Posted on 02/04/2007 9:12:57 AM PST by A_perfect_lady
I have just finished reading a Ben Stein column about the recent SOTU adress. It started out very well, but then took what seemed to me an odd turn: Stein, along with several other conservative pundits, has come to the conclusion that the war in Iraq was just a big, huge mistake. I've been hearing this with increasing frequency, from people I did not expect to hear it from. Bill O'Reilly, Francis Fukuyama... even Charles Krauthammer sounds disenchanted.
Here is my question: When did everyone decide to agree that the war in Iraq was a mistake? I still don't think it was a mistake. Stein credits President Bush with the fact that we have not experienced a follow-up terrorist attack since 9/11. Why does he suppose we have not had another major attack here in the States? Because we took the war to them, just exactly as President Bush said we were going to do. We'll fight them on the streets of Baghdad so that we aren't fighting them HERE. Militants from Syria and Iran are streaming into Iraq and that's a pity, but it's especially a pity for them as they would much rather stream into the United States.
Is it a "mistake" because four years after the fall of the Ba'ath regime, we don't have a peaceful Iraq? Did anyone expect the Islamic world to sit idly by while we create something utterly foreign to their experience in the very heart of their world? It's ironic that I should quote Noam Chomsky in a time and place like this, but stopped clocks being right twice a day as they are, he once said something useful: Oppressors cannot bear the threat of a good example. Neither theocracies, monarchies, or pan-Arab socialists want to see a functioning democratic state in the muslim world. It's like teaching slaves to read: you'll never keep them subservient to Allah, the King, or the Dictator after they've seen the alternative. Did anyone anywhere think we were going to do that in four years? Did anyone think that the various powers that be (or would be) in the Middle East would take it lying down?
I still remember President Bush's address before going into Afghanistan: it will not be easy and it will not be quick. He meant it then and he means it now. We are not in Iraq to avenge ourselves for September 11th, or to find Osama bin Laden, or to save the world from WMD, and we never were. We are there to begin the changing of the Middle East. We are addressing the root causes of extremism, parochialism, fanaticism, state-sponsored hatred, and ignorance. It's a huge task. You might feel it was the wrong approach and we should have either wiped out half the muslim world in one fell swoop (an understandable reaction) or just hunkered down, surrounded ourselves with walls, wished Israel good luck, and watched from a safe distance as Islam spreads slowly but surely into Europe and Africa. I suppose we could have done that with the Communists, too, in the 20th century, and just hoped that we could hold out on our huge island when, at last, they came for us.
If this is your view then yes, invading Iraq was a big mistake. But please consider: we are dealing with a force very much like Communism, one that is intent upon spreading and has a great deal of momentum. We can crush the enemy, run from the enemy, or try to change the enemy. President Bush is trying to change the enemy. It's as valid an approach as the other two alternatives. I urge my fellow Americans not to give up on this approach after such a very short time, because if you think this undertaking is expensive in terms of national treasure and human lives, remember all the times countries have used the other two approaches. Remember the retreat from Cambodia and the killing fields that resulted. Remember Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I am not pointing to them as examples of American mistakes but as examples of the results of retreat or full-scale destruction, both valid but expensive ways of exiting or ending a war. Do we want to do either of those things again, just to claim peace in our time? All I am saying, is give war a chance.
That spells disaster for our oil-driven economy as Iranian mullahs export suicide bombers to Saudi Arabia and Egypt.
I expect a major war in the ME within the next five years involving Iran and Saudi Arabia possibly including nuclear weapons.
BUMP
No flames from this direction, getmeoutta. You nailed what I've been feeling and saying for some time now, only you've said it better.
a_perfect_lady, the use of the pronoun, "we" and the contraction of it, "we'll" does not accurately reflect the countries involvement in Iraq and the wider "war on terror." Mobilization of man (and woman) power and industry right after 9-11 should have been one of the first orders of business in Washington. Increasing the Army and Marine Corps end strength by of total of 90,000 could and should have been done within six months after 9-11. Now, without a draft, it will be almost impossible to do when you consider the mood of the country.
WE HAVE A WINNER!
Oopsie - make that "WE HAVE THE WINNER"! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
I still think the war was the right thing to do.
Waffling and letting Falluja off the hook instead of crushing them. "Operation Vigilent Resolve" wasn't vigilent and we had no resolve as we let the Iraq leadership tell us "these operations by the Americans are unacceptable and illegal". We pull out Late April 04 and leave the city until November 04 with the promise that locals would keep the insurgents under control.
This was the single most costly PR mistake of the war. When faced with taking the fight to the enemy in a massive way, we blinked when hit with media created propaganda.
bookmark
Any society that put the likes of Bill Clinton into the White House, not once, but two (2) times, and is even considering putting Hillary Clinton in there, also repeatedly fails to understand the complete lack of maturity of both of those characters. It seems that the majority of the voting public almost completely lacks insight.
I cannot believe what is being done to our good President, to our wonderful troops, and to all of us who long to be free and to reamin free!! It is unthinkable.
What in the world has happened to C-H-A-R-A-C-T-E-R anyway?
All, please refer to #105
Publius,
You and I weren't that crazy about a strongman leading Iraq. Well, not exactly, but a preparation towards that goal may very well be under way.
Today on FOX, I heard that a highly decorated Shiite general who was captured in the Gulf War has been appointed as the Commander of the Iraqi army with immediate duties in Baghdad!
Talking to people from the ME, one gets a flavor of how Saddam controlled his army, intelligence and people.
In Saddam's time, to have a Shiite general in the ranks was very rare. Maybe lower Shiite ranks such as conscripts and maybe mid-ranks who are controlled by Sunni generals was how every walk of life was controlled by Sunni Baathists in Saddam's Iraq.
Conclusion:
A Shiite-Iraqi general who was captured in the Gulf War (surrendered, most likely) and instead of executed by Saddam he was highly decorated, tells me one thing: the general is ruthless and totally implemented Saddam's policy.
If this is not the strongman to clean Baghdad and eventually, either keep Maliki and the Shiite government in line or he takes over and starts a new era of military dictatorship.
One hope remains, this general maybe the one who emulates and preserves a Turkish-type democracy.
The above are my thoughts and opinions.
They (Terrorist) are not here!
We're talking about moonbats and a power-hungry RAT party. They hate this country and they never "forgave" the Repubs, headed by President Reagan then Bush 41 after him, for defeating communism and collapsing the Soviet Evil Empire!!
Nothing happened to C-H-A-R-A-C-T-E-R, there was/is no C-H-A-R-A-C-T-E-R to start with!
This IS the enemy within fighting for relevancy and its political life. They are vicious and will stop at nothing to defeat this country under the protection of The First Amendment Protection Plan. A plan with premiums paid for by the blood of our magnificent troops!
Well, if this constitutes "stability" then I don't see it as a state to be desired and I cannot wish Saddam back to restore it.
Makes me crazy!!!
There used to be a great deal of character in the Republican Party. Presently half of our Republican elected officals seem just as nuts o' whatso as the RATS!!!
One mistake was not getting the country behind the war, in terms of self-sacrifice. It has been like an "other people's war" - most folks don't have children in the forces, etc. And if you don't sacrifice for something it just doesn't ultimatley mean much to you. It's like if someone gave you a car for free and you thought, "Well, that's fine." But when it starts making pings or coughs and you get a repair bill, you might just drive it to the side of the road and leave it there.
A war, especially, mandates a heart-felt commitment.
You can't have a Western-type democracy overnight. It needs a dedicated, consistent effort over a long period of time. Look at Turkey, their democracy is still held in place by the armed forces.
If you don't wish to start with a strongman's rule and hopefully he's benevolent enough to start and protect democratic institution, then we'll eventually leave Iraq to Iran, and......whatever consequences I referred to up thread.
IOW, when you're in Iraq, do as the Iraqis do!
.
But this is exactly my point.
Fine. We went there to remove Saddam, we did, we can't stay there for 50 years like Germany, Japan, Korea, etc.
The short cut is; a strongman to take care of business, be an ally and keep Iran out.
If you don't like that or the obvious alternative disaster and defeat, I have no more recommendations! LOL .
These are the weak that we should take care of in the primaries! They were spooked by the moonbats and the MSM.
This is why, as you well know, I insist on confronting the MSM at every turn, comment, sources, demand immediate apologies and corrections on page 1, kick our the Dave Gregorys from press conferences when disrespectful, etc......
If this is done consistently you wouldn't see the fear and the awe of the MSM by Republicans. IOW, this WH has two good years to cut the moonbats down to size. Will they do it? Nope, it ain't in their "character"!!
.
Homer: Not a bear in sight. The "Bear Patrol" is working like a charm!
Lisa: That's specious reasoning, Dad.
Homer: Thanks, honey.
Lisa: By your logic, I could claim that this rock keeps tigers away.
Homer: Hmm. How does it work?
Lisa: It doesn't work. (pause) It's just a stupid rock!
Homer: Uh-huh.
Lisa: But I don't see any tigers around, do you?
Homer: (pause) Lisa, I want to buy your rock.
Then we would have been better not to have gon into Iraq. A Dem majority and no WMD found or worse yet sent to Syria or who knows where. A public not war weary and not inclined t fight another one if need be. We would have been better not to have gone in. something like this needs to be won quickly or not fought.
I would have gone to war after the first ground to air missle was shot at our planes enforcing the no fly zones. While I support our effort in Iraq I question the leadership & planning ability of our leaders. While I realize it is very complicated it seems as if our planners, including the Military, made huge mistake after mistake and no one seemed accountable. I believe 100% that the stuborn stance our leaders took about the number of troops and where to deploy them has and will cost us the war.
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.