Charles Krauthammer: Past the Apogee: America Under Pressure

Foreign Policy Research Institute ^ | November 14, 2006 / December 18, 2006 | Charles Krauthammer

[MHGinTN]

Okay, state an alternative that is sensible ... we'll wait.

[MHGinTN]

I did read your swipe at one in post #17, BTW. Care to detail?

[griswold3]

What happened to our country?
IMHO the problem has become down to what do we stand for? There is no common thread within our nation any longer.

[FlyVet]

The deliberate, calculated evil of the decision of segments of our political establishment and their various allies such as the MSM, that the goal of regaining their own power mattered above all else, even if it meant sabotaging and betraying their own country, its duly elected leadership and even its military personnel in harms way, is what has brought us to this sorry pass.

Yes, and I'm utterly dumbfounded that they don't understand the consequences. By rendering us incapable of winning a tough war, they are putting a gun to their own fool heads in the long run.

If radical Islam overtakes the globe, where do they think they are going to run? Will they all convert to save their necks?

[Lurker]

Go back and reread the last part of my post.

I think I was pretty clear about things.

L

[pinkpanther111]

ping for later

[EnochPowellWasRight]

"100% INCORRECT. Read your post WWII history!!"

We had already defeated them when "post WWII history" occurred. That's why it is called "post war". Kind of the definition.

[RobbyS]

The problem is the likes of the Clintonistas who et al. who are Europeans at heart. They are a product of the Vietnam era, and like Jimmy Carter, are unhappy that the collapse of the Soviet Union left no one to check the United States. They thought of it as the guarantor of a socialist Europe. Carter's greatest "triumph" was the Israel-Egyptian detent3, which--ironically wass the work of Sadat, not Carter. Carter wanted to join the Soviet Union to contain Israel. By reaching out to Israel, Sadat frustrated this scheme. Carter, of course, took the glory, but he has never ceased to work against Israel.

[Victoria Delsoul]

Great article, thanks.

And here is the crux of the problem:

It seems to me that unless there is a change in the government, which has clearly not succeeded, we are not going to succeed. You can tinker with American tactics and troop levels all you want, but unless the Iraqis can establish a government of unitary purpose and resolute action, the simple objective of the war--leaving behind a self-sustaining, democratic government--will not be achieved.

[Mr. Silverback]

Get Democrats out of our pockets and Republicans out of our bedrooms.

When was there a Republican in your bedroom?

[Mr. Silverback]

Calling Krauthammer a puss is like calling John Kerry a man for the ages.

[Porterville]

Using the word apogee to describe the United States is to admit pussy-dum...... He says apogee, I say Pussy.

[Mr. Silverback]

He's talking about the apogee of unipolarism, not the apogee of the country. By definition, idf we have a serious opposing alliance the unipolar moment is over.

[Earthdweller]

Although this is an excellent summation of the events that have lead us to this point in time, there is still no suggestion for the how of "changing the culture of that area".

Rather than attempting to change the culture why not just consider the plain old universal human question, "What's in it for me?"

The Iraqis elected the equivalent of a liberal administration. Why? What were they expecting by doing this? Entitlements? A small piece of the oil pie? Just a better life?

To unify a segmented society each man has to be given what he considers good reason for participation. Apparently the voters are not getting what they were expecting.

If they haven't seen the benefits of democracy yet, how can we expect them to honor and protect it with their lives?

There will be no decrease in hostilities in Iraq until all Iraqis clearly embrace what they are fighting for.

[GoLightly]

Good article & thanx for the ping. I scanned the responses & saw much of what I expected.

Some think we need to cause more dead Iraqis or it can't work, which is essentially conversion to thought closer to Western ideals via the sword. The argument for this strategy is Japan & Germany. The populations of Germany & Japan supported their leaders in WWII, which is one of the reasons we had to crush their populations. Most in Iraq have no problem rejecting Hussein's government, which is an important point being ignored by the people using Japan & Germany as the template.

Hussein's government was modeled on Western type governance. Unfortunately, it was based on some of the worst kind of Western governments, thickly laden with ideas Hitler & Stalin used in the last century. This strong man type of government hasn't been seen as a "Western" template government, though that is exactly what it is, due to power working from the top down. The early Ottoman Empire was more a case of power on the bottom propping up the top, where the top dog had to sell ideas to the tribal leaders under it. It's not a terribly efficient form of government, but it worked in the region for centuries. They've been governed by "Western" ideas, so claiming it's not possible for them to be governed by "Western" ideas is contradicted by the evidence.

Look at the way Islam actually operates, where there's not any single religious authority. There's no Pope like figure to overrule all Islamic Monarchs or tribal leaders. Imposition of things from the top is contrary to their cultural roots, both in religion & in government. It is how & why Sistani can believe in an Islamic flavored democratic Iraq, while rejecting the form of government inflicted upon the population of Iran by its Mullahs.

The more "secular" Sunni's have to be convinced to reject one form of "Western" style government, as there will be a place for them in another form of "Western" government, one that is not based on the USSR or Nazi Germany.

Finally, the Kurds didn't transition to the democratic form of governing they were living directly under during Hussein's Iraq in a seamless, painless manner. Initially, many of the leaders of their original political parties were assassinated by leaders of opposing parties. Eventually, they worked out a power sharing agreement. At times, the Kurds have been among the most radical Iraqis, yet despite their radicalism, they managed to form representative government.

[PhilDragoo]

We should have shot looters on day 1, we should have installed a government of Iraqi exiles immediately, and above all, we should have taken out Moqtada al-Sadr and his Mahdi army in 2004, when we had the opportunity. All of those decisions, I think, greatly complicated our problems.

Krauthammer's analysis is the clearest I've seen. He removes us from the agency of the failure of Iraqi democracy--please, would it be different with a higher or lower number of troops; in my view, no.

What would be most excellent would be for our commander in chief to see the current state of chaos and the recent electoral defeat as a repudiation of his "New Tone" and a call for No More Mister Nice Guy.

Patton: Grab him by the nose and kick him in the ass.

Yet, incredibly, Bush installs a SecDef who in his 2004 CFR report calls for negotiations with Iran.

Hello, hello: Iran is the man behind the curtain in all of this.

In ALL of this.

[Victoria Delsoul]

I totally agree with that. It was ridiculous seeing the widespread looting on CNN by armed looters, and no one did a thing to stop them.

That was the time for our armed forces to shoot these ruffians and to stop the massive damage they caused. Instead, the looters walked away freely carrying rifles, guns, and stolen property without fear of retaliation or punishment.

It was a bad scene.