The Fight For Iraq Is Lost
maybe not the *war*, but certainly the fight
By haystack Posted in War — Comments (90) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
In one of President Bush's positively BEST foreign policy speeches since the September 11 attacks brought us to this hell we find ourselves in now, we were reminded via clear, detailed, and somber analogy, of the gravity of our situation in the war against Radical Islam.
He provided a wealth of historical reference, gave specific meaning and context to our current situation against the backdrop of past wars America has engaged (and ultimately triumphed), and established clear parallels between what "could have been" in yesteryear, and what "might become" should we choose poorly from our list of options today.
The problem, however, is that nobody is listening anymore. No one cares. Everyone has made their respective minds up. Any future developments will be received as nothing more than new revisions of the already out-of-vogue bumper sticker. And worst of all, not for this President but those who come after, the credibility of Commander-in-Chiefs is forever lost in the muddied waters of American cynicism, and disbelief in the idea that there might be those who would see the country destroyed.
In John 15:13, Jesus said "Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends." Over the years between the first Gulf war and present day, Americans and Iraqis and many others from around the world have died and continue to die to save Iraq, and have made that ultimate sacrifice. America's inability to get beyond political selfishness and reckless abandon in the name of power-grabbing pandering and self aggrandizement, blinds us to the friendship Iraqis past and present have shown us and blinds Congress and the anti-war movement to the friendship we have shown the Iraqis. Maliki actually has it right when he says "we can find friends elsewhere."
Kick and scream all you want about whether Viet Nam parallels can be drawn in the intellectual mumbo jumbo of Pol Pot, Khmer Rouge, whether the enemies then were religious zealots, or whether or not the South was sufficiently ready to go it alone...the OTHER parallels that are fair to draw are that we suck at being friends - we did then and we do now.
More below the fold...
The complete and utter lack of ability on the part of the American people and our elected representatives to EVER again see a crisis abroad as having any potential repercussions here at home is stunning. Of any legacy item this Administration might have to suffer in the minds of future historians, this is perhaps the deepest cut of all; a Viet Nam by any other name is still a Viet Nam.
However many so-called "experts" there might be right now lining up to tell us that Bush's having drawn a parallel between Iraq and Viet Nam was overplayed, and however many already-Bush-haters will find themselves firing up again to scream new "Bushlied™" rhetoric and vitriol, the fact remains that Iraq is lost to the American people and the Iraqis themselves that were hoping for a sustained friendship with us this time around.
In an interesting little piece about Idealism, Pragmatism, and Presidential rhetoric, it was said of JFK and his "rhetoric" regarding Viet Nam back in '61-'63:
President Kennedy invoked idealistic terms to encourage Americans to view the conflict there as one small part of the larger struggle between freedom and communism. According to the President, the United States had to do whatever was necessary to defend freedom's Vietnam. Alternately, Kennedy explained that the situation in Vietnam was quite complicated and unique because of that nation's particular history, government, logistics, and legal relationship with the U.S. In view of these complexities, the President held that the United States must pragmatically pursue very special policies in order to fulfill its mission in Vietnam.
Kennedy's pragmatism, of course, is what many Americans remember. According to Philip Wander, for example, the President's foreign policy rhetoric exemplified "technocratic realism" because it focused upon complexities and expertise.(5) We argue, however, that Kennedy's Vietnam talk concerned itself with principles, as well as practicalities. Specifically, we claim that Kennedy characteristically alternated between idealistic discourse, which applies principles of genus to public problem-solving, and pragmatic discourse, which emphasizes the efficacy or practicality of policies.(6) By shifting ground between these two forms of argument, the President accrued rhetorical and political advantages for himself, Previous research has indicated that a mixture of idealism and pragmatism is key to successful American political rhetoric,(7) but no study has demonstrated how presidents balance these two appeals or the particular functions that these two types of appeals may serve.
In his speech today, much of this same idealism, pragmatism, and rhetoric can be found in President Bush's words:
We must remember the words of the enemy. We must listen to what they say. Bin Laden has declared that "the war [in Iraq] is for you or us to win. If we win it, it means your disgrace and defeat forever." Iraq is one of several fronts in the war on terror -- but it's the central front -- it's the central front for the enemy that attacked us and wants to attack us again. And it's the central front for the United States and to withdraw without getting the job done would be devastating. (Applause.)
If we were to abandon the Iraqi people, the terrorists would be emboldened, and use their victory to gain new recruits. As we saw on September the 11th, a terrorist safe haven on the other side of the world can bring death and destruction to the streets of our own cities. Unlike in Vietnam, if we withdraw before the job is done, this enemy will follow us home. And that is why, for the security of the United States of America, we must defeat them overseas so we do not face them in the United States of America. (Applause.)
In a letter, then called the Manifesto of the eighteen, written to the President of the Republic of Viet-Nam in 1960, a group self-described as "eminent citizens and personalities, intellectuals of all tendencies, and men of good will" had their own idealism, pragmatism, and rhetoric. These pleas for help from their government might not have been considered this way back then, but in the minds of today's cynicism-hardened pacifists, and ambivalent hand-wringing anti-war protesters, such a claim would be surely made were this letter to come from every day, on-the-street Iraqis. Consider the pleas from over 40 years ago:
In spite of the fact that the bastard regime created and protected by colonialism has been overthrown and that many of the feudal organizations of factions and parties which oppress the population were destroyed, the people do not know a better life or more freedom under the republican regime which you have created. A constitution has been established in form only; a National Assembly exists whose deliberations always fall into line with the government; antidemocratic elections--all those are methods and "comedies" copied from the dictatorial Communist regimes, which obviously cannot serve as terms of comparison with North Viet Nam.
Continuous arrests fill the jails and prisons to the rafters, as at this precise moment; public opinion and the press are reduced to silence. The same applies to the popular will as translated in certain open elections, in which it is insulted and trampled (as was the case, for example, during the recent elections for the Second Legislature). All these have provoked the discouragement and resentment of the people.
Political parties and religious sects have been eliminated. "Groups" or "movements" have replaced them. But this substitution has only brought about new oppressions against the population without protecting it for that matter against Communist enterprises. Here is one example: the fiefs of religious sects, which hitherto were deadly for the Communists, now not only provide no security whatever but have become favored highways for Viet Minh guerrillas, as is, by the way, the case of the rest of the country.
This is proof that the religious sects, though futile, nevertheless constitute effective anti-Communist elements. Their elimination has opened the way to the Viet Cong and unintentionally has prepared the way for the enemy, whereas a more realistic and more flexible policy could have amalgamated them all with a view to reinforcing the anti-Communist front.
Today the people want freedom. You should, Mr. President, liberalize the regime, promote democracy, guarantee minimum civil rights, recognize the opposition so as to permit the citizens to express themselves without fear, thus removing grievances and resentments, opposition to which now constitutes for the people their sole reason for existence. When this occurs, the people of South Viet Nam, in comparing their position with that of the North, will appreciate the value of true liberty and of authentic democracy. It is only at that time that the people will make all the necessary efforts and sacrifices to defend that liberty and democracy.
Notwithstanding vehement objections to the contrary, the parallels are fair and they are clear. However much the US involvement in Iraq might have disrupted the violent but controlled status quo under the despot Hussein, the half-torn cloth that has become the liberated Iraq can only tear further lacking sufficient time and resource to facilitate the mending process.
Any Iraqi Government indifference to the crisis amongst its citizenry will not be improved by a lessened outside influence and support mechanism to right these wrongs inside Baghdad. And, the collective indifference to Iraq's future wherever that future might impede the political aspirations of our OWN political heroes here at home can not be ignored. It is in their selfish pursuit of power and control of American lives that Iraq's undoing lies.
A very close and un-named friend of mine summed it up best when he said this:
It is my sincere opinion that our military is fighting around the clock to defend our freedoms, but our country has yet to awaken to the reality of the times and fully mobilize for war.
This ambivalence is dangerous and irresponsible. As many of our Presidential Candidates and Congressional Leaders are discussing defeat and withdrawal, the enemy is looking for new ways to exploit our new found weakness. Any minor defeat on the battlefield is used as propaganda for recruiting new waves of terrorists, but a withdrawal from Iraq or any major front in this war on terror will embolden generations of radical Islamists to take up arms in the fight against the great Satan.
As we so often do when we determine our selfishness is better sated on some "new" frontier, we will abandon Iraq. Maybe we'll wait until an election cycle can bolster the chances for a new political dynasty. Maybe we'll leave sooner, in hopes of ensuring the defeat of one. Either way, we'll be gone soon enough, and who will be held to blame (or praised) will be settled by the hysterics among us.
There is still hope, of course. The hope lies, unfortunately, in the hands of those (not unlike in Cambodia, Laos, and across South Viet Nam) with the most to lose and yet least able to do anything more than just hope...and pray.
« We need more COIN in the Afghan realm — Comments (0) | Anbar Revisited — Comments (9) »
The Fight For Iraq Is Lost 90 Comments (0 topical, 90 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
it's refreshing to see the attempt to justify the occupation as being in our interests. Which is why the take here is a bit disappointing, in that it concerns itself with letting down our friends.
Aside from the legitimate sentiment that the suffering of human beings elsewhere in the world actually matters, bear in mind that there will be an infinite number of times in the future at which we will want peoples around the world to stick their necks out and take actions we desire, and whether or not they do so will often depend on their trust of us not to let them down when push comes to shove.
I don't remember when we acquired this broad friendship for Iraq. We seemed pretty hostile towards the nation when we were blowing it up in the Gulf War, throughout the cease-fire and embargo, and when we were blowing it up a second time. I don't recollect any broad sympathy for Iraq before the Kuwait invasion either. It's a very different society from our own.
While I'm not suggesting that the U.S. is thought of favorably by the Iraqi people in general (at least not outside of Kurdistan), you seem to be making a couple of erroneous assumptions. First, you say that we were "hostile toward the nation" by going to war with it and maintaining sanctions. Need I remind you that Saddam was a dictator, not some freely elected leader reflecting the wishes of his people. We kicked his military out of Kuwaiit after it had invaded that sovereign country and captured another 10% of the world's oil, threatening another 20% in Saudi Arabia. We maintained sanctions -- yes, which arguably hurt the Iraqi people, although certainly exacerbated by Saddam, who could have done more for his people even under sanctions -- because Saddam did not fully cooperate with inspections, because we needed to keep him in a box, and probably also because we wanted to undermine his regime -- a regime hated by most Iraqis and a future threat to his neighbors and at some point probably to us. And we went in again after he still would not fully cooperate with weapons inspectors (whether or not that was a pretext for implementing the neocon vision, Saddam could have avoided invasion by fully cooperating with inspectors, and we were right not to tolerate his refusal to do so). It is unfair of you, in light of all of the above, to characterize our actions as reflecting indifference to the well being of the Iraqi people. And as for "It's a very different society from our own", we have sympathy for peoples in societies "very different from our own" ALL THE TIME, whether it's people suffering from natural disasters, war, dictatorship, etc., so I really don't see the point of that comment.
when he spoke with Henry Kissinger.
James Hansen - Scott THomas Beauchamp with a PhD.
but I thought our wars in Southeast Asia were part of treaty obligations. We don't have a treaty with Iraq; it's a conquered country.
I do not think that taking down a hostile government gives us an endless commitment to the people of that place. (If that were so, isolationism starts looking pretty good.) Nor do I think Iraq faces NEARLY as serious a threat as Southeast Asia faced. Al Qaeda is not a massive military machine; it's a terrorist group. The danger is internal instability, and this has to primarily be addressed by the government that's going to rule there.
I do not advocate total abandonment, which certainly isn't in our interests. But there's a limit to how much we should let Iraq tie our military down.
defeated the military, tore down the government, and governed the place to our liking.
Now our liking is much, much kinder than the typical conqueror. But a conqueror is what we are, after a war we started. It's nice to think of ourselves as liberators, but that's ignoring our original purpose for going there and staying there: stopping terrorists in advance. There's a reason we're in Iraq and not Sudan or a dozen other places.
Please note "governed" in the past tense.
Please also note that if our soldiers are necessary to keep public order, we arguably still have a role in governing it. If we didn't, everything would be fine when we left, right?
This is why I ridicule the proposed "over-the-birm" force you support. When our military reports back that the enemy is sufficiently nuetralized, then we tell Iraq they are mostly on their own and scale back to the ACR regiment in Kuwait again. That will probably occur 3-5 years hence, not now.
But there's a limit to how much we should let Iraq tie our military down.
If AQ and Iran would leave, so would we. Our enemies in thsi conflict have to exert a major expenditure of energy and funds to keep us tied down. I'd argue we aren't the only ones in a bind over Iraq.
James Hansen - Scott THomas Beauchamp with a PhD.
What's the job?
If the concern is Iran, I think we're better off with our troops prepared to invade. We're a little overextended right now, thanks to our self-defined mission in Iraq.
If the concern is AQ, the question is how defeated it has to be before we can largely let Iraq handle it itself. Do we really need so many troops just for that for so long? I'm inclined to let the surge go on a bit while profits are high, then downsize significantly.
If the concern is building democracy in the Middle East, I don't share the President's optimism that this is a recipe for success against terror. Nor do I think an Iraqi democracy will spill over; Israel's democracy hasn't. There's a limit to how much we should spend on a luxury item. Iraqis can afford to pay more of the bill, if they truly want it.
As for the actual drawdown, I want a permanent base in Iraq, so I'm expecting a longer-term investment than you're suggesting. I don't see how to reach your estimate without even more mission reduction than I'm arguing for.
and recommended it. I couldn't believe that it had only recommend.
The quote from the Cambodian PM is like a kick in the gut.
I agree that there is no honor in abandoning an ally.
I enjoy reading your work here on RS.
Peter Rodman nailed it. If we mail in Iraq, or even if we post a fictious and risible over-the-birm force that supposedly will have the courage and tenancity to do the fighting that 160,000 Americans in Iraq aren't willing to do, the results will be catastrophic, and not just in Iraq.
No analogies are ever complete, but — given our global leadership and the number of allies and friends that rely on us for their security — the consequences of an American defeat can be counted on to be terrible. How can anyone seriously think otherwise?
James Hansen - Scott THomas Beauchamp with a PhD.
If I understand you correctly, you're saying that the war in Iraq is lost because public support for the war has been lost here at home. And you're also saying that regardless of any further successes on the ground in Iraq, or any evidence of progress that emerges in the coming months, the public will never come around to supporting this war again.
Well, I have a few things to say about that:
1) You can't prove it. It's never a good idea to try to predict the future based on the past (I know, I study history as an occupation), because the one thing we can definitely learn from the past is that the future is always unpredictable. That is especially so in this case. You simply can't say with any certainty what the public will be saying a year, or even six months from now, because events, not rhetoric or persuasion, drive public opinion.
2) Even without public support, this war is likely to continue for a long time to come. President Bush will not support a full withdrawal while he is president, and even if the next president opposes the war he/she will, at least for the first year or so, have to continue fighting the war in order to extricate ourselves from it. It takes far longer than most of us realize to withdraw an army of 140,000 soldiers plus their equipment. So barring unforseen circumstances (which, of course, is impossible) we're going to maintain a military presence in Iraq for at least 2 1/2 years or more. And my bet is on "more," even if a Democrat wins in '08.
3) Regardless of what the American public thinks, the individual American soldier continues to press on. Unthanked, unappreciated, and neglected by the public, they are still doing astonishing things in Baghdad, Anbar province, and other difficult parts of Iraq. I suspect that they, and not John Q survey respondant, will determine the outcome of this war.
4) It seems to me that there is very little practical difference between those who say that the war can not be won militarily and those who say it has already been lost politically. It is true that after the '06 elections we clearly needed to change our strategy in Iraq in order to show the American people some kind of results. I think we have done that, and we are going to continue to do that. And besides, to say that the American people have made up their minds for good is like saying that they are no longer fickle and impressionable. And of course, they are.
A precedent embalms a principle.
- Disraeli
You write:
...since the September 11 attacks brought us to this hell we find ourselves in now...
Perhaps it was just carelessness, but your wording might lead one to believe that somehow 9/11 made it inevitable or unavoidable that we would be where we are today.
September 11 did not "bring us to this hell we find ourselves in now." Conscious decisions and countless mistakes, which were neither automatic nor necessary, have led to where we find ourselves today.
this hell we're in since September 11 is the war on terror...
haystack's 12th:
Conservatives (and Presidential Candidates especially) shall offer no aid and comfort to the opposition in times of legislative conflict (and ensuing political campaigns).
In fact, it may just really be beginning.
"Who will stand/On either hand/And guard this bridge with me?" (Macaulay)
If you are correct then we ought not be derisive of Ron Paul, but instead he starts to make a lot of sense.
Think about it, if the American People simply will not support any actions which last more than about eighteen months, then no ally will ever be stupid enough to seek our help again. They will opt instead to make "arrangements" with their foes, or form their own collective security.
In that case we would indeed be better off with a quasi isolationist view. AND DON'T start with all that gobbletygook about the "arsenal of democracy" and "head in the sand" and such.
The truth is, if we faced another worldwide ideology like Communism then we would be more united and determined. But we don't.
We face instead a bunch of much smaller, more diverse dangers.
"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle
Where have you been the past month? Have you not seen that the Fight for Iraq has been increasingly gaining support? Do you not see that, especially on a day when the President gives such a well-played speech, that public support is beginning to turn in the right direction, albeit in small numbers to date?
The Fight for Iraq is LONG from over. What would prompt you to post such a statement on a day like today of all days? You show no huge turning-point events to back up your claim!
by and large, the response is fussing over the Viet Nam analogy-have you seen the coverage that shows support for the President's words? Where are the links that detail a turn around in Congress towards expanded support for staying the course.
Sheesh-I am every bit as big a supporter of the military, the soldiers, and the efforts to win this, and the larger war on terror as anyone...the FIGHT in America to actually engage Iraq as a war we all are fighting, and we ALL take seriously, and we ALL want to fight until we win...is not going well. Problem is, I am one of that so-called 30%.
The pull out crowd grows in numbers...the FIGHT for Iraq is at issue here-call me ignorant, but look at the polls, check the news, watch the Congressmen...THOSE are stunningly ignorant.
haystack's 12th:
Conservatives (and Presidential Candidates especially) shall offer no aid and comfort to the opposition in times of legislative conflict (and ensuing political campaigns).
.....the war is still not popular, but polls have shown a modest shift in support of our mission. The media reaction was utterly predictable. The drive-bys have been anti-war for the past 3 years at least, so I don't really see "the media response" to Bush's speech as a "collapse of support".
Further evidence, and probably the best evidence, is to look at the statements of Democrats in recent days. Dick Durbin, Carl Levin, and Brian Baird - all of who are staunch anti-war liberals - are now saying things like "the surge is working". Brian Baird made a statement the other day that sounded like it could've come from Bush's mouth!
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”
are working on their "the war is lost" message during the August recess.
It's difficult to win any war when one of the major political parties sides with enemy for craven political reasons - and most of the media goes along.
====
"Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm." -- James Madison
produces a "modest shift" in the polling numbers, yet you wonder why Haystack is pessimistic about the war in Iraq?
The MSM won't let up with the anti-war rhetoric, and by engaging in the same repetitive rhetoric tactics used by Hitler, Stalin, and tryants elsewhere, will continue to undermine our war to defend freedom. Yes, RedState and other blogs like it are starting to make a difference in the national conversation, but we don't yet provide the weight of counterbalance necessary.
Personally, I see the Levin et al Democratic verbiage as their CYA before they pull the rug out from under the war: "Yes, the troops are doing a fine job as proven by their sucsess in the surge, but Al-Malaki and the Iraqi government aren't doing their part. We should waste no more American blood trying to grant freedom to a people who don't even want it."
People get huffy when I say thing like the MSM are the enemy and until we start dealing with them as such we won't make progress. But that is the reality of the situation.
I will not let my son's or any other soldiers tour in Iraq be labeled LOST. I refuse to let the "falling" be labeled a FAILURE. Failure is not an option and never will be. Pottie mouthing the WAR IS LOST is just the reason that most American's do not pay attention to world events or the polictical landscape that surrounds them everyday. The NYT is looking for another editor. You might fit the their mold and their agenda.
I just find it shameful that any American would even think that we can lose any war. Once you commit young men and women to battle then a country MUST do everything within it's power to make sure we WIN. It makes no sense not to want to win.
Again, I refuse to surrender and every American should feel the same way. It's a darn shame most don't, especially YOU!!!!
I couldn't have responded better myself. You summed up my feelings.
I will continue to pray for your son and his brothers in arms.
You've said what I've been trying to say with every post I make about Iraq, Vietnam and all our other battles.
"I just find it shameful that any American would even think that we can lose any war. Once you commit young men and women to battle then a country MUST do everything within it's power to make sure we WIN. It makes no sense not to want to win."
Your message should be the battle cry of America.
Thanks to your son and the other Americans that do want America to win- The US Military, this country is still free.
Pagar
This has always been my families battle cry. Of course, we're all military, either retired or active duty so if you consider me brainwashed..so be it. Been there and done that. We're the reason people can say what they want or mean.
But don't let the lose mentality get you down. A lot of groups and volunteers are working to get the REAL messsage out that America can and is winning. Look for some of us in Washington on September 17th & 18th talking to these "fence" sitters in Congress. Our message will be simple. We will and can win this War or any war. Don't get in our way!!!
Before I say anything, I just want to broadcast that I'm a pretty partisan Democrat, and this is my first post here (I'm more of a lurker than poster in general).
The grandparent post said that he finds it shameful that any American would even think that we could lose any war, and the parent post echoed that sentiment. It's a sentiment that I've seen expressed a number of times...the idea that we MUST win, no matter the cost. There seems to be an implicit assumption that defeat will always cost more than victory, both in terms of countable things like dollars and human lives, but also in terms of immeasurable things like our influence on the world and our honor.
The idea of a tarnish on our honor is what really bothers me. Because it seems to me that what the sentiment is saying is that there can be no honor in defeat, at least not when it comes at the level of an entire war. But is there really no honor in recognizing and accepting defeat, in letting the enemy take the field while protecting the withdrawl of your troops? And then in strengthening your positions elsewhere? At the level of an individual battle, this seems acceptable, but when it comes to a war, to many folks this is no longer acceptable.
I guess what I've really wanted to say for a long time is that I think that there _can_ be honor in defeat, and that I wish people would talk about the possibility more. I've chosen to post in this forum, rather than on a left-leaning blog...well, I'm not sure why, exactly. Certainly not looking to pick a fight.
FWIW, I don't think that we're defeated in Iraq yet. But I believe that it may happen.
But I do thank you for at least confirming that I'm not mischaracterizing what I see. Please at least believe me when I say that my personal honor and especially the honor of America are foremost on my mind when I think about the war in Iraq. Like you, I do not take these issues lightly. We've reached different conclusions, but I wouldn't be so bothered if I didn't care.
After being invaded by Ronulans, it was inevitable that we'd be told to live by the Klingon code: better to die (to terrorists) with honor, than to live with (according to lefty NGOs) dishonor.
I will take your word for it when you say you did not come here to pick a fight, but if that is the case I could not imagine a worse stance to advocate than "there is honor in defeat".
I cannot imagine, at any time, at any place, if we have committed our troops to battle, that there would be anything but dishonor in the United States of America voluntarily leaving the field to be occupied by the enemy. It would dishonor the sacrifices of the troops that had been killed and maimed, it would dishonor the commitments made by our allies, and it would dishonor the trust of the people we fight for.
Unimaginable to me, and totally, 100% unacceptable - ever.
Hope that clarifies my stance.
If one believe that they can expect defeat in battle then they expect defeat in their personal life. When you lay out the battle plan...defeat is not part of the plan. You might fall back but defeat never is. I personally can't comprend that statement or thought.
Honor does not include the term "defeat". Try selling that snake oil to the Japanese. Death is always before dishonor/defeat.
Life throws you curves but you never give up.
I'm gonna try really, really hard to be nice.
1. I find it interesting (and most likely random) that the last four letters of your screen name are "reid", as in Harry.
2. With respect to "honor" in defeat, cite an example from the last military victory that the Democratic Party engineered for the enemies of the US... Vietnam. I'm sure you'll be able to find "honor" in the butchery that followed the Democratic Congress cutting off funds to South Vietnam. And then there were the Cambodian Fields of Bliss. Or something like that.
3. Fast forward to the Middle East. 1979, terrorists take over the US embassy in Tehran and nothing is done. In the '80's Hezbollah murders several hundred Marines in Beirut, nothing is done. Somolia, no response. WTC bombing, handled by the FBI and DoJ, no response to the people who actually planned and funded the operation. African embassy bombings, no response. USS Cole, no response. WTC2, 3000 dead finally a response.
Please note that from 1979 to 2001 terrorism escalated against US interests with one brief slowdown after Reagan went after Quadaffi in Libya. Note that two of three US Administrations were totally feckless in their unresponsiveness to terrorist attacks on US interests and, frankly, even Reagan should have done more.
We end up with WTC2 and 3000 dead civilians. GWB takes down the Taliban and goes after aQ. The US takes out Saddam (I'm not going to bother with facts, you won't care) and aQ declares that Iraq is the battlefield where they will defeat us. We get to fight terrorists with the US military, which I consider to be better than fighting them with the overweight, out of shape, pitifully under-armed Sheriff who is my neighbor. As an aside, we've killed about 10,000 terrorists in Iraq so far this year. The only thing I can find bad about this is that the number is not logarithmically larger.
4. So, bottom line, we surrender in Vietnam, when we had pretty well achieved a military victory in 1968 and bad guys everywhere learn the lesson that if they can just drag out the conflict and spill some blood the Democrats will run like hell and plead with them to not kill all of us. They don't give a damn about the locals, just "us". aQ figures it's worth a shot and they try terrorism which works great until 2001.
5. Now, you seem to think that we can find "honor" in defeat. I'm amazed how you can ignore about 35 years of recent history. I'm amazed that you can actually be stupid enough to believe, apparently, that aQ will just leave us alone if we just declare defeat and leave.
You are a pathetic idiot. Feel free to accuse me of questioning your sanity and your patriotism.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
...a digital fustuarium on the guy.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
I know I was sticking my neck out. This is collectively your forum; I am not here to cause a ruckus.
you can add "raging stupid" to my previous comments.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
I said the "fight" is lost-I added, "maybe not the war, but certainly the fight". I ended with "there is still hope of course" and the entire piece is directed at the war at home-between the congress and the White House.
I welcome any shots you want to take at me, but go through the comments and notice the responses. Everyone in here may be mad at my carefully chosen words, but as we listen to the 70% against number, how can we not wonder where that number of people is, given no one seems to agree in these comments?
Further, notice American reaction to the speech in the press. Where is all this conviction you refer to? Since you say "especially you" it's clear you know I am a full supporter of the guys on the ground and their sacrifice...that is not at issue here.
The FIGHT FOR Iraq...that's the issue-whether we finish what we started (which will rightly take a generation or two like in Japan and South Korea) or we shelve our attention span to the next US election cycle.
Thanks you for being mad at me...but get mad at the ones that are causing the problems now-the US Congress.
haystack's 12th:
Conservatives (and Presidential Candidates especially) shall offer no aid and comfort to the opposition in times of legislative conflict (and ensuing political campaigns).
Haystack,
I try not to get mad at anyone but sometimes when the word/words LOST or LOSE are mention about any conflict, I sometimes get bowled up...sorry!!
I personally stay away from words that are perceived as negative. The reader (as I and others) will only focus on the negative. Right or wrong..it's just a fact. The MSM has been beating us down with so much negative reporting that has caused real harm to this nation. The MSM does not have a clue as to what harm they have caused - not only for the current war but ALL wars. Walter Cronkite started it out with Viet Nam by telling America we should get bug out and leave. I'm afraid this is still the atitude of most America. This is what I'm fighting against. Too much negative reporting and poor mouthing America has got to stop. We are eating our own.
We are a GREAT nation that has done GREAT good throughtout the world but we're perceived as a negative nation only because of the MSM and Hollywood miss reporting or delivering "bad" goods.
If you don't believe that...let us stop sending aid to foreign country and see how they react. Let us withdraw from the UN..see how the world reacts. Take the good old American dollar out of the mix and see how far they get.
I will forever beleive that America stands for something that everyone wishes they had or want. When EVERYONE realizes this that then only then will the negative beforever removed.
Keep reporting and we'll keep posting.
As Coach Bryant says - "IF YOU BELIEVE IN YOURSELF AND HAVE THE DEDICATION AND PRIDE - AND NEVER QUIT, YOU'LL BE A WINNER. THE PRICE OF VICTORY IS HIGH - BUT SO ARE THE REWARDS".
Amen
just so this conversation could be had-thanks for the reply.
haystack's 12th:
Conservatives (and Presidential Candidates especially) shall offer no aid and comfort to the opposition in times of legislative conflict (and ensuing political campaigns).
Re: "Any Iraqi Government indifference to the crisis amongst its citizenry will not be improved by a lessened outside influence and support mechanism to right these wrongs inside Baghdad."
This "indifference", represented most importantly by a lack of interest among Shiite leaders to make reasonable concessions to Sunnis to achieve national political reconciliation, also "will not be improved" by a continuation of our blank check policy. On the other hand, it MAY be improved if we make our continued FULL support contingent upon at least a good-faith effort toward political reconciliation. Such a policy would not only be smarter in it's own right than current policy (i.e., more conducive to success), but also would be more likely to sustain political support here at home.
http://www.redstate.com/blogs/brooksrob/2007/aug/02/a_common_sense_iraq_...
http://www.redstate.com/blogs/brooksrob/2007/apr/29/iraq_strategy_a_sens...
http://www.redstate.com/blogs/mediahawk/2007/aug/08/the_nightmare_the_le...
not the war. Still, a disputable statement but not as draconian or final. Polls indicate some turnaround in opinion and the Petraeus report should give momentum to more optimistic thought, despite the efforts of our media to solidify defeat,disaster, and disgrace, though they are said to be patriotic.
At this point in time, and regardless of America's fascination with gadgetry and minutiae, the war can't be lost. The reason being it won't end, it will not be allowed to end by the other side, the real enemy, not the specter in the White House, the stuff of hallucinatory and lurid liberal minds.
In a word, buckle your seat belts, we're going to be in this for a long time. Events will probably overtake the liberal death wish, people may begin to realize that this is something we are not being given choices or options on, and even though we would rather shop for i-pods it may dawn on a sufficient number that in fact we have no alternative.
"a man's admiration for absolute government is proportinate to the contempt he feels for those around him". Tocqueville
The war is in no way lost yet. We have plenty of battlefields like New York, DC, Los Angeles, London and Jerusalem where we can do a much better job!
James Hansen - Scott THomas Beauchamp with a PhD.
Just when I was thinking the blogosphere may actually offer a great alternative to the mediocrity and dim bulb ideas of the MS, you have to go and publish your post and start this thread.
You are handing victory to a bunch of lefties.
Thanks so much.
haystack's 12th:
Conservatives (and Presidential Candidates especially) shall offer no aid and comfort to the opposition in times of legislative conflict (and ensuing political campaigns).
If the fight for Iraq is lost, then why hasn't the Congress been able to pass a bill to hinder the fight?
they DID pass rotation changes...this hinders in available "ready" numbers in the NEXT round of rotations.
And...they haven't "not" passed them for a lack of trying-the pressure on them is far from sufficient to make them STOP trying. More needs doing-the vff effort and others is helping-but activist groups alone will not change Congress' perception and their little pointy stick about that 70% number. It's going to take a whole lot more to sit them down and shut them up. Starting here would go a long way...if you get my meaning.
haystack's 12th:
Conservatives (and Presidential Candidates especially) shall offer no aid and comfort to the opposition in times of legislative conflict (and ensuing political campaigns).
That your Iraqi flag is upside down? Is that an error or a sign of distress?
There's nothing quite so exhilerating as being shot at... and missed. Winston Churchill
haystack's 12th:
Conservatives (and Presidential Candidates especially) shall offer no aid and comfort to the opposition in times of legislative conflict (and ensuing political campaigns).
"America's inability to get beyond political selfishness and reckless abandon in the name of power-grabbing pandering and self aggrandizement, blinds us to the friendship Iraqis past and present have shown us and blinds Congress and the anti-war movement to the friendship we have shown the Iraqis."
Not "America's" - "Democrats". Do not lay this at the feet of all of us. Democrats have been working steadily for 40 years to reduce our standing in the world, economically, politically and in particular, militarily. If the things you say are true, there is one subset of "Americans", and one subset only, that is to blame.
Democrats.
but if I had singled them out directly, some degree of seriousness would be removed from the discussion-written off as yet another shrill squeal against the party of hope...coming from the party of the wilderness.
We, as collective Americans, elect these clowns, and we need to unelect them if we could ever realize (collectively) just exactly WHAT they are doing to us all...
haystack's 12th:
Conservatives (and Presidential Candidates especially) shall offer no aid and comfort to the opposition in times of legislative conflict (and ensuing political campaigns).
Another multi-chapter diary could be written on the history of the left's effort to take America down. Actually, a whole BOOK.
While it is true that the vast, vast majority of Dems are opposed to the war and would love to cut and run, there is a not-insubstantial number of Republicans (self-proclaimed, at least) that are in agreement with the Left that we should get out of Iraq. I believe that is why haystack's writeup is on target. It IS a problem with "America" although it is not a unanimous problem - it crosses party boundaries.
...when they see me they'll say, "There goes Loren Wallace,
the greatest thing to ever climb into a race car."
Yes, it is the Democrats and their MSM allies causing the defeat, but we will all taste the ash of their victory.
While I'm not nearly as pessimistic as haystack, I completely empathize with his point. The issue here isn't one of military competence, or the willingness of those of us who see the threat and the War Against Islamists for what it is.
The issue is that there is a truly significant number of American people who do not want to win, because they do not want to fight. When the people themselves are not willing to win, how long can a democratic society keep at war?
We can blame any number of malefactors -- Democrats, the media, Hollywood, CAIR, whoever. But the fact remains that there is an uncomfortably large percentage of the American citizenry that doesn't see a generational War Against Islamists and doesn't see Iraq as a campaign in that war.
Just as in the Cold War, I fear that Americans may never realize the threat. Even in the 80's, I remember liberals calling Reagan a dangerous crazy cowboy for standing up to the Soviet Union. It may take 40 years, and an Islamic State of Europe before Americans see the danger.
Trouble is, by then, we will have been rendered insignificant.
-TS
"When men fear work or fear righteous war, when women fear motherhood, they tremble on the brink of doom; and well it is that they should vanish from the earth." - Teddy Roosevelt
haystack's 12th:
Conservatives (and Presidential Candidates especially) shall offer no aid and comfort to the opposition in times of legislative conflict (and ensuing political campaigns).
except for hard core conservatives, is that the rest of us have heard this same [...] over and over again for almost five years now and we're sick and tired of it. "This is World War IV, they are Islamo-fascists, its like the U.S. after the Revolution, it's like the American Civil War, it's like World War II, its like the Cold War, its like Vietnam..." Bullshit! Iraq is like Iraq, and Iraq is now in a world of hurt solely because of the actions of our president, with assistance provided by the Democratic Party.
Lincoln and Roosevelt didn't have to come up with a new justification for their wars every six months. The people largely supported their wars because the objectives were clear and because the sacrifices were broadly shared (the shameful subsitute hiring by the rich in the Civil War notwithstanding).
There is no such committment to Iraq today. No such committment has been asked of the American people and none will be because the truth is that the American people do not have their heart in the Iraq war.
We were attacked by Saudi Arabians on 9/11, not by the Iraqis. The ideology of Wahabism and al-Qaeda contintues to flourish in Saudi Arabia. But we couldn't very well invade Saudi Arabia now, could we? Not with their ability to effect world oil prices and not with their cozy connections to the Bush family which has made billions off of their own relationship with both the Saudi royal family and the bin-Laden clan itself.
So, "we" did the next best thing: attack Saudi Arabia's weak, broken neighbor to the north, a neighbor whose military and civil infrastructure had been devastated by U.S. air attacks in the first gulf war, a neighbor who had been starved and sickened by 12 years of sanctions imposed by both Republican and Democratic presidents. The idea was that we could roll them over with ease, take possession of their oil and oil reserves which are probably greater than those of Saudi Arabia, and create a new pro-Israeli state that would be the first step in transforming the entire Middle East into similar quiet, compliant states.
The only thing "we" didn't count on was the will of the Iraqi people to resist.
I'm willing to wager with anyone that the Iraqis are willing to die in far greater numbers for their country than Americans are.
"Defeat" in Iraq does not at all mean the end of the American Republic. The British were defeated in the American Revolution
and went on to defeat Napoleon and conquer an even greater world empire. The U.S. survived defeat in Vietnam and went on to conquer.... Grenada.
The real pansies out there are the ones who think that a great nation can never admit a mistake, never take one (or even two)on the chin and still bounce back stronger.
have you ever read anything about the Civil War? That's a rhetorical question because given your statement about Lincoln and the Civil War the answer is obviously no.
Watch your language. Last word on that subject.
"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling
when he gets angry.
I've read plenty about the Civil War. And of course I realize that there was widespread opposition to Lincoln and the war. That's why I qualified my statement by saying that it was "largely" supported by the American people (read, of course, exclusively Northern and Western Americans). But there is no question that millions of Americans were willing to serve in the Union Army and to die at casualty rates that would never be accepted today. To me that indicates a far greater level of support for the war on the part of the majority of northern and western Americans.
That being the length of your essay on Union conscription problems during the American Civil War. Write it up, send it in and we'll think about turning your account back on.
While you're writing it, be sure to mind our rules against profanity, which you were in fact expected to follow.
Moe
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
we were talking about. You said Lincoln didn't have to change his reason for the war. I call BS. I can name three reasons in the first three years.
As to support? Well, if you ignore the Germans and Irish who were hired fresh off the boats I think you'd have a hard time proving your case on support. That's why Lincoln was expected to lose the election of 1864 until Sherman torched Atlanta in September 1864.
Now toddle along.
"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling
You make a critical assumption error...
"I'm willing to wager with anyone that the Iraqis are willing to die in far greater numbers for their country than Americans are."
While I understand your point, IMO it seems that a critical shortcoming is that Iraqis are not willing to do for Iraq.
Don't get me wrong, Shia's are willing to die for their faith, and Sunni's are willing to die for theirs, and Kurds are willing to die for Kurdistan, and the "Islamo-fascists" are willing to die to destroy America, but where is the evidence that anyone is willing to die for Iraq (besides us).
IMO the critical error in this whole process was a failure to recognize that there was no Iraq beyond a thug and his cohorts willingness to hold it together. Its an anarchism of European balance of power politics, nothing more.
there are more Iraqi troops fighting than US troops and IA units are multi ethnic and often led by former Army officers. So there are lots of Iraqis willing to die for Iraq.
Second, the idea that there is no Iraqi identity is patently false. Even in the US Army manual published for US troops stationed in Iraq during WW II the strong sense of national identity was noted. What Saddam did was not hold a group of people together by force, he actually demolished cultural and civic institutions that had existed in order to create ethnic divisions so he could rule more effectively.
"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling
There mere fact that numerically there are more IA troops is not sufficient evidence that at the mean these people are willing to die for "Iraq." There is considerable, though admitedly anecdotal, evidence that many of these "multi ethnic" units at best allow their American counterparts to take the vanguard in engagements, and at worst they participate in nongovernmental "militia" activity by night.
At a minimum I would say their is considerable evidence that they are less committed than their American counterparts.
As to Iraqi nationalism, I am vaguely familiar with the history of Bathhism, but even in its WWII context, I suspect that nationlist sentiment was an expression of Sunni self determination, not some broad multi cultural Iraq. But that is just IMO.
AWM - your terse candor is appreciated - an appropriate response to Haystack's awkward, specious ramble.
I won't deconstruct the whole pail of drivel, it's been done too many times before and you're obviously too stupid to understand the facts anyway.
I will point out, because AWM did make one sort of new point in relation to the Civil War and his comments about Lincoln and the shared sacrifices, implying that the war was somehow popular because of the draft. Read up on the New York draft riots for starters.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
by calling me stupid? I never said the Civil War was "popular." I said it was supported by a majority of people in the North and I am correct on that count.
is Moe's job. I'm just pointing out the obvious. You're stupid.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
haystack's 12th:
Conservatives (and Presidential Candidates especially) shall offer no aid and comfort to the opposition in times of legislative conflict (and ensuing political campaigns).
concerns him/herself with my writing, spelling, grammar, and composition skills...it is quite rare I get anything of substance from him/her on content...
but thanks for watching my back-if only I hadn't been behind the bleachers during English lit...sigh...
haystack's 12th:
Conservatives (and Presidential Candidates especially) shall offer no aid and comfort to the opposition in times of legislative conflict (and ensuing political campaigns).
In a stalking, obsessed kind of way...
Or maybe he/she is an English professor who was caught in a haystack with a student, lost tenure, and is now taking out on you. Never can tell.
haystack's 12th:
Conservatives (and Presidential Candidates especially) shall offer no aid and comfort to the opposition in times of legislative conflict (and ensuing political campaigns).
the overwhelming majority of Americans opposed US military involvement in Europe. A small minority of people, including a minority of one in President Roosevelt ultimately won the fight to prepare for war to fight that war. In the 1930s, that "fight" was similarly "lost".
The fallacy of the argument is that opinion surveys ultimately rule. Influence yes, but are they don't rule. Even opinions backed by large percentages in surveys are transitory and subject to destruction at the hands of great leaders and the events they bring about. After Watergate one could not find 60% of Americans admitting that they voted for Nixon. If you had polled Americans in the late 1980s about whether the demise of the Soviet empire should be a top goal of US foreign policy, one would have found overwhelming opposition. Public opinion is fleeting. It cannot see far. And it quietly adjusts itself when faced with new reality-new reality brought about by statesmanship.
In a very difficult war where domestic opposition has been vicious and unprincipled (from both the Democrats and the MSM), a strong-willed President has kept "overwhelming" opinion at bay. A Republican successor in the White House would do the same. 70% is no match for determined, prudent governance.
The Framers (see Hamilton) devised a government whose officials would have time to act-in the face of erroneous opinion-to meet gathering threats. This is only disheartening to those with weak hearts. We have a Constitution that gives us the ability to overcome temporary and misguided majority sentiment. Thank God!
In the meantime, 160,000 American military men and women help to establish countless friendships inside of Iraq on which we can build a long-term relationship.
haystack's 12th:
Conservatives (and Presidential Candidates especially) shall offer no aid and comfort to the opposition in times of legislative conflict (and ensuing political campaigns).
Perfect response to haystack's pessimism. Which is why I'm confused that haystack gave an approving comment, after having said stuff like:
However many so-called "experts" there might be right now lining up to tell us that Bush's having drawn a parallel between Iraq and Viet Nam was overplayed, and however many already-Bush-haters will find themselves firing up again to scream new "Bushlied™" rhetoric and vitriol, the fact remains that Iraq is lost to the American people and the Iraqis themselves that were hoping for a sustained friendship with us this time around.
...
As we so often do when we determine our selfishness is better sated on some "new" frontier, we will abandon Iraq. Maybe we'll wait until an election cycle can bolster the chances for a new political dynasty. Maybe we'll leave sooner, in hopes of ensuring the defeat of one. Either way, we'll be gone soon enough, and who will be held to blame (or praised) will be settled by the hysterics among us.
-
NARF
haystack's 12th:
Conservatives (and Presidential Candidates especially) shall offer no aid and comfort to the opposition in times of legislative conflict (and ensuing political campaigns).
oakster -
While everything you wrote is good sense, and I yearn to share your optimism, there is one chill shadow over it. I wanted to think the same as you did -- we live in a Hamiltonian Republic, not a Jeffersonian Democracy, and thank God for that.
Nonetheless, what concerns me is the quality of our leaders. Never in our Republic's history have we have such vicious attacks by the leaders of the political opposition on sitting wartime presidents. Never.
Politics stops at the water's edge used to be the motto of both parties, and our politicians understood that their job was to lead the country, not to get re-elected.
Today, I'm not so sure that still holds. In parallel to the coarsening of our overall culture, in parallel to the cheap mercenary attitudes that have infected our most hallowed professions, in parallel to the debasement of journalism to cheap political goals, I feel that our political leadership may no longer have the character for "determined, prudent governance."
You see, it isn't enough just to elect a strong-willed President. Sorry. It isn't enough when the Speaker of the House is willing to undertake unauthorized (and possibly unconstitutional) foreign trips to conduct her own foreign policy, in contravention to the Administration. And the people, instead of pillorying her for the inappropriateness of her behavior, stand up and applaud.
The 160,000 American men and women establishing friendships will all be for naught if we leave them to their own killing fields thanks to the fecklessness of our political classes, more interested in delivering earmarks and pork than in national governance. The ones who were friends with us will all be dead, or re-educated, or discover sudden conversion to the True Cause of Jihad.
Here's to hoping that we will see a wholesale sea change amongst the political and the chattering classes. Whatever it takes to get them to realize the gravity of the situation, it's well past time.
-TS
"When men fear work or fear righteous war, when women fear motherhood, they tremble on the brink of doom; and well it is that they should vanish from the earth." - Teddy Roosevelt
Trackbacked by The Thunder Run - Web Reconnaissance for 08/23/2007
A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day...so check back often.
I want to start by stating that I believe the decision to invade Iraq was a mistake. I don't want to argue that point, however, since I believe that debate is irrelevant to where we go from here.
We must prevail in Iraq. To leave Iraq even in 2 1/2 years would be would I think create a humanitarian horror that no one wants to contemplate. Rawanda and Bosnia will look like soccer riots compared to what I think would happen in Iraq in the wake of a hasty US pullout.
Which leads me to a second conclusion: Success in Iraq should be defined a level of stability and order--we can debate partition if you'd like, we can debate democracy, and so forth--but Iraq must have a government capable of exercising sovereignty before we can leave.
I think that will take probably 40 years to achieve--roughly 2 generations. I don't think we will need quite as large a military presence as we currently have, but for the forseable future we will have to protect Iraq from Iran, and we will also have to use a military presence to protect the Kurds.
And I agree that politically this would be a hard sell. I know that around here, people like to blame the Democrats and the MSM. However, a large degree of responsibility has to be at the feet of an administration that did not make political preparations for a long-term commitment. They were quite good at building support for a short term commitment, but much of what we are dealing with now in terms of the politics is failure of the Bush administration.
In a more historical sense, maybe it is the case that democracies simply do not support long-term military commitments.
haystack's 12th:
Conservatives (and Presidential Candidates especially) shall offer no aid and comfort to the opposition in times of legislative conflict (and ensuing political campaigns).
The S. Korea analogy is more apt than the Viet Nam analogy. I'd like to think we could withdraw from Germany and Japan at this point.
the bigger point Bush was trying to make is that we have not shrunk away from long term commitments in the past...problematic in this generations' Bush vitriol is that far too many are incapable of seeing an equal importance now, in the gwot, than those who rallied in the Japan/Germany/S. Korea generation-
haystack's 12th:
Conservatives (and Presidential Candidates especially) shall offer no aid and comfort to the opposition in times of legislative conflict (and ensuing political campaigns).
to the President's speech, which is worth reading. I may disagree about the aptness of the Far East analogy, but it's refreshing to see the attempt to justify the occupation as being in our interests.
Which is why the take here is a bit disappointing, in that it concerns itself with letting down our friends. I don't remember when we acquired this broad friendship for Iraq. We seemed pretty hostile towards the nation when we were blowing it up in the Gulf War, throughout the cease-fire and embargo, and when we were blowing it up a second time. I don't recollect any broad sympathy for Iraq before the Kuwait invasion either. It's a very different society from our own.
The government we installed isn't exactly a winner, but it's hard to argue it's worse than Hussein. We've guarded the borders and helped promote stability for a good many years now. What exactly do we still owe the Iraqis, and how was this debt acquired?
Democracy is only maintained when the citizenry insist upon it. The closing picture of cowering Iraqis, if true, would show they're not going to get it, and that we're wasting our time. I'm considerably more optimistic in the long term, even if there's going to be instability in the short term. But whatever happens, the government of Iraq is for the Iraqis to construct, unless we decide we prefer a puppet government.