Okay, so I’m an ass.
Today, I feel vindicated in my beliefs and analysis about the war in Iraq and I don’t mind letting people know that their bitter recriminations and name calling directed against me are proving to be the shallow, ignorant postulates of the blindly partisan I always said they were. In the end, I am being proved correct and they are being proved wrong. And rather than disagreeing with me as grown up adults, so many of them chose to indulge themselves in a childish orgy of vicious name calling in comments, emails, and on their own blogs to the point that it became a travail to even write about Iraq. And whenever I did, I only ended up driving more of my conservative readers away.
I knew this at the time but felt that it was necessary for conservatives to wake up and smell the coffee about Iraq rather than swallowing the Administration’s line (and their legions of defenders) who were saying that a military “victory” was still possible when all the signs pointed to a disaster in the making. I could very well have continued finding silver linings in dark clouds in order to make the case for “staying the course” but in the end, that approach wasn’t tenable given the reality of what has been happening on the ground in that bloody country.
It’s just that when everything that I’ve put into building this site up has basically gone for naught because so many of my friends on the right have abandoned reading this blog – mostly because my position on the Iraq War has diverged from GOP and conservative orthodoxy – that I now feel compelled to do a little fist pumping because more and more Republicans are saying exactly the same things I’ve been saying for months; that it’s time to start redeploying our troops so that we can salvage something short of an unmitigated disaster from this military adventure:
Republican support for President Bush’s Iraq war policy suffered a significant crack Monday evening when Republican Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana urged the president to change course in Iraq “very soon.”The well-respected GOP voice on foreign affairs took to the Senate floor to urge Bush to avoid further damage to America’s military readiness and long-term national security.
“Our course in Iraq has lost contact with our vital national security interests in the Middle East and beyond. Our continuing absorption with military activities in Iraq is limiting our diplomatic assertiveness there and elsewhere in the world,” he said.
Lugar, the ranking Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, also sounded a pessimistic note on the prospects for internal political progress in Iraq.
He said he sees “no convincing evidence that Iraqis will make the compromises necessary to solidify a functioning government and society, even if we reduce violence to a point that allows for some political and economic normalcy.”
The senator said continuing military operations in Iraq were putting a damaging level of stress on U.S. forces, “taking a toll on recruitment and readiness.”
“The window during which we can continue to employ American troops in Iraqi neighborhoods without damaging our military strength, or our ability to respond to other national security priorities, is closing,” he said. “The United States military remains the strongest fighting force in the world, but we have to be mindful that it is not indestructible.”
Lugar also said he believes the chances for success of Bush’s strategy of boosting troop levels in Iraq to try to get the security situation there under control is “very limited within the short period framed by our own domestic political debate.”
Every single conclusion reached by Lugar in the above excerpt was reached by me late last year. The lack of progress by the Iraqi government in dealing with their problems making the surge an exercise in futility; the toll on our military; and the ticking clock of public support for the war were all pointed out by me – for which I received the most vile criticism imaginable from some of my erstwhile friends.
Lugar isn’t the only Republican who is saying this, of course. Last month, a group of GOP House members confronted the President over Iraq in the White House and told him basically the same things. But when the ranking minority member of the Foreign Relations Committee – a man whose judgement on foreign and military affairs has been respected in Washington, D.C. for more than 20 years – tells the President of the United States on the floor of the US Senate that he’s got to change course, Bush better listen. Otherwise, Republicans will be forced to work within the timetable framework offered by the Democrats. And that could only mean a catastrophic end to our involvement in Iraq as the artificial deadlines pulled more and more troops out of Iraq allowing the terrorists and militias to take over.
What Lugar wants is a sensible redeployment that will allow our troops to maintain a presence so that the country won’t fall apart completely:
Despite his call for a course change, Lugar said he did not support calls by some Democrats for a complete U.S. withdrawal from Iraq, which he said “also fails to meet our security interests.”Rather, he said a “downsizing and redeployment of United States military forces to more sustainable positions”—in rural locations of Iraq, Kurdish areas or possibly Kuwait—might better serve American security interests.
And to make my vindication complete – and even sweeter – is Lugar’s call for a bi-partisan consensus on Iraq:
“The president and some of his advisers may be tempted to pursue the ‘surge’ strategy to the end of his administration, but such a course contains extreme risks for United States national security,” Lugar said. “The president and his team must come to grips with the shortened political timeline in this country for political operations in Iraq.”“A course change should happen now, while there is still some possibility of constructing a sustainable bipartisan strategy in Iraq. If the president waits until the presidential election campaign is in full swing, the intensity of confrontation on Iraq is likely to limit [options],” he said.
While a handful of other Republican senators have broken with the Bush administration over Iraq, Lugar’s call for a course change—which his spokesman, Andy Fisher, said was “months in the making, weeks in writing”—is likely to have particular resonance, given his stature as one of the party’s elder statesmen on foreign policy.
I know I shouldn’t feel this way. It’s petty, juvenile, and will serve only to make people madder at me. And I also know that the minute I hit that “publish” button, I’m going to regret putting this post up.
So be it. If I can’t be a sonuvabitch on my own blog, and tell people who have accused me of being a “traitor” and worse to go screw themselves, then to hell with it. I might as well take up tiddly winks or some other non-contact sport. Because what this site has been about since its inception has been a full frontal assault on the stupidity of the left. May as well throw some righties under the bus while I’m at it.
UPDATE: FROM THE “SEE WHAT I MEAN” FILE
535 COMMANDERS-IN-CHIEF: Now it’s Richard Lugar calling for a new strategy. Maybe we could do something to stop Iranian troops entering Iraq? I don’t think he has anything so useful in mind, though.UPDATE: Fresh back from Iraq, J.D. Johannes posts a wrapup. And he emails that he’s got a rant about Senators on the way: “you know, we could have this thing all but won and still declare defeat. That is sickening.” Our political class isn’t known for bravery or discipline.
First, Confederate Yankee has debunked the “Iranian troops entering Iraq” story pretty thoroughly. Secondly, I will ask a question of Mr. Johannes: Just what is it you think we have “all but won” in Iraq?
The insurgents defeated? Al Qaeda destroyed utterly? Foreign fighters vanquished and prevented from entering the country? Iraq at peace and a stable society? The Iraqi government building a multi-sectarian democracy?
That’s a start as far as barometers for “victory.” And we’re nowhere near achieving any of them!
Not one.
So I will ask again. Just what is it you think we are on the brink of winning in Iraq if only we allow the American military to continue our current strategy?
11:36 am
So you are vindicated and proven correct because Richard Lugar and more and more Republicans agree with you? I thought the truth was absolute and not subject to a majority’s definition.
I won’t curse or insult you. I’ll just disagree. Who is right and who is wrong is yet to be determined.
11:37 am
Let the troops do their job!...
Let’s stop giving votes of confidence to Al Qaeda:
“The Bush administration has begun exploring ways of offering Congress a compromise deal on Iraq policy to avert bruising battles in coming months, U.S. officials said.
With public support …
11:51 am
Doug:
I see your point but that doesn’t change how I feel when the most respected Republican in the Senate on foreign policy comes to the same conclusions about Iraq that I have. And no one is accusing Lugar of being a traitor or a fake conservative or anything else. Nor should they.
12:07 pm
The problem is, as the AP article points out, Lugar, like Hagel, talks the talk but admits they will not cast a vote to walk the walk.
So while it may make you feel somewhat vindicated, it does nothing to actually address the situation.
12:09 pm
That’s because the answer to what to do in Iraq is not in any vote but in the Administration sitting down with the Democrats to iron out a solution that both sides could support.
Funding the mission then becomes a bipartisan endeavor not a war.
1:12 pm
Since when are such gutless RINO’s such oracles of wisdom? Especially military wisdom! Let our gallant military do their job, knowing we support them. It’s not over til it’s over. THEN you can feel vindicated….or not. And, in the present Congress “bipartisan” means conservatives concede and liberals accept the concession and raise the ante even more.
2:01 pm
Rick
Just let me say I respectfully disagree with your assessment of of the situation.
To me the sticking point is the political will on the part of the Iraq government to do what they have to do to get the job done.
I follow a lot of blogs and simply you are going against the grain of what I read on the milblogs of those who have boots on the ground, Mike Yon and in depth review of the progress of the surge now in progress.
I could point you to many places that show a different picture from your conclusions.
So many want to try to draw parallels between Iraq and VietNam, but they are wrong.
A much better fit would be a comparison between Iraq and the French situation in Algeria.
2:11 pm
For a perspective of what I am talking about I would suggest for all to read this article that is one of the best I have seen on the subject.
It is well worth the time to read.
2:24 pm
I don’t dispute military progress – or political progress as it relates to teh Sunnis in central Iraq.
But to what end the progress? What good is being done if the Iraqi government fails to do the things necessary to unite the country? If they don’t or can’t do that, it is death squads and terrorism and chaos – even with our limited successes in Anbar and elsewhere.
2:29 pm
In all sincerity, I don’t see how a catastrophic end to our presence in Iraq can be avoided. If the American military and the Iraqi “government” cannot reach the goals outlined above (The insurgents defeated? Al Qaeda destroyed utterly? Foreign fighters vanquished and prevented from entering the country? Iraq at peace and a stable society? The Iraqi government building a multi-sectarian democracy?) in four years, on what basis does anyone think these goals can be achieved in another 4 years, even if we redeployed to safer areas? Come to think of it, especially if we redeployed to safer areas. No matter how hard the Bruces and Slimguys try to avoid it, the Iraq war is a house that was built on quicksand with only one long term outcome-collapse.
2:35 pm
I disagree. I actually think that once it is clear we are going to redeploy, unlike some Democrats who believe this will be a spur to the Iraqi government to get moving, I think it will cause the factions to start preparing for the aftermath.
There will be blood – especially in the south where the Badr and Sadr forces will square off. But I think generally, there’s a chance that a transition to a more stable, more authoritarian society is possible. The trick will be to prevent wholesale slaughter of the Sunnis when this happens because it will almost certainly be a Shia sitting on the throne in Baghdad.
2:39 pm
So, after absorbing myriad setbacks, and sticking to the old tactics too long, and making mistakes which could not have been reliably foretold, the administration finally concluded that it could not wait out the storm of the insurgency. The Secretary of Defense was replaced, along with the top general in Iraq. A new strategy was devised, and is being implemented by its architect. It is just now being unleashed, and it is too early to tell if it will be effective, yet the early signs are promising.
And this is the time to “redeploy”? I just don’t understand this level of fatalism. The prize here is very large; the first possible representative government in the Middle East. Instead of top-down allies, quasi-friendly dictatorships, we could possibly help birth a truly modern nation state in Iraq, with a multi-ethnic polity, and competing groups learning to compromise.
The Iraqi people are learning all of this from scratch. They don’t have the luxury of a blended polity, or geographical isolation. They are unfortunately caught in a power struggle between myriad groups who do not have their best interests at the fore. Most of their enemies are horribly ruthless. They are learning how to govern themselves apart from tribalism in a maelstrom of chaos. And yet, given enough time, they may achieve this.
But since the American people have the attention span and historical knowledge of fleas, then those who we elect to represent us-who we expect to give thought to these issues and act on our behalf, who we somewhat naively expect to do what is best, or right, instead of what is expedient-decide to cover their political asses instead of lead. And those of us who do know a little something of history, or think beyond the next election cycle are expected to say OK?
I just don’t get it.
2:54 pm
It’s not over til it’s over
Bruce said
Who could argue with your wisdom? Its not over til its over? Are you insane? Small, stupid sound bites are not what your country needs right now. Your country needs you to start rebuilding it from the 6+ years of this administration. Its not over til its over? Didn’t Tony Snow explain things that way once?
3:16 pm
Thanks for not dealing in wishful thinking, Rick. Like you, I wish things were different. But they aren’t. Facts are stubborn things.
3:22 pm
Ed
Just how long did it take to stabilize Japan and Germany after WWII when hostility had stopped and they both had a history of government of various kinds.
We are trying to do this in an environment where conflict is on going and coming out of 30 years of dictatorship.
I see to many who are welcome to their opinion but tend to see things as “I can’t do it, it’s too hard”.
However others can see the other side.
3:41 pm
The trick will be to prevent wholesale slaughter of the Sunnis when this happens because it will almost certainly be a Shia sitting on the throne in Baghdad.
Exactly, Rick. I’d argue that Bush 41 realists (Scowcroft, Baker, Powell) foresaw this back in 1991, and were roundly criticized for their insight. Likewise, we’ve soundly run up against the limits of Krauthhammer’s view that American power is capable of altering reality in the ME.
4:05 pm
Congratulations, Rick! It gives me hope that maybe principled people from all sides can look facts in the face and speak truth to power. Many of us opposed the Vietnam war and feel the same sense of vindication, even to this day. Keep up the good work.
4:09 pm
Not a bad point, actually. In your thinking, do you assume al-Qaeda will lessen their activity in Iraq if U.S. forces are not so prevalent? That seems a real possibility. It is true that in other guerilla actions, entrenched factions have finally tired of the violence and ended major hostilities. The Greek Civil War 1946-49 and the conflict in Peru that started in 1980 with government of Peru, the Shining Path, the Rondas Campesinas, and the Túpac Amaru Revolutionary Movement fighting for 20 plus years quickly come to mind.
If you would have an interest, it would be useful to read your thoughts on potential U.S. political actions in a post-redeployment Iraq (and Middle East)to facilitate a less than catastrophic end game for the Iraq War.
As far as Iraq itself, it would seem that keeping the Kurds in northern Iraq in (geographic)place, and preventing mass immigration of Kurds to avoid trouble with Turkey is in order. And protecting the Sunnis in their current situation might also require a brokered deal for a separate “home within the homeland”. Would this require negotiations with Iran in order to happen? Is there something other than the partitioned Iraq idea even possible?
4:28 pm
I still remain committed. We are now getting close to elections and the politicians are getting edgy. many of them might be worried at losing numbers.
I pin our hopes on what “The General” recommends in due time. Like many others have expressed here, many of the soldiers and bloggers are expressing the feeling of accomplishment and seeing signs that conditions are improving.
After all or work, I don’t think we should walk out now or talk about it now. Iran is obviously just waiting in the wings and currently doing a few intro’s. Let’s give “The General” his due.
4:53 pm
This is a reason I thought Saddam should be left alive. There was always the threat he could be returned to power.
5:29 pm
Petraeus is Bush’s current “dog robber” and will do as told. He wrote an op-ed for the Washington Post Sept.26,2004..
He said among other things,”I see tangible progress…Iraqi leaders are stepping forward….Iraq’s security forces are developing steadily and they are in the fight”
Lugar knows that the 2008 election will be a disaster if troops are not started home by next summer. At the present rate we will have 5,000 dead soldiers by election if we do not change our actions.
6:49 pm
Most reasonable people know that a purely military solution won’t work. I know it, you know it and I think Gen. Patreaus (I hope I spelled his name right) knows it judging from the way he has changed how things are done. Was Iraq screwed up for the last few years? Is San Franciso liberal?
I’d really like to give the General and his troops an honest shot to do their part, then maybe we can do what Nixon did in Vietnam by going from fighting the war to supporting the S. Vietnamese military so they could fight it.
I’m not a pollyanna type who thinks things are just going swimmingly, but I do see real improvement happening.
Good post BTW even if I don’t agree with all of it.
7:15 pm
Another excellent post Rick. There’s no reason you have to agree with your brothers and sisters on the right when they are wrong on this issue.
I am betting the surge does show some modicum of progress come September, but it will not amount to the kind of fundamental shift required to maintain public, and therefore, congressional support for the war. What it may provide is the opportunity to fundamentally change the mission to one of containment to prevent the inevitable spillover effects from a reduction in America’s security presence.
Some of the commenters here and bloggers on other sites supportive of “victory” need to examine the history of “Iraq” and compare that to recent events for a demonstration of the futility of emplacing a western-style multiparty democracy there. The analogies with Japan and Germany are completely inapt given the culture of the region and the history of Iraq in particular.
The fundamental problem from the US side boils down to loyalty. In the middle-east and in Iraq in particular, loyalty to government is a rare commodity. In short, most Iraqi’s put loyalty to clan/tribe or sect above loyalty to a central government. There is no military solution to that problem, which is why our efforts at training the Iraqi security forces have been mixed at best. You can train a security force to fight, but you can’t train it to be loyal to it’s government above loyalty to clan, tribe and even sect. For this reason alone the Iraqi government has little chance of success as a true democratic institution.
8:09 pm
Hi Rick good post; unfortunately you are correct. Its impossible to obtain a military victory in Iraq, if for no other reason as a country the Iraqis will not step up to the plate. That being said ; We should bring our military home yesterday! My greatest concern now is what happens next; The Islamofascist are on the way, be prepared.
8:33 pm
You’re not gonna say ‘I told you so’ now are you?
8:46 pm
Wow
i feel vindicated now too.
i was against this from the start.
bad idea
You cant win something when theres NO enemy
its sectarian violence.
Now if we can just stop
a global thermonuclear war.
China Backs Iran Against The Great Satan
http://911review.org/brad.com/world/Great_Satan2.html
10:54 pm
I saw an article surfing toady that claimed there were 500,000 purple hearts commissioned by the US prior to the anticipated invasion of Japan. Had a hard time believing this so I searched around and came up with this link http://www.purplehearts.net/id6.html confirming the article.
Imagine that! A battle in which the military leadership was anticipating one half of one million casualties; and given their battle experience of the past few years these were likely solid estimates.
When Bush leaves office we will have been in Iraq for approximately 70 months. The total causality count will be around 40,400 if you extract the monthly average so far and multiply it by 70. That is 8/10s of 1 percent of the anticipated casualties we expected the U.S. forces to suffer in an invasion of Japan.
This radicalized version of Islam is every bit as pernicious and evil as was the Shinto religion that drove the fanatics of Imperial Japan and we should begin to treat this war with the seriousness and persistence we perused WWII. It was a democrat that set the terms as “Unconditional Surrender.”
We held open the Strait of Hormuz in the 80’s and it would not be much trickier to do the same today. Declare Iran a belligerent and enforce a blockade. Shut of exports of crude from Iran and refined products to Iran. Load the Gatling guns, breakout the anti-personal artillery rounds and send in a couple more Carrier Battle Groups.
I believe that, with these fanatics, it is an existential struggle so the shit is going to hit the fan sooner or latter; to me 9/11 was a pretty good indicator of that.
Lugar may be right that there is insufficient political Iraqi will to do the hard thing but he neglects to mention the lack of political will on our part as well when it comes to doing the hard things as well. We need to discredit these fanatics and the only way to do that is to establish a semblance of representative government in the Middle East, insure it’s success as best we can and let the rest of the ME deny the same to their people. Don’t think they will be able to for long especially Iran and Syria.
Bargain and Fanatic are incompatible and should seldom be used in the same article much less sentence.
11:10 pm
Satchel Topeka:
“Many of us opposed the Vietnam war and feel the same sense of vindication, even to this day.”
Ghoul.
Your “vindication” comes on top of a gruesome mountain of skulls. America’s political defeat in Viet Nam was self-inflicted, and didn’t “vindicate” thing one.
11:27 pm
You now have McConnell and Voinivich saying the same not to mention Snowe and others. Gates has a team around him who are skeptical of the surge too. The jig is up. In the end Iraq is going to be a Shiite theocracy allied with Iran. That’s not worth one more American life or limb. Of course Bush doesn’t feel that way. He wants to run out the clock in hopes history will blame his successor for his fiasco.
1:59 am
Ed
If it was me you were addressing, no I believe the surge is need and quite frankly was forced to early by the political climate, but also on the other hand is meeting with timely rejection of AQ by the locals after 2 years of brutal tactics mainly against soft civilian targets.
As I see it right now the surge is playing parallel wack a mole to clear the belts and hold them. They are being very careful to not rush just to gain territory , but doing full review of each area as they progress to avoid the “just went to ground” bad guys.
The objective is to clear and hold the belts to give a buffer around Baghdad that any supplies and attacks will have to run the gauntlet to get to the prime target.
I for see several months of intense work to do this and then the existing Iraq army will be seasoned and battle tested and should be able to handle attempts to reoccupy the belt areas. Especially if the locals provide intel on new kids on the block.
Longer term I see at least a 50% growth in the army there and a triple sizing of the police with a purge of the embedded troublemakers in both and a more balanced ethnic makeup.
Right now the locals help and info is contributing to turning the tide of the issue. It is a necessary and good alliance and the intent after the surge is over with is to recruit the independent fighters into the army and police and take them out of the tribal hands when things calm down and let the real government forces handle the full job.
It is now a matter of building numbers and pruning out problem people and building trust that the government can deal with the situation.
5:22 am
Having had a husband in the fight in Afghanistan, and knowing the mistakes that are being made there, I know they are being made in Iraq too. The biggest problem I see is a) the media there 24/7 reporting on issues they don’t have a clue about [Paris Hilton the military is not] and b) the military are not allowed to “do their job” without restrictions (see a above) and that prevents “victories”. With the ACLU dictating the rules of engagement – we were screwed before we even got there. The libs say this is “Bush’s Vietnam”, but I disagree. It is “our” Vietnam now—we allowed it by forcing the military to work at liberal standards instead of engaging using historically proven rules of war.
8:38 am
Rick:
Unfortunately you’ll find that being right in this situation results in short lived satisfaction. As you can see by some of the posts here you will come to be blamed for this defeat, and no facts will disabuse them of this belief.
Same thing happened to those of us who opposed the Vietnam war.
8:45 am
Greg:
I don’t believe recriminations regarding “losing the war” will fall on anyone except Bush. There will be blame for undermining the morale of the American people for the simple reason that this was an announced goal of anti-war supporters and others on the left. They made no secret of their desire to sap the will of the American people and to cause a humiliating defeat of the United States. They sincerely believed that this humiliation would “teach us a lesson” and change our foreign policy.
You can’t deny this. And you might want to watch this space in the next couple of days because I am doing an article for The American Thinker on exactly this subject.
9:25 am
Sit down with Democrats? President Bush gave them Rumsfeld and in return he got nothing. They are not serious. Lugar said,”“very limited within the short period framed by our own domestic political debate,†bin Laden couldn’t have said it better, it has been the plan all along. Democracy is weak and can not stomach a long confrontation. Our situation in Iraq, while tenuous, is better than what Johnson had in 1968 Vietnam.
You can claim vindication from your buddy, but his mockery of the Bolton nomination on the blowhard committee gives me pause.
I remember the late 70’s, our NATO forces in Europe would not fight the Soviets. If 4,000 dead over 4 years can dampen your political will, you have joined the ranks of the better Red than dead crowd.
9:38 am
Rick,
I agree partially with gregn that many on the right will blame you, the media and many others for “losing” the war.
For everyone else here, please read this article on what the surge is and is not by one of its architects. It’s the best summary yet and should dispel a lot of myths.
9:49 am
Sorry I couldn’t get back sooner, but Slimguy, I hope you are correct and I turn out to be completely wrong. Recent history would seem to be not on your side, but let’s work intelligently (negotiate with the Iraqi factions while pressuring them intensely) to make your predictions a reality.
9:52 am
So, why isn’t the right calling Lugar and Voinivich surrender monkeys or accusing them of treason?
11:41 am
There has to be other options that staying the course or just pulling out and abandoning Iraq to certain civil war, slaughter, and an eventual Taliban-like regime taking over.
Maybe I’m naive, but let’s throw out some options. Splitting the country into 3, installling our own puppet gov’t and Constitution, giving the current gov’t a deadline that if they don’t accomplish certain goals by certain dates, we’re leaving, etc.
1:09 pm
Lugar and Voinivich are surrender monkeys. Happy?
2:42 pm
Kevin,
IMO, it’s not up to us to “split the country into 3.” First of all, the Iraqi government, despite its many faults, is the internationally recognized government of Iraq. The US simply cannot step in and dismantle that and create some artificiality of our own. One reason Iraq is the screwed-up mess it is today is because of British meddling with borders after WWI and the defeat of the Ottomans. The US has neither the authority, nor the expertise to unilaterally dismember a state into 3, even if it were possible to do so.
Secondly, there are other options.
3:02 pm
With the number of people killed I can’t see any hope in national reconciliation. Splitting the country seems like the “best†option out of a selection of not very good options. But that is not why we went into Iraq and the administration will not go for it. The silver lining in this mess is that Islam will consume itself in the Sunni/Shiite religious war that is about to occur, by the time the smoke clears decades from now radical Islam will be seen as nothing but death and destruction. I still think this president fully intends to hand off Iraq to the next administration and make the claim that while they were in office they were winning, using the moderate success of the surge as proof. We will then have anther myth in the making that the despised liberals lost the war.
4:05 pm
you have joined the ranks of the better Red than dead crowd.
Red is temporary. Dead is permanent. Keep talking tough though.
5:23 pm
They made no secret of their desire to sap the will of the American people and to cause a humiliating defeat of the United States.
What a cop out. Of Course the radical left was going to oppose this war and propagandize against it – anyone with half a brain knew that beforehand. Its not the job of Iraq war opponents to shut up – its the job of the it’s supporters to make a better case… a job that they totally failed to do well
!
Saying the Libs or the MSM “sapped our will to fight” by publishing (completely true) stories of carbombs and mass carnage is a pathetic cop out made by people who dont have the balls to accept their failure to shore up that will.
They blame their countrymen for not having the balls for a long fight – but it was the war supporters who, through 2002, loudly proclaimed we would be out of Iraq in less than 1 year. Then they had 3 years to make a case for staying that would resonate with America and again they chose to tell comforting lies – telling us it was the “last throws” of some “dead enders” rather than making the case for the necessity of a longer conflict.
And only NOW that they can no longer maintain support by continuing to lie about how easy it will be do they feel it opportune to tell the public the hard, inconvenient truth about how we need to be prepared for a long conflict – and then fret because people don’t believe their predictions of what will happen if we leave. Well,its their own damn fault. Like the Boy Who Cried Wolf, they lied so much about so many, mostly trivial, things that it is now THEIR fault, no one else’s, if people don’t believe them when they actually are telling the truth.
The Left may have invented the notion of “false consciousness” but today it is the Right that embraces the concept the most and it is utterly pathetic. Like a terrible salesman who blames the customer for their own shortcoming, facing overwhelming majority opposition to their cause they are reduced to blaming the very people they wanted to win over – their own countrymen – for weakness in the face of so-called leftist subversion. The truth is that it wasn’t “subversion” that cost them the support of the people – it was their own lies
8:44 pm
“Many of us opposed the Vietnam war and feel the same sense of vindication, even to this day.”
I’ll go tell the Boat Person I know that you feel vindicated. I’m sure he’ll be pleased.