Danger of an Isolationist Alliance within the Democratic Party
By gamecock Comments (16) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Events this past week have caused me to fear for my country even more than I have since the first Democrat quagmire utterance 72 hours after we invaded Iraq and the first Bushlied utterance a few months later. (Biden accused Bush of lying again today on a Sunday Show.)
I see a disturbing and growing isolationist attitude among some conservatives and fear that enough of them could align with liberals (nearly all of which are isolationist, at least when a Republican is president) to make the Democratic party a majority party again.
After 60-years of unprecedented affluent peace, (save for the Vietnam War and its ending that reinforces the problem) within secure borders (except for 9/11 - notice these excepts...they become relevant later) we are mostly a war ignorant people. We are totally disconnected from the struggle for food, shelter and safety from war. We take it all for granted in our ignorance. Rome fell. History is war. Our miracle was born in war and will continue only by using force and deterring war by convincing enemies that their aggression means their death.
You think any enemy today fears any democrat?
I know, most conservatives learned the proper lesson from 9/11, i.e. that we cannot wait to be attacked, and so must act to prevent attacks abroad militarily against gathering threats and in trying to encourage societies that don't produce more threats.
That America doesn't (except when democrats do so) abandon frinds to slaughter. That al Qaida is in Iraq today. That we must finish the job in Iraq. And let me stop here to say to democrats, that just because you are TV war weary does not cause the job to be done. the job is not done. we aren't going to nuke Iraq and Iran, and so, tjis war will take time. Get over it.
But liberals who learned the lesson in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 have put the lesson out of their mind, much like childlike avoidance of unpleasantness too horrible to bear or like Scarlett O'Hara's decision to "think about it tomorrow."
To liberals, 9/11 is now seen just as a somewhat bigger crime with a fugitive to nab. They can no longer bear the daily reminders in the news that we have enemies that want to kill us, and have decided to simply deny it, imagine we can deal with it through first responders as do some isolationist conservatives, or just don't care if we lose 3000 every now and then or if a post-Vietnam-like slaughter ensue so that they can get the war off the tube. Anything but having their idyllic lives interrupted by news reports of a long hard slog. Makes American Idol less enjoyable.
The poor souls are war weary from watching TV.
Gamecock is weary of an enemy propaganda media and weenie Democrats.
What liberals and conservatives aren't weary of is freedom.
Its just that liberals don't understand that we face enemies who see in the liberals weakness, an invitation to wage a war to destroy us and believe they can win against liberals.
Despite their feigned obsession with getting Bin laden so that nirvana will break out all over the USA, they seem not to listen to what he said for a decade, i.e. that our cutting and running from Vietnam, Iran, Beirut, Iraq in the first Iraq-Kuwait War before finishing the job (leaving Saddam in power was viewed as a US defeat by Saddam and UBL), and Somalia, made us a paper tiger and convinced UBL that he could defeat us, and so began attacking us with increasing ferocity in the 90s leading to 9/11.
Yet, the liberals never miss a chance to wax weak words.
Moreover, liberals no longer care about spreading freedom, liberating the oppressed or preventing genocide. They care only for themselves and "the children," i.e. raising taxes.
Now, to Pat Buchanan, whose lobotomy scar I still seek. Given December 7, 1941 and September 11, 2001, one would think such an intelligent man would have a clue on this matter of isolationism. But no. Pat's Dad really drummed this isolationism into the deepest part of the brain, which survives in only slightly altered form.
Pat favored our war in the Pacific against Imperial Japan. Nice of him. One wonders why he didn't favor simply pulling all the Navy back to the US and building a wall. To hell with Hawaii.
Why am I so harsh on a man I admire so much? Pat's mantra since 9/11 is:
"They are over here because we are over there."
And? more later on that.
We were over in Japan's waters too.
Pat did not favor our alliance with Britain to defeat Nazi Germany. True. Let that sink in. Yet, Pat favored Patton's desire to seize eastern Europe in the aftermath of WWII (as would I have), MacArthur's desire to crush Red China in Korea even with nukes, the Cold War and the war in Vietnam. He favors the war in Afghanistan even though we were "over there."??? Like I said, more later on that. Pat was against the first Gulf War.
Apparently, Pat learned three lessons from 12/7/1941, WWII, the Cold War from 1946-1991 and 9/11/2001:
1 - Isolationism applies to everyone but Japan, Communists and Afghanistan.
2 - Since the defeat of the USSR, military action is only justified after we are attacked.
3 - We should remove ourselves from the Middle East since UBl wants us to. (more later on this. I promise. Its coming.)
The Promised More later
Let's break down Pat's "They are over here because we are over there" statement that he throws out as if it, at once explains 9/11 and the jihadist threat and provides the prescription for same.
It is a statement born of complete ignorance of the PUBLISHED motives of the enemy and provides no relevant information with which to prevent future 9/11s.
UBL is a disciple of published Islamists going back 480+ years that desire to re-establish the Caliphate that Ataturk revoked when he founded modern Turkey. UBL wishes to re-establish Muslim rule over the lands once ruled by Mohamed and Saladin, which includes much of Spain and other parts of Europe. They wish to overthrow all the governments of the Middle East, and then the whole world.
Also, a reminder to Pat. UBL is not the head of a state. He was the leader of the Base organization for jihad that once numbered in the tens of thousands trained in Afghanistan that is now reduced to the single digit thousands thanks the American soldiers. UBL is now the head of a cave organization, whose picture inspires people to get killed by American troops.
So, let's start the analysis of the statement Pat supposes explains the world in one sentence and which, being a writer myself, I'm sure gave him that pink glow of pleasure when he coined the phrase, which, again, is:
"They are over here because we are over there."
First, the last word "there."
Where is there in Pat's mind? It could be a reference to when US troops were in Saudi Arabia to prevent Saddam Hussein (you know, the guy that libs now say was a contained threat) from invading and taking control of the world oil market; Kuwait, where Us troops went to liberate them after Saddam's invasion); Israel; our naval vessels involved in trade; and EVERY NATION IN THE MUSLIM WORLD save Iran, with whom we trade with.
UBL considers it a sacrilege for any infidel to step foot on Muslim land. Actually UBL thinks it unacceptable that non-Wahhabists breathe air, but I digress.
Does Pat suggest that America cease trade, diplomatic relations or travel to any nation UBL designates, lest they come over here and kill us?
Which brings us to who is "they."?
They are a terrorist organization.
Pat would have us appease a terrorist organization rather than relate to the sovereign nations and their peoples under threat from al Qaida?
insane
Pat, the US is a target because the enemy knows that we are the only force on Earth that stands between them and world rule. And thank God we are a target, because if we were not, it would mean that we had been defeated.
And the policies of liberal and conservative isolationists alike would make our fall exponentially more likely.
Thanks to Pat's fore bearers, FDR faced an isolationist plurality if not majority in this country that prevented him from eliminating the Nazi and Fascist threats before they got so strong it took hundreds of thousands of American lives to stop them.
Now, in a nation of a plurality of Pat's types and the sissies of the McGovernite Democrat Party, that, (unlike after Pearl Harbor, "got it" and forged the will to unify and fight until victory) despite our own Pearl on 9/11, we see increasing isolationism rather than a clear eyed view of the necessity of offense against gathering threats.
The behavior of the Dems, but, more significantly, the wobbly repubs, this past week presents the real possibility that the GOP cold cease to be the war party.
My friends, we have one appeasement party that strikes fear in the hearts of no one but babies in the womb, much less terrorists. They have seen the Democratic party's prescription for terrorism in the 90s, and a desire for a return to same, despite 9/11 from the lips of Democratic leaders in congress and the former president that fashioned same.
Democrats have learned nothing from 9/11.
The survival of America demands that republicans be the war party. America has never elected a known dove even in the depths of the Civil War, Vietnam, WWII, or in 2004 when things were worse in Iraq in the ground and before the three elections.
Fight Isolationism.
Mike Gamecock DeVine @ The Charlotte Observer
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
The HinzSight Report - Race 4 2008
game asserts that the only defense is a good offense, I'm not so sure that is a good assertion or the only course available to this country as security from future terrorists threats.
"I know, most conservatives learned the proper lesson from 9/11, i.e. that we cannot wait to be attacked, and so must act to prevent attacks abroad militarily against gathering threats and in trying to encourage societies that don't produce more threats."
This approach seems to indicate that the entire world, every conflict, ever tyrant and every opportunity to flex our military muscles must be taken, but to what end? The concept of "vital interests", along with the concept of "We are not the world's policeman", seem to be lost in this approach to a new world order. After all, it's a big world, with lots of friends and not a small number of enemies in this world. Gamecocks piece seems to be that the only form security for this country can take is unilateral military adventures around the world to deal with "evil doers" before they come to our shores to cause trouble. I don't think the American people have the long term stomach for this approach, nor do I think it is fundamentally a sound approach.
I would argue that we learned after 9/11 that there are some really bad people out there in the world, and they don't like us very much. We also learned that our own lack of will to be ruthless against people who will do us harm, at least on our own soil in the name of political correctness and intrusion on civil rights may be our downfall. I would remind gamecock that the terrorists who attacked the WTC and the Pentagon had been in this country for some time, traveling about and enjoying the liberties of a free country. Some would point out that the very civil liberties that we enjoy in this country may be in fact the downfall of our country.
The argument of the only way to deal with terrorism is to deal with it through military force, "over there" ignores the reality that you really can't kill all the cockroaches when the light comes on, just enough to slow them down some. If you leave crumbs all over the place, if you make yourself vulnerable to cockroaches and terrorists at home, you are bound to find them in your house sooner or later, no matter how many you mange to stamp out "over there".
The Democrats do not have a plan to deal with cockroaches or terrorists, here at home or "over there", that much is clear. It remains to be seen if Republicans are the party that are willing to state the obvious that our open society is not going to be as open as it was pre 9/11. Balancing the need dealing effectively with terrorist threats here at home against long standing constitutional protections and freedoms is the true next wave of the political debate in my mind, not the argument of dealing with them "over there" with military force.
Real security at home from terrorist threats will come from better cooperation between Federal law enforcement and the intelligence community, without encumbrances of statutory walls erected in the name of privacy rights. Real security at our airports, in our interstate transport system and at our ports. How to do those things and where to rebalance individual rights against societies rights is something I think Republicans can do a much better job of than Democrats, and frankly something that the political debate should be focused more on than more military interventions overseas.
_______________________________
Another South Park Republican spouting off !
I went out of my way to use lawyerly cya equivocal language and to address actual positions by actual isolationists (or at least to address policy positions that amount to isolationism) so as to get to the meat of the issue and avoid having to re-write my essay due to tangential strawmen arguments.
But, alas, I failed the test as per LA!
Weakness invites aggression. The reason UBL went to war with us was directly due to the weakness of the left. To pull out of Iraq due to weakness would portend grave consequences for us. We can't quit when the going gets tough. There are consequences to losing wars. The world is governed now, since Adam was cast out of Eden, and will be till Jesus returns, by the aggressive use of military force.
Most of history is tyranny by evil men that were willing to use force and to pay for it thru enslaved populations.
Our little blip of freedom in history is only possible if we stay stronger than, have more will than our enemies, and if we use force when necessary so as to eliminate immediate threats and deter future miscalculations.
UBL would never have attacked us in this country if he knew that Dubya wasn't Bill.
I never said that I opposed the measures you cite in addition to war.
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
The HinzSight Report
Race 4 2008
No you don't ignore those parts of the equation, but you seem to be an advocate of military adventuring and gun boat diplomacy.
By the way, who elected the United States the world's policeman and world's nation builder, I've never voted for anyone subscribing to that point of view. Our vital interests are not well served by deploying our troops around the globe to every trouble spot; like it or not, that's the role of the UN.
I don't feel safer now that we have occupied Iraq, in the same way I don't feel safer when I fly because I am forced to take off my shoes for inspection. It's all a bit a day late and dollar short.
Real security is going to mean some erosion of civil liberties in this country, not more military interventions to take out the next tin pot dictator. I can only hope that the adults, i.e. Republicans are the ones running the scales, on how things need to change instead of the PC Democrats.
_______________________________
Another South Park Republican spouting off !
you watched George Stephanopolis interviewing Duncan Hunter on TW. George said "well you sound just like Pat Buchanan, and what makes you think positions like his will help you? I couldn't believe it. The only thing that I guess Pat and Duncan agree on is building fences on our national border. It was a strange interview.
You’re a persistent cuss, pilgrim.
John Wayne to Jimmy Stewart in The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance
Founder and contributor to The Minority Report and Senior writer for The Hinzsight Report
and I actually love Pat for a lot of reasons: his christian faith, the conservative education I got from him on crossfire, stands on values issues, and
the border. All his books are good, but the boy has some major flaws.
Duncan Hunter is right for GC on all the issues from what I have seen, and i think he would be a great president. I think he has a very honest, earnest and contagious demeanor and personality that engenders trust.
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
The HinzSight Report
Race 4 2008
you can watch the D Hunter interview on the web
http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/
I think you will like the way Duncan presents himself especially with wartime decisions. Let me know what you think.
You’re a persistent cuss, pilgrim.
John Wayne to Jimmy Stewart in The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
The HinzSight Report
Race 4 2008
of constant prevenient wars and appeasement. Isolationism doesn't imply either.
Of course there's a strong isolationist streak in the Republican party right now. There has been for decades. But isolationism recognizes the need to retaliate against attacks. Just as our early nation responded to piracy with major military reprisals, so do we now respond to terrorists.
But we're supposed to be getting value for all that effort. That was the whole premise of the proposal - that solving huge future problems is worth some relatively little cost now.
The Iraq occupation is beginning to look suspect under that test. A free and stable Iraq holds little value to us in itself, nor is it cheap to attain. It looks extra expensive if we're going to keep playing by Marquis of Queensbury rules, as we have been.
That doesn't mean we should be coming home right now; I oppose that. Rather, we should focus on achieving our interests. We need to show our interventions are good policy. The 9/11 attacks do not automatically justify every possible military mission.
Whit, this blog was not directed at you and I did not inply any of the broad inferences you chose to argue against. I am talking about the isolationism as expressed by the statements and votes of elected dems and many people I know, as well as pat's brand. I went into excruciating detail to show that Pat's version is dangerous. You do not favor withdrawal from Iraq in defeat. Those that do, don't understand the devastating consequences for this country and the world if we quit before acheiving our objectives, and making sure the enemy understands that we can outlast them in any fight.
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
The HinzSight Report
Race 4 2008
The biggest problem as I see it is that we don't really have a choice between isolationism and fighting a "sane" war. Thanks to the political correctness "embedded" within both the discussion and strategy, our choice seems to be between fighting with one hand tied behind our back and circling the wagons. Between those two choices, I have trouble picking the best option.
History shows that the only way to stop radicalized Islam is to emasculate it, to humiliate it, and to do so thoroughly. But the take-no-prisoners approach would look bad on TV, so we're stuck with neurotic rules of engagement that can only lead to stalemate. If I had any confidence that a "democracy" in Iraq would not soon be morphed by Sharia into something sinister, with the rise to power of an Iraqi equivalent of Hamas, I'd have less of a problem with engaging in a stalemate until the government could take strong-enough control for us to pull back.
That we are dealing with an artificial nation whose borders were the West's own arbitrary creation that paid no heed to historical sectarian, tribal and clannish animosities further complicates the matter for me: Might installing a totalitarian strong-man of our own choosing be a better option than what we're doing? Unless we are going to partition the sects and family attachments in the region into separate entities, this might be the case. I just don't know.
What I do know is that I have grave reservations about "fighting not to lose." There is nothing more stupid and futile than fighting with the muddled intention of trying not to hurt anyone who is not a combatant when the enemy uses noncombatants as shields. We'd better re-learn how to live with the ugly realities of war or we're going to suffer this affliction time and again. The barking that we called "shock and awe" will be useless in the future unless we prove the the dog really will bite.
While watching "24", I found myself rooting for the general who advocated returning the Middle East to the stone age after the suitcase nuke was detonated. If we lack the will to finish a job simply because the true hell of war looks bad on the television, and we are emasculated by compassionate angst about it, we ought not be engaged in it. The enemy knows this is our weakness; we'd best get over it or we are in for a long bad spell.
"Talking" to and "negotiating" with Islamists is like seeking détente with a three-year-old throwing a tantrum.
Better be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident security. --Edmund Burke
My Blog: The Movement You Need
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
The HinzSight Report
Race 4 2008
doesn't sound so secure to me! We have military posts and ships all over the world. They have been attacked. Do we pull them back? Our embassies? How about our nationals working overseas? Do we let our tourists get pitched overboard? Man, that is real isolationism! We hunker down behind secure borders and ports and the rest of the world can go to h***. This in spite of the fact that as long as there are countries that openly train and support terrorists to come here and kill us there will be no completely "secure" borders and ports.
SA's refusal to distinguish between threats to our vital interests and the "world's policeman" charge results in the typical liberal equation of Darfur and Rawanda with Kuwait and Afghanistan and, yes, Iraq.
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
The HinzSight Report
Race 4 2008