Posted on 02/01/2005 4:58:13 AM PST by Rutles4Ever
Maybe you're like me and have opposed the Iraq war since before the shooting started -- not to the point of joining any peace protests, but at least letting people know where you stood.
You didn't change your mind when our troops swept quickly into Baghdad or when you saw the rabble that celebrated the toppling of the Saddam Hussein statue, figuring that little had been accomplished and that the tough job still lay ahead.
Despite your misgivings, you didn't demand the troops be brought home immediately afterward, believing the United States must at least try to finish what it started to avoid even greater bloodshed. And while you cheered Saddam's capture, you couldn't help but thinking I-told-you-so in the months that followed as the violence continued to spread and the death toll mounted.
By now, you might have even voted against George Bush -- a second time -- to register your disapproval.
But after watching Sunday's election in Iraq and seeing the first clear sign that freedom really may mean something to the Iraqi people, you have to be asking yourself: What if it turns out Bush was right, and we were wrong?
It's hard to swallow, isn't it?
Americans cross own barrier
If you fit the previously stated profile, I know you're fighting the idea, because I am, too. And if you were with the president from the start, I've already got your blood boiling.
For those who've been in the same boat with me, we don't need to concede the point just yet. There's a long way to go. But I think we have to face the possibility.
I won't say that it had never occurred to me previously, but it's never gone through my mind as strongly as when I watched the television coverage from Iraq that showed long lines of people risking their lives by turning out to vote, honest looks of joy on so many of their faces.
Some CNN guest expert was opining Monday that the Iraqi people crossed a psychological barrier by voting and getting a taste of free choice (setting aside the argument that they only did so under orders from their religious leaders).
I think it's possible that some of the American people will have crossed a psychological barrier as well.
Deciding democracy's worth
On the other side of that barrier is a concept some of us have had a hard time swallowing:
Maybe the United States really can establish a peaceable democratic government in Iraq, and if so, that would be worth something.
Would it be worth all the money we've spent? Certainly.
Would it be worth all the lives that have been lost? That's the more difficult question, and while I reserve judgment on that score until such a day arrives, it seems probable that history would answer yes to that as well.
I don't want to get carried away in the moment.
Going to war still sent so many terrible messages to the world.
Most of the obstacles to success in Iraq are all still there, the ones that have always led me to believe that we would eventually be forced to leave the country with our tail tucked between our legs. (I've maintained from the start that if you were impressed by the demonstrations in the streets of Baghdad when we arrived, wait until you see how they celebrate our departure, no matter the circumstances.)
In and of itself, the voting did nothing to end the violence. The forces trying to regain the power they have lost -- and the outside elements supporting them -- will be no less determined to disrupt our efforts and to drive us out.
Somebody still has to find a way to bring the Sunnis into the political process before the next round of elections at year's end. The Iraqi government still must develop the capacity to protect its people.
And there seems every possibility that this could yet end in civil war the day we leave or with Iraq becoming an Islamic state every bit as hostile to our national interests as was Saddam.
Penance could be required
But on Sunday, we caught a glimpse of the flip side. We could finally see signs that a majority of the Iraqi people perceive something to be gained from this brave new world we are forcing on them.
Instead of making the elections a further expression of "Yankee Go Home," their participation gave us hope that all those soldiers haven't died in vain.
Obviously, I'm still curious to see if Bush is willing to allow the Iraqis to install a government that is free to kick us out or to oppose our other foreign policy efforts in the region.
So is the rest of the world.
For now, though, I think we have to cut the president some slack about a timetable for his exit strategy.
If it turns out Bush was right all along, this is going to require some serious penance.
Maybe I'd have to vote Republican in 2008.
My son has been in Iraq this past year and is due to come home soon. I have gone into near apoplexy during this past year's campaign season listening to the democratic politicians bad-mouthing the sacrifice of our troops.
I found it easy to believe that old-school democrats like Zell Miller abandoned the party. Many others have done the same, and others like Sam Nunn simply kept silent through it all.
"This is not your father's democratic party."
It is becoming more obvious that liberals have been wrong about nearly every major issue for the last 60 years. They still believe with their hearts and, uh, hearts that they are intellectually superior to conservatives whom they believe are feral and simple-minded. Were they now to do an about-face on such a central issue as The Iraqi War they would have to re-examine their positions on myriad issues. This they cannot take this as superior human beings.
One star to the author of this article for at least facing the possibility.
I've been saying all along that Iraq is not another Vietnam. The insurgency in Iraq is not being generously supplied with weapons and supplies by the old Soviet Union, as was North Vietnam. We are cutting off the sources of supplies for the insurgents and steadily capturing their existing weapons and ammunition. They know they are fighting a superior and overwhelming force. The insurgents are going to grow much weaker this year if we continue our heroic efforts, and by the end of this year we and the Iraqi people will win.
Agree. It's kinda like somebody commits murder, then says "oops, I'm sorry...my bad" and expects all will be okay again. In this guy's case, he is far, far too casual with his musings and ruminations. Let him wear sackcloth and ashes and crawl on his knees and agonize inside himself for awhile. THEN come back for another try...
Wait a minute... Didn't the libs say Saddam wasn't a threat??
In order for terrorist to be effective, especially international terrorist, they need safe places to train, and even rest.
We took Afghanistan away from them, and now we have taken Iraq from them. Yes it is true they can still find friends, those friends can not be as open as before, and they must be asking themself do they want to end up like Osama living in some cave somewhere, or Saddam, in jail waiting to be tried?
The remaining dictators still hate us and wish us dead, but they are lacking the means to do this in such a way that they would not end up paying the price for helping the terrorist.
Each day since 9/11 our security and intelligence gets better. It was not hard to keep secrets in the Middle East before 9/11, we just were not paying much attention. Well we are paying attention now, and we have all types of intelligence gathering capabilities at work
It may still be possible for a nation state to assist a group of terrorist in committing another 9/11, but the difference now is we have 100,000 combat veterans just hours from any nation state that is foolish enough to get involved. Plus we have a leader that has made it clear he does not bluff.
This is what Iraq was all about, not last Sunday's election. It is good that the people of Iraq or on the road to Democracy, but that was not our goal.
The left does not see that because they don't want to see it. And this is why President Bush is not talking an exit strategy, because the only way we will exit the area is when we have removed the capabilities of the terrorist from striking us and our allies.
Terrorism requires more then an individual willing to die. The lone terrorist has a long tail of support, safe house, places to train, and all this requires money and the cooperation of a nation state. The war on terror is designed to attack the support structure more then it is to kill the individual terrorist.
This administration knows this, I just wish the MSM knew this as well.
First crack in the Liberal Dam. Watch the Demodogs in Washington run around and try to plug the holes in the coming weeks!
There will be billions of homeless people suddenly discovered in the US, tthere will be millions of testimonials from old people about evil Republicans stealing their God-Given rights to Social Security, there will be hundreds of thousands of new revelations about voter disenfranchisement in Ohio and we will even find out that thousands of minorities were gunned down and buried in a mass grave to stop them from voting, and finally Abu Grab(sp) and Guantanamo will be revelaed to be the locations of super secret government experimental labs where we tortured, maimed and dismembered innocent Freedon Fighters.
Grab some popcorn because the main feature is about to start!
Good post.
I tend to agree with you. A classic liberal used to simply mean one who was "open-minded about other options."
That somehow came to mean: "One who supports wild, socialist, eugenic, and atheist options."
Any president in time of war gets a pass from me on any budget deficits. The new spending on the war that was announced last week also came with the message that this was NOT part of the planned Defense Budget.
If it's 250 billion a year for the war, and the deficit is 350-400 billion dollars, then I interpret it to mean cost of war.
I think the war is necessary, so I suck it up.
What you mean "if", Kimosabe?
Nice catch Paloma.
"Now, as progress proceeds in Iraq, the anti-war left, and by extension the Democrat Party, are seen as mindless nay-sayers, hopelessly out of touch with reality and the native American optimism. This really could lead to permanent minority status for the Democrat Party."
I don't want the Democrats to be in the minority. I want them to disappear altogether!
FAR too casual.
Your post is the best I have ever read on this subject. Thank you for putting this into words that are clear, simple, and right on target.
I hope the MSM picks up on this (those that are clear-thinking, anyway, for the rest are lost), and that it gets back to the Rebublican spokespeople.
I am taking the liberty to cope and paste it to a few relatives. You will be credited as the poster. And, thanks for your service.
"And if you were with the president from the start, I've already got your blood boiling."
Uh, no, you didn't. In fact, I'm willing to bet no one here's blood was boiling at this point in the article. We're subjected to infinitely worse almost all of the time, and even inherently there wasn't all that much up to that point to get angry about. I don't know what this guy's mental image of Republicans is, but it obviously bears no resemblance to reality.
Qwinn
We are going to have a lot of "mea-culpas" like this in the future. It's just like all the Dems wishing for the easy days of the cold-war, when we were all united (sic) against the commies. Of course they neglect the fact that people like Skerry and Rum Blossom Dodd were kissing up to the Sandys, and were making speeches hoping for the Commies to win in South America.
I'd like to think that this writer was sincere about seeing the remote possibility that President Bush was right all along, however, I have a feeling it's just a matter of hedging his bets. Give himself some room to say, "see, I realized it all along ... ". I guess I'm just cynical. BUT, I do feel that after the election on Sunday, my cousin, Jeremy McHalffey who died in Iraq on Jan 4 didn't give his life just so the liberals in this country could make us tuck our tails and run.
Also, I wonder how the African-Americans in this country feel about having had civil rights FORCED on them in the middle of the last centry??
Don't flatter yourself. It takes a lot more than your self-analytical drivel to get us boiling. The more your party rants, the more desensitized we become to the lesser of it. That's why it keeps escalating in volume and vitriol. People just aren't paying attention to your group anymore.
Bravo!
This author shouldn't "wait" for the next Bush success before he starts supporting the effort. He's not just a nobody sitting on the sidelines - he's a journalist with hundreds of thousands of readers. He needs to realize that he is in a position to convince his fellow naysayers that supporting this effort is good for the Iraqis and the American soldiers.
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.