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.
No! You're so naive. No war has changed anything since 1917-18 because the idea of changing anything was utterly repudiated at that time!
;-)
I think the real issue is, what the hell good is this sort of "stability" and why on earth are we supposed to find it desirable?
Saudi Arabia and Egypt are relatively "stable" and those societies produced the 9/11 hijackers. Actually, once the Taliban seized power in Afghanistan things became "stable" there (by your measure), and they proceeded to make Osama their defense minister & give Al Qaeda safe haven.
So yes, please, explain to me why this sort of "stability" in these places is a thing to be longed for by us?
Exactly. The idea that we can just pack up and leave, and make those terror tactics de facto effective, with no regard for the repercussions, is incredibly and irresponsibly short-sighted.
Even if I thought we were "wrong" to invade, I'd still be dead-set against leaving, on these grounds alone. If we want terrorism to go on the decline, at some point we must stop being so cowardly that we always end up rewarding terror tactics with victories.
Indeed. Which is truly bizarre, because the average person is feeling no effect whatsoever from the Iraq endeavor. I can understand impatience from people who are affected, but my goodness, a person wakes up, goes to Starbuck's, goes to their $150k computer-twiddling job, goes out for tapas at lunchtime, drives home in their Lexus, relaxes watching a bit of satellite TV or going out to a movie or a club, then in the evening retires to their laptop which is connected to their cable-internet by wireless router, and angrily types,
"WE HAVE TO STOP THE IRAQ ENDEAVOR!! I'M RUNNING OUT OF PATIENCE!!!!"
I just. don't. get it.
Because...?
Because you're running out of patience, correct?
.
It's not desirable by our measures, however, the alternative of staying there for decades is unacceptable.
Saudi Arabia and Egypt are relatively "stable" and those societies produced the 9/11 hijackers.
Good point. Imagine if they weren't "stable"? The "stability" in Egypt comes from the crackdown on Islamists, like the Moslem Brotherhood, by arresting and torturing them. Hardly the definition of "stability" as we know it. In Saudi Arabia things are done differently before resorting to the Egyptian model. It's called appeasement and giving money to terrorist organizations as bribes. This we have to force them to stop.
So yes, please, explain to me why this sort of "stability" in these places is a thing to be longed for by us?
We're not longing to this sort of "stability" and we don't have to deal with it if we can keep the terrorists in check without the cooperation of strongmen in other countries. We can't lose in Iraq and we certainly can't stay there forever for obvious reasons. The only way to get around this is by creating the "stability" that we don't like, i.e., the strongman-type rule as in most of the Moslem countries. We can only hope that such regimes would turn into Turkish-type models.
I don't like this "stability” business more than you do but we're between a rock and a "stable" place!
We can’t change the world but we have to live in it. We gotta pick practical solutions not impossible ones, even if we don't agree with them.
.
Why do you think I'm running out of patience? Absolutely not.
I don't know how you're discarding the RAT-in-power opposition to the war. How can you stay in Iraq for 5o years when you have a RAT Congress and the possibility of a RAT President in'09?
As you can see, I'm being realistic on how victory can be achieved in spite of the roaming RATs.
Wise up, sir, and come down to earth.
.
You are "angrily" accusing the wrong people of lack of patience, IOW, cut-and-runners.
Relax, Doc. Most of us don't want anything less than total victory, period.
Personally, I am not swayed by the monthly numbers released to the media regarding recruiting goals of our armed services. I know that the Pentagon has to weigh the plusses and minuses of what is released to the public. We certainly don't want the enemy to be emboldened nor our own military troops to be demoralized by anything the DoD Public Relations "puts out." I completely understand this.
I'm basing my thoughts from firsthand knowledge. We have some friends who've been d/c'd from active duty for 8½ years. These guys are receiving calls from Monitors in D.C. that they'd better start looking for a billet or one is going to be chosen for them in the near future. Yes, they signed their own contracts decades ago, and the IR was always a possibility for reactivation, but why in the world are we recalling 40-somethings after 8½ years if there isn't a shortage? How many times has stop-loss been applied since 9-11? How many tours have Reservists already done? Those who were active duty on 9-11 are beginning 4th and 5th tours to the M.E.
It's all well and good for Hillary Clinton to state that SHE believes the solution to be the redeployment of our Reservists rather than increasing the numbers of our armed forces. What a bewildering, asinine comment, Hillary!
Everything has a shelf life. And our military, active and reserve have given waaay more than this country should ask. Not to mention, Iran, N.Korea & China are all dangling their strike capabilities.
In this FReeper's opinion, it's d@mned time we double our military personnel now.
Very well written!
I might add one, albeit relatively small, impact of our presence in Iraq: How would the Israel/hezbolla war have gone if Iraq had no US presence and we were dealing with a 1990's status quo?
I am so sick of hearing the opinions of blue pin-striped suits in Washington. I want those wearing cammies to take prisoners on the Hill, and take over the authority to run this engagement as it should have been all along. Right there is our biggest mistake.
Perfectly put! We face a formidable foe here at home with the Democrats and their sycophants that comprise 95% of the mainstream media.
Not only have they succeeded in characterizing the Iraq war as a FRAUD and unnecessary, as a total failure and not winnable, but they have successfully taken 911 from the conscience of America and made it a personal "TRAGEDY" for ONLY the relatives of the 3000 victims and NOT AN ACT OF WAR against 300 Million Americans.
In addition they have instilled in the minds of a MAJORITY of Americans that the real enemy is George Bush and not radical Islamists!
You are absolutely right!
Because...?
[SA, Egypt, etc] Good point. Imagine if they weren't "stable"?
Then they might be expending all their energy fighting each other. Boohoo
You can't, because they run out of patience. Which is what I'm complaining about.
As you can see, I'm being realistic on how victory can be achieved in spite of the roaming RATs. Wise up, sir, and come down to earth.
What you're describing as a sought-for endpoint might be realistic but it is not victory.
I agree with your complaint but it's not why they are "running out of patience". The RATs are deathly afraid of a US win in Iraq, sudden (bombing Iran) or otherwise! Needless to say, they can't "allow" a win because they will be out in droves in '08. (I gave more reasons up thread.)
What you're describing as a sought-for endpoint might be realistic but it is not victory.
The sought-for end point that will devastate terrorists, will stand up to Iran and will become a US ally, is how victory can be defined.
On the other hand, a total victory that involves a Western/American - type democracy is out of the question. However, not all hope for democracy is lost if we put the pressure on the strongman-type regime to be the boss behind the curtain. IOW, head to a Turkish-type democracy.
BTW, I avoided asking you the FOX question to liberals: do you want us to win? Because I know you want us to win. It's the liberal answer to the question that's in their talking points and IS startling; a Clintonian answer: DEFINE WIN, DEFINE VICTORY!!
And that is what I just did, I defined a win/victory.
.
I think you're right, but obviously they are disingenuous about their motives and try to hide them in a phony veneer of caring about foreign policy & making a rational critique. Thus, by making fun of their "impatience", and pointing out its disconnect from reality, I can hope to bring the truth out, if not from them, at least in the eyes of anyone with half a brain who's been paying attention to this debate and thus can see how silly it is for a bunch of pampered spoiled-brats to be so "impatient" with something that isn't actually affecting them tangibly.
The sought-for end point that will devastate terrorists, will stand up to Iran and will become a US ally, is how victory can be defined.
Putting a strongman in power in Iraq will "devastate terrorists"? Where do we find the sort of strongman able to put the iron boot down on Iraq if he's not in bed with this or that army of terrorists?
So I take it back, what you're describing isn't actually realistic at all.
On the other hand, a total victory that involves a Western/American - type democracy is out of the question.
I don't know what "Western/American -type democracy" is supposed to mean exactly, but I don't think it's fair to set the bar at that point in the first place. How about just, "reasonably decent, consensual governance in Iraq"? I don't actually care whether Iraq has a Department of Health and Human Services, or whatever.
However, not all hope for democracy is lost if we put the pressure on the strongman-type regime to be the boss behind the curtain. IOW, head to a Turkish-type democracy.
These are a bunch of vague words; it's really not clear what you have in mind, exactly. The devil is in the details. I suspect that if I drew out all the details from you regarding what you envision, there really wouldn't be a dime's difference between what you seek and what we're already trying to engineer.
Putting a strongman in power in Iraq will "devastate terrorists"? Where do we find the sort of strongman able to put the iron boot down on Iraq if he's not in bed with this or that army of terrorists?
Read my lips! I said "becomes a US ally", he'll be a Shiite, like the one appointed today, who will not cater to the Sadrs, Sunnis, bin Ladens or Iranian mullahs. Why? Absolute power and self preservation is the mentality of a strongman who doesn't want anybody to share his power or knock him off, least of which his powerful US allies, understand?
So I take it back, what you're describing isn't actually realistic at all.
Good, I'm not looking for your approval. You don't know anything about ME realities.
don't know what "Western/American -type democracy" is supposed to mean exactly, but I don't think it's fair to set the bar at that point in the first place.
If you don't know that, you need to study some civics. AND, since you don't know what it means, why do you object to "setting the bar at that point"? What point? A point you don't know or understand?
These are a bunch of vague words; it's really not clear what you have in mind, exactly. The devil is in the details. I suspect that if I drew out all the details from you regarding what you envision, there really wouldn't be a dime's difference between what you seek and what we're already trying to engineer.
Your lack of knowledge on the subject of Turkey and the ME/Moslem world in general is what's confusing you. when you're told something that you don't understand you go on the attack and when you don't have the guts to apologize for accusing people of being cut-and-runners, you come up with a BOOHOO answer!
Grow up, go read a little about what you want to discuss instead of playing professor!
Learn to be civil and know your subject if you want to have a decent conversation in this forum.
.
Ah, I've heard this before. This is essentially the "magically-loyal madman" theory, the theory that we find a ruthless madman but we just make sure that he's our madman.
And how do we know that he will stay that way? Aha, that's where the magic comes into play!
Let's just say I'm unconvinced by the feasibility of what you suggest.
[don't know what "Western/American -type democracy" is supposed to mean exactly, but I don't think it's fair to set the bar at that point in the first place.] If you don't know that, you need to study some civics. ...
Wow, what a zinger. You sure got me.
Let me clarify. I don't know exactly what you have in mind by that category. Ok?
Read my lips! .... Good, I'm not looking for your approval. You don't know anything about ME realities. .... Grow up .... Learn to be civil and know your subject if you want to have a decent conversation in this forum.
Who's the one not being "civil"? Your tone here is weirdly out of line compared to my tone in #217. Are you sure you didn't misinterpret my post?
Hopefully you are right. I just hope the democrats don’t figure it out before it’s too late.
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.