Or we can fight them there from here
Posted on 01/14/2005 11:43:22 PM PST by NutCrackerBoy
A wise young thing writes provocatively. He wants to know when the serious right wing in America — National Review, and critical legislators and commentators — is going to come out and say what he thinks, that we were wrong to go into Iraq.
At a dinner meeting in New York last week of fourteen urbane and weighty conservatives, the host asked the question, How many of you would have voted to go into Iraq if circumstances were as advertised? The vote in favor of intervention was unanimous. The next question was, "Given what we now know, are you glad that we intervened?" The vote here was pretty well split, in the neighborhood of 50-50. My young correspondent puts it this way, "I rue my earlier support for the invasion." And goes on to ask, "When will we hear on the question from you — from senior U.S. analysts on the conservative side of the fence?"
He is pretty withering in his language. He writes about National Review: "To the extent that one can discern NR’s position, it is something like 'Bush should keep doing whatever it is that he's been doing so far and hope for the best.' But for how long? At what point can we call the Iraq venture a success (or a failure) and leave, NR doesn't say. The editors seem to be saying, 'Get back to us in a month; maybe by then we'll have made up our minds.'"
His demands are quite direct. "It is amazing that NR cannot establish any criteria for when it would be appropriate to leave Iraq." It is understandable that he should end, "My gloom gathers daily."
Professor Harvey Mansfield was at the dinner meeting, and that learned powerhouse, in his characteristically soft-spoken way, wondered that so little attention was being paid, by restive conservatives, "to the matter of honor." Honor is an obligation enforced by integrity. Question: Was the retreat from Vietnam dishonorable?
Answer: Yes.
Would a retreat from Iraq be dishonorable?
Implied answer:Yes.
But attenuation sets in. At a point in 1961, President Charles de Gaulle reasoned that the French government had done as much as could reasonably be expected of it to enforce the sovereignty of the French state and guarantee the safe survival of its citizens in Algeria. If one acknowledges that, in human action, prudence can sometimes trump honor, and go even further to say that it should do so, then the question before the house is: When? And is it possible to explicate what are the relevant criteria? Is it true, as my correspondent writes, that "no modern state has ever succeeded in suppressing a guerrilla movement when there is some degree of popular support? The French in Algeria, the Israelis in the West Bank and Gaza, the Russians in Chechnya, the Japanese in China, the British in Ireland, and the U.S. in Vietnam have all tried it and failed."
Of course it is a responsibility of conservatives, associated with the ascendancy of President Bush, to weigh the consequences of tergiversation. What concerns a proud nation is not only moral obligations, but the consequences of a failure to stand by them. In another perspective, to bargain with the criminal is not only to temporize with dishonor, but also to embolden the criminal in his powers to threaten and to intimidate and to extort.
Such considerations argue in the abstract for seeing it through in Iraq. But they do not advise us when the moment should come to say that honor has to give way to a recognition that success is not in sight and not at any point in the future predictable.
Only Bush, not his critics, can coalesce these considerations. This isn't merely because he has up-to-date information. It is that the force of the leader is required in order to escape the conundrum with confidence. What my correspondent torments himself with in his sleep — How can we keep it up? The Iraqis have made it impossible to succeed. We accomplish nothing more than a directer display, day by day, of the bootlessness of our venture — only Bush can bestride, as De Gaulle did his own impasse. The force of any argument for disconnection requires the prestige and dominance of the leader. There is no point in arguing for withdrawal, unless Mr. Bush beckons us to do so.
I meant I was using similar phrasing to say something altogether different.
tergiversation \tuhr-jiv-uhr-SAY-shuhn\, noun:
1. The act of practicing evasion or of being deliberately ambiguous.
2. The act of abandoning a party or cause.
I had to look it up.
Coordinate with the Israelis and sweep through syria - down the coas t of the Med - sweep them all into the sea. Take the Saudi oil fields and cut off supplies of petrol to France Germany and China. Then appoint me emperor.
BTTT
Did you have to crack the dictionary for tergiversation? I did.
The Sunnis and their supporters have to be made to realize that the alternative is that they will have a rump state after a civil war. The Kurds and the Shia Arabs will each have their own states with oil. The Sunnis may have their own state, but they won't have oil.
Online dictionaries are the cat's pajamas. Those and imdb.
If I do all the work, why do you get to be emperor?:)
Well, we'll see if we can get you some help. What are the Hessians up to nowadays?
I agree. But worst case that would become moot if chaos reigned. Are our efforts towards Iraq self-governance bootless?
I think the best way to approach Iraq-doubts is to stipulate that in hindsight there very well could have been an alternative, considerably more effective, approach to the War on Terror than the Iraq invasion the way it was done. Perhaps this whatever would have that benefit of, in your words, "fighting them somewhere, now, rather than here, later," and something that would transform the Middle East. Every great achievement such as defeating Fascism and Communism was fraught with setbacks, but also plans that were made stubbornly to succeed.
Ping for later reading.
Agree with you 100%. The weak don't get it. If we can't bring these people into civilization, we have to destroy them all.
You can't live in peace with someone who wants to slit your children's throats.
But if the spirit of America were killed, even though the Nation's body and mind, constricted in an alien world, lived on, the America we know would have perished.
That spirit -- that faith -- speaks to us in our daily lives in ways often unnoticed, because they seem so obvious. It speaks to us here in the Capital of the Nation. It speaks to us through the processes of governing in the sovereignties of 48 States. It speaks to us in our counties, in our cities, in our towns, and in our villages. It speaks to us from the other nations of the hemisphere, and from those across the seas -- the enslaved, as well as the free. Sometimes we fail to hear or heed these voices of freedom because to us the privilege of our freedom is such an old, old story.
The destiny of America was proclaimed in words of prophecy spoken by our first President in his first inaugural in 1789 -- words almost directed, it would seem, to this year of 1941: "The preservation of the sacred fire of liberty and the destiny of the republican model of government are justly considered deeply, finally, staked on the experiment intrusted to the hands of the American people."
If we lose that sacred fire--if we let it be smothered with doubt and fear -- then we shall reject the destiny which Washington strove so valiantly and so triumphantly to establish. The preservation of the spirit and faith of the Nation does, and will, furnish the highest justification for every sacrifice that we may make in the cause of national defense.
In the face of great perils never before encountered, our strong purpose is to protect and to perpetuate the integrity of democracy.
For this we muster the spirit of America, and the faith of America.
We do not retreat. We are not content to stand still. As Americans, we go forward, in the service of our country, by the will of God.
FDR,1941 Inaugural address.
The War on Terror is not complete. Particularly, Syria and Iran remain havens of support for world terrorism. (Perhaps the Sudan and Somalia?)
In any case, THE issue with World Terrorism is state support. If we remove all state support, then the terrorists will always be in fear of the knock on the door and will have no place to rest, plan, operate.
Therefore, Iraq was a necessary step. The end of our presence in Iraq could be as simple as declaring it has gone on as far as we've deemed fit to take it, or it could be as difficult as saying we need to get everyone in Iraq thinking in the patterns of western democracies.
I'm in favor of the end-certain being defined by our need to act elsewhere in the war on terror. That would mean a fledgling government in place in Iraq....as early as 6 months from now. But to leave Syria and Iran intact on the border of Iraq is to leave the war on terror incomplete.
Stretch... The Old Geezer here.
Thanks buddy, for posting the defination.... I thought about it myself as I never heard the word before, and thought I would do it when I got off this page.... but being the old geezer I am, I probably would have forgotten to, and it would have been relagated to that part of my brian controlled by 'AL' (Al as in Altheimers)
Well, I am glad I could help you out.
btt
I don't know if we ever tame the wild ass (Ishmael) of Islam short of eliminating Mecca/Medina. Our efforts may be futile in Iraq but I know that if we bug out in Iraq, China will move in with Iraq and try to control MidEast oil flows. Russia is also salivating, both can provide a nuclear umbrella to Iran for it do as it pleases. Which would be to dictate oil prices and establish surcharges on customers they want to screw
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.