhaps Spain and the Balkans and Turkey, and anyplace else that borders that cesspool known as the Middle East, to fight, not a war against ragtag insurgents but a war against millions of hate filled fanatics who are armed with the best WMDs money can buy. The outcome of this war is not in doubt, but the carnage that will be unleashed is terrible to imagine. The Islamic fascists and the left just don’t understand what the U.S. military is capable of. The U.S. military could start in the morning and by mid-afternoon there would be a large smoking crater where the Middle East used to be. And, given the kind of war the Islamic fascists have in mind, that is what the result is going to be. The nuclear blackmarket that the Pakistanis set up is still very much alive and well, putting the father of their nuclear program under “house arrest” was a facade. If the Democrats surrender in Iraq, the worst of the Islamic fascists will fight with Iran for control of the oil and the petro dollars will buy nuclear weapons from Pakistan. And in a few years we will be forced to go back to the Middle East to fight. And after the U.S. military destroys the Islam army in a few days, out of desperation they will turn to their nuclear bombs. Then Islam will cease to exist.
The Democratic party will not survive either turn of events.
9:00 am
People who believe we’ve already lost are going to support orderly phased withdrawal and actions to minimize the loss of American and Iraqi lives.
People who know that we’re in an extremely sticky situation but believe there’s still a chance of turning this around will have a separate set of ideas for going forward.
I’m in the latter camp but there’s an expiration date. For three years, we had been employing the wrong strategy for Iraq, thanks in large part to Bush, Rumsfeld and the generals. The way to succeed is to use a tried and true counterinsurgency methodology, and we finally have a general in command who not only believes in COIN ops, but literally wrote the book on the subject.
To me, the most important thing right now is to give the plan a chance to work (or fail). So far, the plan is only ten weeks old and we won’t be at full manpower until June. Already, sectarian killings have dropped dramatically, and al Qaeda has come to the fore as our primary opponent. We really should know by year end whether the plan works. For me, if there’s no discernible progress by that time, I may just move over to the defeatist camp.
2:57 pm
Um, ok, pat on the back and all that, but what’s your alternate plan?
I keep re-reading what you write and I keep missing it. Maybe you could restate it in simple terms for us, using numbered bullets or a Microsoft presentation or something.