But you'd have never guessed it listening to Uncle Walter back in the day.
Posted on 12/12/2006 6:42:49 AM PST by Theodore R.
Coming GOP war … over the war!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Posted: December 12, 2006 1:00 a.m. Eastern
"I believe this is a recipe that will lead to our defeat ... in Iraq," said John McCain. He has a point. For what does the Iraq Study Group say?
We are not winning this war. Our situation is "grave and deteriorating." Yet we may succeed if only we will withdraw all U.S. combat brigades in 15 months and bring Syria and Iran to the table to resolve the political crisis. This is simply not credible.
Nowhere in this report are there any "disincentives" to cause al-Qaida, the Sunni insurgents, the militias, the Mahdi Army or sectarian death squads to call off their campaigns to inflict a historic defeat on the United States and expel us from Mesopotamia.
(Column continues below)
The closer one studies the report, the more the truth emerges. These "realists" think Iraq is a lost cause, that Americans will not pay the price in blood, treasure and years to win it. And in this conviction the Baker Commission, too, may be right.
This deepening fissure in the GOP presages a civil war inside the party by 2008, over whether to stay in Iraq – or, if the war has ended in a debacle or defeat, over "who lost Iraq?"
In urging intensified training of the Iraqi army and an expedited withdrawal, the Baker Commission is laying down the predicate for the case that America did not lose this war, Iraqis lost their own war.
This ISG report is less about saving Iraq than about saving the U.S. establishment from being held responsible for the worst strategic blunder in U.S. history. It is about giving Bush and Congress a "decent interval" before Iraq goes down and a Saigon ending ensues.
The neocons are also preparing their defense before the bar of history. Realizing the Baker Commission recommendations point to slow-motion defeat, they are savaging Baker and calling for tens of thousands more U.S. troops to be sent to Baghdad and a new strategy of victory, no matter how much it costs or how long it takes.
If Bush fails to follow their counsel, they will then say: "It was not our fault. It was Bush's rejection of our advice that lost the war."
Neoconservative Ken Adelman, on Sunday's "Meet the Press," was calling for 20,000 to 30,000 more U.S. troops, saying Iraq had been a wise and winnable war, but the administration mucked up what should have been a "cakewalk."
The Democratic establishment, which gave Bush a blank check to take us to war, "to get the issue out of the way" before the midterms in 2002, is also preparing its defense of the role it played in plunging us into Mesopotamia, the "if-only-we-had-known" defense.
"If only we had known then what we know now – that there was no hard evidence of WMD, no hard evidence of al-Qaida ties to Saddam Hussein – we would never have voted for the war." "If only we had known how incompetent Rumsfeld's Pentagon would be in managing the war, we would never have given Bush a green light."
This Kerry-Edwards defense is a version of the 1967 defense advanced by Michigan Gov. George Romney to explain his earlier support of Vietnam. Said Romney, "I was brainwashed" during a trip to Vietnam, prompting the cruel retort of Sen. Eugene McCarthy, "In Romney's case, a light rinse would have sufficed."
The Democrats' defense begs these questions: Why didn't you know? Why didn't you find out? Why didn't you do your constitutional duty and refuse the president the power to go to war until he had convinced you that only war could spare the republic worse horrors?
What the Baker Commission is ultimately all about is providing political cover for a bipartisan retreat from Iraq.
For what was the one issue the Iraq Study Group would not and will not address? The crucial question: Was the Iraq war a blunder to begin with? The commission seeks at all costs to avoid the judgment of the nation that today's establishment that took us into Iraq served America as badly as the Best and Brightest who marched an earlier generation into Vietnam, then cut and ran and called it "Nixon's War."
The media are celebrating the ISG for its "bipartisanship" and the "consensus" achieved. But was it not a bipartisan consensus that produced the war: a Democratic Senate failing in its duty to ascertain the necessity of a war to be launched by a Republican president, because Democrats feared that telling a popular president "no" would reinforce the party's reputation as being soft on national security?
The people who were right about Iraq were those who rejected bipartisanship to warn that invading Iraq was an unnecessary, unwise and, yes, even an unjust war that would inflame the Arab and Islamic world against us. Unsurprisingly, this group had no representative on the Baker-Hamilton Commission.
Anything by Buchanan should have a barf alert.
The leaders of the GOP better start listening to the base who are not "happy campers." There is a severe shortage of backbone and guts at the head of the Party. That shortage has been apparent since President Reagan left office. RINOs, like McCain, do nothing for the party but turn us into a sick joke. IMO, the Party better start looking for a strong leader ASAP as not one is on the scene right now. The country is at a turning point in our history and strong leadership is our only answer. IMO, Liberal cowards are taking us down the toilet bowl in the blink of an eye.
Agreed. This very much reminds me of 1992, when we fired Bush Sr. 2 years later, that bunch of Rs then got the hint and ran on the very conservative Contract with America. We can only hope that happens again this time.
Of course, then they forgot to follow thru . . .
But I wonder, when someone will get the idea to emulate the fella who won 49 states?
There is really only one (1) credible "disincentive"!
Nancee
You're probably right in your conclusion. My point is simply to indicate the MSM's monkeywrench tactic now, although I'm sure you're right about what it would have been then. The results would have been equally disasterous.
But, hypotheticals aside, WWII fails to persuade liberals for the reasons I stated. It's accepted to be a large fortune spent on a very large result. Iraq is accepted to be a small fortune flushed down the toliet. That's their story, and they're stickin' to it. It's effective, too.
I'd say a minor hand.
We conservatives fired the R congress. The loss is their fault.
It was 55-45 R, now it's 55-45 D. A very small change in real terms.
The fact that the MSM and Ds think they won big and are powerful just makes me laugh.
Will somebody please tell Pat to F*** off? He is a bitter has-been Arabist who left the Republican Party because people stopped listening to him. He is simply being used by the MSM against Republicans.
Actually, I don't think so.
The only success they're having is due to the fact that most Americans don't give a crap about that region of the world. They don't care if those folks all end up under another Hitler.
Even if we succeed, most folks just won't ever think Iraq, Iran, etc are worth fighting for.
With WWII, that was over Europe. Most Americans then and now are of European descent. We care about France, Italy, Germany, England. When they hear, "France is now under an iron boot", they think, "dang, and I wanted to go to Paris for my next holliday" or whatever.
With Iraq? Iran? Syria?
Most Americans literally wouldn't notice if that entire region just up and vanished.
And that's why it truly is "Bush's fault". I could forgive him his lack of intellect in admiration of his sold core foundation. However, ultimately, it was his lack of historical knowledge in how wars are really fought that has proved to be our undoing in Iraq.
I can't recall a single reference point in 5,000 years of recorded history where a war was successfully fought over "hearts & minds". Rather, the annals of history are replete with accounts of complete annihilation.
Included in this group are the first 3 weeks of the Iraq war itself!
The only way out of Iraq is victory, and the only way to victory is to defeat the enemy wherever they are. In this case, it means hiding behind a civilian population.
If we didn't have the will to pursue the war in this fashion, then we should have never gotten involved. As Smith from Oregon has commented, the way we're (not) prosecuting the war is almost criminal. That's Bush's failing.
If you have Netflix or a similar service, rent The Battle Of Algiers and watch that. Shows both sides very fairly and honestly. Not only is it a classic and insightful look into a Western counterinsurgency effort against an Islmic uprising, including a look at torture as an interrogation techique, bombing civilians with IEDs, the media effect on the war, and other eerily similar issues, but it has a large cult following.
In al-Qa'ida.
It was Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's favorite movie, and versions of the movie are found among pretty much any AQ hideout or training camp that's hit. The AQ versions generally have a few scenes edited out, involving women doing un Islamic things like putting on makeup. Still, it's a classic among jihadist circles, and it's well worth our attention, too.
I think you've got it right.
Bush has been losing the war -- the PR war. That's his fault.
Altho I also don't think he's done a good job with his domestic agenda, either. I think he's a good man. But just an average guy.
Cool, outstanding tip, thank you.
I'll get ahold of a copy.
In order to make statements like this Pat has to willfully ignore the past 30 years of history. He concludes by giving the reader reason to discount anything else he has to say. Pat can not be woken up any more, his deep sleep has moved to coma.
What the Baker Commission is ultimately all about is providing political cover for a bipartisan retreat from Iraq.
that is because pat buchanan is a moron....
Comparisons between Iraq and the previous military campaigns aren't really valid, when you consider that in those wars this country demonstrated that it was willing to go to great lengths to win, come hell or high water -- and PC bullsh!t be damned.
It's not the war that has the GOP base all busted up. But the war makes a good excuse for the beltway mental midgets.
All this will do, is hide the fact that the political base is damaged beyond repair and needs to be reconstituted. The quicker they accept it the faster we will get back on our feet. As it is, I see no major developments through 2012, and I had hoped it would be quicker. but it will not be.
In the interim, we have new masters and there is not a damn thing to do about it until perception catches up with reality.
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.