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.
I think Republican waffling on the war is a mistake.
Republicans need to SPEAK UP.
Start calling Democrats what they are: defeatists.
Say it. Don't think it. Say it.
Every day.
Thanks for posting this.
I strongly agree with your statement.
Yeah, you either have to be pro life or prochoice, a 2A defender or a gun grabber, a traditional marriage supportor or a gay rights advocate, etc.
So inother words, as long as one can come down on any side of any issue and can squeeze one's ass inside the Big Tent, one can qualify as a Republican.
This is a textbook Big Lie, told often enough that it's now "common knowledge". Even Republicans have to repeat the mantra in order to establish their bonnafides.
The clear implication of "Mistakes were made" is that everything in Iraq is our fault. More specifically, Bush's fault.
The problem is that nobody details what "mistakes" they're talking about. On the very rare occasion when someone does offer a specific critique, then it's often as not contradictory from other critiques. Some say "more troops were needed", some say "less troops were needed", etc. The truth is that nothing we could have done would ever have prevented the current terrorism. Not even the Israelies can prevent terrorism 100% of the time, and they have one of the best militaries and armed citizenry on the planet.
The only truth behind "mistakes were made" is we didn't fight the PR battle as well as the jihadies, and that mistake was not done in Iraq, but in New York and Washington.
The "mistakes were made" Big Lie is as empowering to the left today as any of those who were empowered by slanders against Jews in the 1930's.
The Big Lie works, every time it's tried.
Invading Iraq was not a mistake but misunderstanding Iraqi history was/is an unforgivable mistake.
To put it simply: When you're in Rome, do as the Romans do.
The violent history of Iraq dictates quelling their violence with exponentially more violence. Case in point: one man, Saddam Hussain, with a ruthless army and secret police apparatus, took care of business through extreme repression and fear.
If our values and free democracy don't allow us to use extreme force then we shouldn't have gone there in the first place.
Even if we learned enough to apply extreme force, we have to defeat the enemy within first before we can finish the job.
Unfortunately, the enemy within is now in power and their MSM allies are more empowered than ever before.
I'm afraid that all what Sadr and other terrorists have to do is wait us out, give the enemy within time to force our defeat and deliver Iraq to Iran.
What next? Send our troops back to protect Kuwait and Saudi Arabia from the mullah menace on their northern borders? Who's willing to authorize that? Do we have the right intelligence?.......
A domino effect that's unstoppable.
.
"When did everyone decide to agree that the war in Iraq was a mistake? '
For me, the dawn came when it became apparent there were no WMDs to speak of. The ongoing civil war just nailed down the realization that invading Iraq without conquering it was a mistake.
very good ...my thoughts exactly
Just what the RINOs exploited.
I think it is harder to get an endorsement now though. Notice Rudy has not declared a party yet.
I saw this on one of the sites mulling his run:
>>>Either McCain or Giuliani could run and win as an independent. Either one could raise the money. Giuliani, released from the deadly confines of a Republican primary, would find his liberal social views on abortion, guns, and gays to be an asset, not a fatal flaw. McCain's legendary independence on issues like tobacco regulation, tough corporate governance, campaign-finance reform, global warming, torture of terror suspects and immigration would no longer be seen as straying from GOP orthodoxy once he left the Republican primaries, but would become the basis for a very attractive campaign platform. <<<
B I N G O !!!
This is a disingenuous argument, and completely unsupported by any facts. Having U.S. military personnel in a foreign country does nothing to prevent terrorist attacks here in the U.S. The lack of any major attack here in the U.S. since 9/11 -- if there is even anything meaningful in a 5+ year period with no major terrorist attacks in the U.S. -- is primarily attributable to domestic anti-terror measures that were put in place after 9/11.
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.
See my point above. Nothing prevents "militants" from Syria and Iran from streaming into the U.S. today -- especially if they learn a few Spanish phrases and stream into this country across our southern border.
Is it a "mistake" because four years after the fall of the Ba'ath regime, we don't have a peaceful Iraq?
Well, yes -- sort of. For most of the people you've cited, they consider it a mistake because they were delusional enough to believe in 2002 that Iraq was even capable of being a peaceful, stable country. In this sense, they were completely misled by a number of officials in and out of government who predicted that establishing peace and stability in Iraq would be easy.
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?
Yes. See my point above.
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.
This kind of utopian, delusional, Wilsonian nonsense was utterly repudiated in 1917-18.
I generally agree with that statement.
I believe the invasion was predicated on sloppy intelligence, and compounded with short-sighted planning.
Dr Germ says "thank you"
You! You have said it just right. Thank you.
Agreed, but Woodrow Wilson had the misfortune of not being an 'aw shucks', plain-speakin' feller from Texas who speaks to Jesus and can look into the souls of men.
Sadly, no Wilson-Bots ever materialized willing to ignore the follies of "the Schoolmaster".
It's not like there's just 10 of them and they're all Over There right now. It's a childish logic.
My husband and I have discussed this many times. When was the last time the Japanese even, remotely in the back of their minds, considered attacking someone? The Japanese still have their heads tucked safely inside a foxhole and will probably never stick their noses out again.
That fact speaks volumes while politicians debate how to conduct a politically correct war. Crush the enemy in short order. THAT they will understand.
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.