Posted on 11/11/2006 12:33:46 PM PST by Clive
November 11, 2006 Many to blame for Iraq
By MICHAEL COREN
Another bloody casualty of the war in Iraq. This time it is a number of Republican politicians who have lost their jobs to a collective of Democrats intent on returning their country to the moral ambivalence and sheer political quagmire of Jimmy Carter.
As for Donald Rumsfeld, the only problem with his departure as U.S. Secretary of Defense was that it was far too late.
I'm proud to say that I opposed the war from its very beginning and also denounced the sanctions that were thrown at the Iraqi people. Unlike the current wave of George Bush-bashers, who seem to have only discovered Iraq when the Dixie Chicks told them where it was.
Afghanistan was a different matter, and was a simple case of retaliation against an aggressor and an act of self-defence. Thing is, the Western allies would have been far more successful in that country if so many American and British soldiers sent to Iraq had been used to destroy the Taliban and the other holy fascists.
The only solution to Iraq is to leave it. Not because of the leftists who oppose anything American and not because of those Muslim hypocrites who said nothing when Saddam was slaughtering his own people, but because it has nothing to do with the Western world.
Put at its most crude, if Arabs of one particular creed want to kill Arabs or another particular creed, we have no right to intervene. They have done so for millennia and will almost certainly do so again. We can pray that they won't and we should help the cause of peace and justice, but our place is here and not there.
Left to its own devices, Iraq will reach a natural equilibrium. Many innocent people will die but many innocent people are dying now. It's a tragedy but it's an inevitable one. We can no more stop it than we can halt the passing of the day.
Saddam Hussein should not have been supported in the first place, by the United States, the Soviets and their successors, Britain, France, Germany and almost every other major power. Also supported, we should not forget, by most of the Arab states and especially the Palestinians.
The greatest American president of the 20th century, Dwight D. Eisenhower, showed us the way. He was a fine general who cared deeply about the lives of his men and because he had seen war he hated it. He warned of the military-industrial complex, he was a social conservative and he preferred to play golf than interfere in the country's affairs.
John F. Kennedy, on the other hand, insisted on playing with Marilyn Monroe as well as interfering with the country's affairs. He began genuine American involvement in other people's business, sent troops to Vietnam and handed a legacy that even the great Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan could not resist.
Yet the people who are most critical of George W. Bush are the very people who still look back with adoration on the liberal Kennedy and his interventionist policies. And liberalism is the key. There is nothing conservative about fruitless attempts to impose democracy, equality or enlightenment on other cultures.
We should want all people to be happy, but not necessarily happy according to our own definitions and expectations. Until we grow up and realize that, we will only spread chaos. Better to play golf.
And Afghanistan does?
The whole middle east does, whether we like it or not.
susie
In other words it is better to just let them live in tyranny? What kind of moral equivalence is this out of sight out of mind attitude? Let alone the fact that the terrorism that will breed in Iraq will come descending down on US cities as surely as the planes on 9/11.
The biggest problem we have in the war on terror is not the terrorists. It's our own media who tote the terrorist agenda because it fits with their's.
Until all, or nearly all Americans understand the media's objective, we cannot win this war.
I agree.
susie
The terrorists played our media perfectly. They are natural constituents along with the demonrats.
From Vietnam, we learned that no matter how well the war actually goes, there will always be people who believe it's a lost cause.
Hunt has a natural antipathy to Rumsfeld. His cronies in the Pentagon hate the reformation.
We are there because it is in our best interest to be there.
Democracy might be a favor to Iraqis, but it is also the best way to stop the terrorists in their tracks. The terrorists know that - that is why they flock to Iraq. They have no choice - if we win there, they lose forever.
It is frightening someone so ignorant can have articles published...
You got that right. The war in Iraq is resembling Vietnam more and more. Our military isn't trying to achieve a decisive victory, we're locked into a holding pattern, waiting, waiting, and waiting for the Iraqis to become competent enough to run the operations in their own country. And nobody really knows at this point when (or if) that will ever happen.
Hunt is basically right. It's sad but true.
IMO, having our troops in Iraq is a deterrent to Iran and Syria not to get too far out because we can be over the border in a flash.
IMO, having our troops in Iraq is a deterrent to Iran and Syria not to get too far out because we can be over the border in a flash.
The training grounds were there. The bio agents were there and plans were in place to up the production, fill aerosol containers (hairspray etc) and ship boatloads to the US.
And sadly many people, including most of the dems who will take over our government, truly believe that until we have (more) (nuclear) attacks on our soil, we should do nothing. Prevention isn't in their doctrine.
I don't know what I think any more. I agree we have been too long in Iraq with too little to show for it, but a lot of that is because the most vocal of the world community did not back us but instead fought us every step and continue to criticize every move we make.
The MSM have made their very large contributions, and the President enabled that by not communicating as well as we know he can. Every lie from the dems, every lie printed in the press, should have been rebutted publicly and loudly by the administration, and every bit of progress should have been publicized as well, but little of it was.
Having lived in arabic countries for a small part of my life, I believe that their religion gives them their excuse for doing nothing (the will of allah excuses every shortcoming and gives them excuses for any evil thing they do) and that nothing we do will ever change that.
Until other arab countries in the ME, who have a vested interest in the stability of neighboring countries and who would not care to see Iran becoming any stronger, until those countries act like they care what happens in their neighborhood and participate in stabilizing Iraq, I think we are in a lose-lose situation.
Who knew this would happen? It is easy to second guess - but we are westerners who do not think like 3rd world arabs, and what worked in Germany and Japan may not have a prayer of working in Iraq.
Besides most of those arabs are crazy.
Good point. The author has a pre-9/11 worldview. AFTER Saddamite terrorists hit us, THEN the author would support going after Saddam (never mind that Saddam violated the armistice agreement, tried to assassinate GHW Bush, attacked our planes enforcing the no-fly zone, violated UN resolutions, committed genocide within his country, etc.).
The problem with the author's pre-9/11 thinking is, after 100,000 in New York City die of small pox, how will we know whom to attack? What hope do we have of discovering who in fact was responsible for the small pox attack? As we now know, our intelligence within islamic societies has been rather poor.
North Korea, Saddam, the mullahs in Iran, al qaeda in Waziristan, or some other enemy?
Some will say, in that case the United States will simply nuke all of the above. I have to say I doubt that would happen.
The author talks of Carter's moral ambivalence and then, like some boastful ignoramus without the slightest hint of self awareness of what he's just written, offers that same moral ambivalent prescription for the Iraqis. And what an arrogant racist tirade against the Arabs by this popinjay Coren. The gist of this article advice hearkens back to the sentiments before WWI when people said the same thing about the Europeans. They'll always be killing each other.
Pull out of Iraq and al Qaeda will be encouraged as it was after Somalia. Finish in Iraq with a stable government and the tide will be turned. Pay a small but painful price today to finish it, or pay a huge price tomorrow for our craven indifference.
Saddam violated the 1991 Articles of Surrender for 12 years and he attempted to assassinate a former POTUS. He deserved to be taken out even without 911.
Post 911 there was NO CHANCE for any responsible POTUS to let his terrorist ties go unthwarted. He was working on getting Nukes and who is to say he wouldn't provide/sell one to the highest terrorist bidder? Once again POST 911 there is no way a responsible POTUS takes that kind of chance.
The post Iraq war has been a nightmare but that is because we suck at nation building and the terrorists KNOW our nation gets tired of extended conflicts. The election proved them CORRECT!!
As George Bush said, we must not waver, we must not falter, we must NOT FAIL!!
IMHO....the consequences of losing would be catastrophic.
True, but Kurdistan and Kuwait are even closer than the Sunni Triangle, and far safer.
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.