The Defeatocrats and the Real War
the answer is so simple even a caveman could understand it
By streiff Posted in War — Comments (23) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
hat tip to Marc Schulman at American Future.
Charles Krauthammer opens his column with a quote from The Nation’s Crazy Aunt™.
"Our bill calls for the redeployment of U.S. troops out of Iraq so that we can focus more fully on the real war on terror, which is in Afghanistan."
-- House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, March 8
Krauthammer rightfully takes Pelosi to task for this bonejarringly stupid assertion but I think he doesn’t go far enough.
Read on.
Of all the arguments for pulling out of Iraq, the greater importance of Afghanistan is the least serious.
And not just because this argument assumes that the world's one superpower, which spends more on defense every year than the rest of the world combined, does not have the capacity to fight an insurgency in Iraq as well as in Afghanistan. But because it assumes that Afghanistan is strategically more important than Iraq.
Thought experiment: Bring in a completely neutral observer -- a Martian -- and point out to him that the United States is involved in two hot wars against radical Islamic insurgents. One is in Afghanistan, a geographically marginal backwater with no resources and no industrial or technological infrastructure. The other is in Iraq, one of the three principal Arab states, with untold oil wealth, an educated population, an advanced military and technological infrastructure that, though suffering decay in the later years of Saddam Hussein's rule, could easily be revived if it falls into the right (i.e., wrong) hands. Add to that the fact that its strategic location would give its rulers inordinate influence over the entire Persian Gulf region, including Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the Gulf states. Then ask your Martian: Which is the more important battle? He would not even understand why you are asking the question.
Not only will Afghanistan take infinitely longer to stabilize and develop it is really unclear what a stable and developed Afghanistan, in isolation, buys us in any meaningful geostrategic sense. Iraq, on the other hand, is a keystone in this war
Even our enemies understand this basic premise. Krauthammer points out that both bin Laden and Zawahiri have proclaimed the war in Iraq to be their most important theater of operations.
So why, then, given the obvious importance of Iraq, why are the Democrats anxious to ensure a defeat when victory is possible? Krauthammer has an answer.
The Democratic insistence on the primacy of Afghanistan makes no strategic sense. Instead, it reflects a sensibility. They would rather support the Afghan war because its origins are cleaner, the casus belli clearer, the moral texture of the enterprise more comfortable. Afghanistan is a war of righteous revenge and restitution, law enforcement on the grandest of scales. As senator and presidential candidate Joe Biden put it, "If there was a totally just war since World War II, it is the war in Afghanistan."
Here I dissent. If anyone thinks that we will continue operations in Afghanistan to a successful conclusion after a defeat in Iraq, they are gravely mistaken. By the end of this year the Democrats will be touting Afghanistan as another failed effort and we will be on the way out of there also.
Just as Murtha has a strategy to “slow bleed” the military to force a withdrawal from Iraq, Pelosi’s statement is nothing more or less than a “slow bleed” of our ability to win the Long War. She and her cohorts will do this because they fear American ascendancy and the prolonging of a unipolar world based on Western values more than they fear radical Islamic dominance of the Arab and Islamic world.
« We need more COIN in the Afghan realm — Comments (0) | The Silence of Amnesty International — Comments (11) »
The Defeatocrats and the Real War 23 Comments (0 topical, 23 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
... of the stupidity.
The only, ONLY significance of Afghanistan is that in the late 1990's there was a government in place that tolerated terrorist training camps. Any strategic relevance of that country has been gone since those camps were destroyed. To be sure, the enemy still engages us there. But they will engage us in any Muslim country we deploy troops to.
Al Qaeda has a known presence in 60 different countries. Bin Laden would have (and has) set up his training camps any place they are tolerated.
My goodness. These idiots are scary.
--
We would also like to know your advice for somebody like my daughter, who's going to graduate in two years, advice that you would give a young person.
SEC. RUMSFELD: Advice for a young person. Study history.
Just wish Bush would have made the same case more forcefully and more often. Maybe if he had, Pelosi wouldn't be in the position of being able to try to derail us in Iraq.
Since al-Qaeda perpetrated 9/11, we went into Afghanistan to topple the Taliban that sheltered them.
Al-Qaeda is in Iraq. How do you justify chasing them out of Afghanistan because they used that country as a terror base and letting them take over Iraq? What do you think they will build in Iraq- department stores?
then take the road show to Afghanistan for another boffo encore. Your understanding of the Dems tactics is right on the money Streiff. There is no enemy too small or too weak that we can't concede defeat to them and shroud ourselves in disgrace.
Maybe we would draw the line in New Jersey but possibly the Destructionists would prefer to engage in dialogue first and save the money for the umpteenth increase in KiddieCare spending.
"a man's admiration for absolute government is proportinate to the contempt he feels for those around him". Tocqueville
I'd prefer to draw the line about 1 state in from the coast in most places. Unfortunately, it is tacticly easier to kill invasion forces by sinking their ships before they land than it is to kill them after they've established the beach head.
[grin]
Krauthammer seems to believe that the Democrats actually mean it when they say they want to fight the "real war" in Afghanistan. This is merely a shell game: wherever we are fighting is the wrong war at the wrong time for the wrong reasons, being fought with the wrong tactics (unless it's a Democrat President)
Afghanistan is 'bush's war" just as much as Iraq is to these crazed defeatists. The minute we are out of Iraq (on their defeatist terms) they will turn their attention to Afghanistan, where they have not yet been able to undermine US support for the war there. But that's only because they have been focused on Iraq. Once we're out, they will start whining and making things up about Bushlied and Halliburton or whatever the Aghan analogues are. Passing nonbinding resolutions, holding hearings, threatening impeachment.
Krauthammer says:
"Afghanistan is a war of righteous revenge and restitution, law enforcement on the grandest of scales. As senator and presidential candidate Joe Biden put it, "If there was a totally just war since World War II, it is the war in Afghanistan."
Yeah, Joe Biden, a model of consistency: went from advocating a troop increase in Iraq to attacking the President for a troop increase in Iraq in a matter of a few days, or maybe hours. Joe Biden will say he was lied to and the Pres is incompetent, can't tie his shoes without Cheney telling him which fingers to use, and also an evil mastermind who has the power to cloud the minds of geniuses like Joe Biden & Chuck Hagel for his evil purposes.
The Dems believe that the antiwar train is the one that's going to give them back their monopoly of power. They're not going to stop at Iraq. Afghanistan is next.
They're already trying to get legislation to keep the President from taking military action in Iran -- preemptive cut & run. They won't stop till we are out of the Middle East entirely.
Hirsi Ali in an interview she had with Gurenica magazine:
"Ayaan Hirsi Ali: [laughs] I would say in that axis, I would start with Iran. It was very obvious. And again if you look at what happened on September 11, the act itself—I think there were nineteen boys, sixteen of whom were Saudis. They were not Iraqis. And they were not Iranians. From a declaration of war point of view, and even from a resources point of view, Saudi Arabia was the most logical target to attack. The land that the United States should have occupied on the 12th of September should have been Saudi Arabia. That's where the ideology came from, that's where the money came from, and that's where the men came from who committed the attacks. Again, there are so many inconsistencies, so many mistakes, but the Kerry argument is not satisfactory. And the Bush administration inherited policy choices that had come to them in the form of failed states, where terrorists started to nestle and [take hold of the countries].
The Bush administration had inherited a world in which, after the disintegration of the Soviet Union, nuclear material is out of the hands of the state and in the hands of people who are very poor who are selling it to very bad people—this was in the New York Times yesterday—that's a very dangerous world. And so they have to deal with that. The Bush administration had also inherited from the father Bush a notion that, as Americans, you could go into a country as the policemen for just a short while and that you can promise to the American people we are going to Somalia, we are going to Iraq, we are going to Afghanistan, or I don't know—wherever the choice is today—and there will be no American casualties. That's where all the numbers for the casualties will come from.
Now, I'm just trying to explain the shift in morality, in American foreign policy from just "grab and go," which was bad, to "Ok, we are going to set things right there." That shift in itself is a good shift. But the way it happened was catastrophic."
http://www.guernicamag.com/interviews/283/infidel/
You’re a persistent cuss, pilgrim.
John Wayne to Jimmy Stewart in The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance
You know it does take a reminder every now and then as to Saudi Arabia allegedly being the "true source" of 9/11. And we sometimes hear that Pakistan was and still is far more culpable for harboring terrorist networks than Iraq at any time under Hussein.
But our relationship with the leadership of those two countries for the time being is one of strategic value and so we don't appear to be undertaking regime change and all of the winning of hearts and minds that goes along with in either nation, regardless of whether it may in fact do as much or more to disrupt the root sources of terrorist funding, recruiting, and training as we can accomplish by hoping that all of the terrorists relocate their entire operations to Iraq
I think this all just goes back to support my pet theory that we're not in Iraq primarily to fight terrorism (neither to spread democracy), but rather the venture is a very bold attempt to seize a little piece of prime real estate in a strategically important region - as I've said before and as Krauthammer notes, it's right "in the middle" of the Middle East. More and more people finally seem willing to cite oil as a critical aspect of this venture as well, and why not? The value to America in establishing a pro-American regime in Iraq that then enables America to keep permanent military bases and to enjoy a sizable chunk of the oil trade seem immense in light of potential future conflicts that may present themselves 10, 20, 30 years down the road (e.g. China).
That this is the primary goal seems to mesh well with the seemingly at-odds lack of action against Saudi Arabia and Pakistan where a ground war would arguably disrupt/kill far more terrorists, terrorist enablers, and terrorist funders. It also seems to be a more realistic and attainable goal than the idea that we can kill all terrorists, or somehow win a "war on terror". There will continue to be plots against the United States for decades to come and we will hopefully continue to thwart them at our perimeter. But continuing to find ways to secure our position as the world's single super power along with all the economic prosperity that position typically entails is a far more productive goal.
So after a series of occurances including Iraq's invasion of Kuwait and 9/11 gave a sufficient opening for America to move on this course of action without appearing to act imperialistic in the world's eyes, this administration took a calculated risk and went for it. Seemed plausible to me before, and Krauthammer's observations make it even more so in my opinion.
On Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.
I think these unusual cases. I'm not of the school that thinks we and the Saudis are either friends or have the same strategic interests but the Saudi support of terrorism stems much more from the actions of their citizens, working within the context of the state religion, than it does with overt state action. Now some may say this is a distinction without a difference, I don't.
The Saudis had been able to channel their jihadist into Afghanistan, Bosnia, and Kosovo for a couple of decades. When those conflicts wound down the jihadis had to find something productive to do so they took flying lessons.
Pakistan is a balance of powers problem. The Paks used and use terrorism to strike at India over Jammu/Kashmir. We we've been collateral damage here.
The Saudis had no interest in disrupting oil supplies and the Paks had limited strategic value once the Soviets went away.
Iraq
I think Iraq was always about the effect of Saddam on Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. He made things easy by refusing to go along with his obligations under the 1991 cease fire.
There is no doubt that Iraq is second to Iran in strategic value in the Gulf. It has a large population, it has agriculture and manufacturing, it has a seaport, it has oil. Were you going to stabilize the oil production in the Gulf, Iraq would be the nation you would pick as the cornerstone of a regional defense pact focused on restraining Iran.
When you place Iraq geographically and look at its relationship to Turkey, suddenly Syria is on borrowed time. When you look at it in the context of Turkey and the Central Asian republics we've been romancing and Afghanistan, you see a containment of both China (which is why they aren't going to help the Brits out in getting the sailors released) and Iran.
And why we're shy about admitting oil is important is beyond me. If we aren't willing to fight to preserve our economy and way of life I don't know what we would be willing to fight for.
"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling
That all makes sense to me, except it seems to me you're making an argument that Iraq is the most strategic piece of real estate on the balance of things, not Iran - insofar as you point out that Iraq can be used to keep Iran in place and as far as I can see therefore avoid any sort of larger more expensive confrontation with them. If Iraq's oil supply is exploited fully doesn't that also offset the need to worry about Iran's oil and whether they might decide at some point to restrain its own oil trade? And might not Iraq's lower population and fewer agricultural resources actually make it a more needy ally and more apt to "stay friendly" with us?
But if the administration did perceive Iran as the more choice potential pro-American middle east nation, it seems plausible to me that they might have looked at Iran and Iraq and decided Iran was not feasible for two reasons: insufficient ability to make a case to the world that would have justified an attack, and insufficient ROI when compared with the far softer but arguably as/more valuable Iraq.
And I don't think I stated or implied Iraq was more strategic than Iran.
I think, all things considered, Iran is much more strategically valuable than Iraq but I think Iran was put in the "too-hard box".
I think that going after Iraq to aid in encircling Iran shows the administration didn't in 2003 believe the Iranian regime to be in trouble.
"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling
You didn't say it - you clearly said Iraq was second to Iran. I was saying that I thought some of the other things you said seemed to me to actually reinforce the opposite point of view - I'm sure you may disagree and that's fine, I was just trying to be conversational, not confrontational.
I would speculate that yes, Iran was deemed "too hard", but also perhaps flat out un-necessary... with Iraq you get all the benefits of the oil rich trade partner and the bases without the much higher cost Iran posed - and as you say controlling Iraq has the benefit of increased containment of Iran (and China). So that is why I've tended to think Iraq was the more strategic target - taking into account ROI as well as raw value of the nation to our long term interests.
...then that Bush is trying to "democratize" Iraq. If this were his real goal, then why not simply make Iraq into a U.S. territory? There's nothing particularly wrong with having a territory under U.S. control, despite Democrat carping to the contrary. (Then again, they're still using the idiotic "American Empire" line every chance they get.) It would also make the military part of the Iraq strategy that much easier, whatwith being able to lose the "gain their hearts and minds" and "workin' with the Iraqi allies" crap. We would also have more control over the oil and other resources that Iraq can offer us. Politically speaking, it would show that the U.S. is a force to be reckoned with (and that it does act in its own interests), and not just the powerful but wussy mediator. Right now, with the way that the Iraqi PM is acting, Iraq doesn't look like a client state to me.
I admit I'm playing purely armchair world leader...
But I think there would be severe consequences for any nation that openly conveyed an imperialist attitude and followed through with a seizure of land through open war. For America, such consequences would be loss and/or degredation of political goodwill, possible loss of trade, even potential retaliation, and so forth. It is quite good that the United States remains viewed (as much as is possible) as a benevolent entity.
And we needn't annex Iraq, as Saudi Arabia shows we don't have to rule a country or even command the goodwill of a majority of its citizens in order to benefit from trade and other political/strategic relationships.
So although a (to some extent) greater part of the world now looks at America with more caution and less respect, there is still a very large difference between going in as liberators and defenders versus going in openly admitting to a set of goals that might make us look aggressive. It's some kind of balancing act... the kind that has a realistic view of the world today while still acknowledging the idea that civilized people (including American citizens) do want to see a world in some far off tomorrow where sufficient trust and experience working between nations can eliminate the need for the high levels of responsible paranoia and protectionism that a superpower interested in maintaining its position on behalf of its citizens must exhibit.
that any such attempt to affect regime change in Saudi Arabia will throw us into an Islamic dark age than anything Iran can even contemplate doing. Yes, it is Saudi Arabia's oil that makes it that important, but that doesn't mean it isn't true. We saw what happens when moral-minded but spineless presidents undertake moral regime change when Jimmy Carter abandoned our ally the Shah of Iran because he might have been involved in some bad things: a terrorist theocracy emerged which continues to threaten us to this day.
Yes, the Saudi's fund the Wahabaism (sp?) which provides the theoretical underpinnings of the Iranian regime. But it is the Iranian regime which undertakes and funds the terroris operations which have befuddled us since the Carter years because we have been unwilling to confront it on the only terms it understands: killing more of them than they kill of us, preferably by factors of 100x or more. Wyatt Earp and his band broke the backs of the renegade (aka terrorist in todays terms) Cowboys after the fight at the O.K. Coral by pursuing exactly that strategy: see a Cowboy, shoot a Cowboy. If we follow the same strategy here it will work as well: see a jihadist, kill a jihadist. Shoot faster, harder, and never have any qualms about shooting the s*b in the back if you can get the drop on him.
In this light, Iraq makes more strategic sense than Saudi Arabia. It borders directly on Iran, and thus provides a better infiltration point for spying, better launch point for an actual invasion, and provides a consistent point of contact through which to launch propaganda/quality of life attacks against the Iranians, as well as other unconventional warfare operations. At best, Saudi Arabia only gets you oil. The people with whom we deal are a small minority. If they perceive we have turned against them one of two things will happen. 1) They turn explicitly terrorist to save their hides and are accepted as legitimate allies because of their past support. 2) They try to turn explicitly terrorist, but are killed instead because of their immoral ways and the terrorist take over. Either way, terrorists claim Saudi Arabia, because if we aren't willing to kill the way we need to win Iran or Iraq, there's no way well kill the way you need to if you want to put down that kind of revolution. On the other hand, if we can establish our kind of regime in Iraq, it will influence the rest of the region to adopt our ways as well. When you have healthy, happy, wealthy neighbors who aren't killing themselves and are willing to share their knowledge of how to get that way, you tend to want to get that way yourself.
As it turns out, Iraq IS the best place from which to operate for our long term goals: a stable, liberty-enabling Middle East that isn't intent on blowing up the rest of us. And those goals are good enough for me.
Hirsi Ali says in her first sentence:
"I would say in that axis, I would start with Iran."
then you say:
"But it is the Iranian regime which undertakes and funds the terroris operations which have befuddled us since the Carter years because we have been unwilling to confront it on the only terms it understands: killing more of them than they kill of us, preferably by factors of 100x or more."
and then you say:
"As it turns out, Iraq IS the best place from which to operate for our long term goals: a stable, liberty-enabling Middle East that isn't intent on blowing up the rest of us."
So please make up your mind. Do you agree with her about Iran or don't you?
You’re a persistent cuss, pilgrim.
John Wayne to Jimmy Stewart in The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance
Drink Good Coffee. You can sleep when you're dead.
I know I’m mangling the original Mark Twain quote a bit, but indulge me...
“Suppose you’re a Democratic member of congress, and suppose you’re an idiot – but I repeat myself.”
Notice the Saudi King's comments just recently. Nice friends we have.
When Pelosi et al speak, all I can hear is the refrain from the bunny scene in Monty Python and the Holy Grail -
"Run away! Run away!"
The only way to resolve either of these theaters is to be relentless in kicking serious booty with a steel toe jumpboot.
No equivication.
...after all, Nacy seems to be running straight into the arms of Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/03/pelosi_going_to.html
As usual, the Dems continue to think up new ways to be terrorist tools. I hope she wears a burqua - for everyone's sake.
--
"We can all do our part to save the planet by dying." - R.E. Finch
We've got to stop these librals from ruining our great country! I know George can't stay on (can he???), but there's got to be a big Draft Cheney movement brewing in the wings with these weak 'frontrunners' we currently got. Cheney can hold that woman in her place!
Cheney-08!!! We can't wait!!!
Defeatocrats is right! How dare they criticize the war, while they idlly stand by as the lives of thousands of fetuses are slaughtered each year! Oh, excuse me, I know it’s not PC to refer to a fetus as a life, because every one is entitled to their own opinion of when life begins? Are you kidding me?! Life has begun irregardless of their opinions! Am I right?!
"Oh my God--He's your God, too."
...they're there now. And lots more of them will flood in as the Democrats accomplish America's unconditional surrender. Al-Qaeda will have a hundred victory celebrations in Baghdad, and the Democrats will OWN them all.