However, trying to "convert" the country to a democratically elected representative republic is heart stopping stupid.
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.
How about a whole bunch of senior officials in the U.S. Department of Defense? And the Vice President of the United States, too?
I never thought it would be "easy" and no one in government ever gave me that impression.
And yet did it ever occur to you to ask yourself why the same Dick Cheney who thought it was a bad idea to invade Iraq with 500,000+ troops in 1991 suddenly decided it was a good idea to invade Iraq with 130,000+ troops in 2003?
You mean, in 1917-18, some people said "we are going to begin changing the Middle East", and it didn't happen, and the way it didn't happen (i.e. some sort of metaphysical laws prevented it) utterly repudiated the very notion of changing the Middle East?
What was repudiated in 1917-18 was the silly notion that we could order the world to our own liking.
You do get points for using the adjective "Wilsonian", though. Anyone who uses the adjective "Wilsonian" automatically gets an advantage in the argument, or so I understand.
"Wilsonian" is synonymous with "silly" and "delusional."
Go back and read the text of his address to Congress calling for a declaration of war against Germany . . . you know, all that "making the world safe for democracy" and "the imperial government of Germany" nonsense. These statements were particularly idiotic in light of the fact that Germany was really no less democratic than any other country in Europe at the time.
I think you're right. This war has gone better than most that we've been in. We need a sense of history and proportion.
Yeah, thats what they all think.
You have covered all the bases. Great job.
Im a Baby boomer but I agree with you....No one wants war but who is to say that this war will not prevent other wars?
Also as wars go this is an small "real" war . I worry that if this country was faced with Hitler at this point Congess would pass a binding resolution that we should all speak German
How many billions of dollars and decades are you willing spend enforcing the No-Fly-Zone and keeping the sanctions in place against Iraq?
Will we have hundreds of thousands of troops perpetually stationed in the heart of Arabia, drawing interference and distracting the terrorists?
That's exactly what it would have taken to keep Saddam contained and prevent him from invading Kuwait and SA and attacking our troops in the Gulf.
Eventually Saddam would have acquired enough weapons conventional and unconventional from nations willing to void the sanctions to attack us. It was only a matter of time....
How long before the terrorists get smart, grow bored of blowing up our soldiers in Iraq, and return to blowing up our civilians in skyscrapers?
They already want to do that, but we have the leadership and footsoldiers pinned down in Iraq and Afghanistan. We're fighting the head now, not the tentacles.
We would have fought this war eventually, and it would have looked just like this! Quit whining, quit being a little defeatist drama queen and support your damned country!
I think taking down Saddam was the right thing to do but now we are being caught up in the thousand year old emnity between two Islamic murder cults-Sunnis and Shiites-with nothing but more carnage on the horizon.
My biggest pet peeve on FR is that when you critisize the war in Iraq you always get people jumping all over you equating you with Jane Fonda,ANSWER,John Kerry,etc.Nonsense.I refuse to be boxed in like that.Its like saying because I like trains that run on time so I must be a Mussolini supporter.
OK,not a good analogy but you get the point!
It's just the Baker people starting to make noise again. They've always been around, they've just been marginalized because they are stupid. Now that the goings are tough, they are making noise again.
If things start going well, they'll shut up again.
It wouldnt have anything at all to do with the fact politicians are fighting this war like they did in vietnam. Nothing to do with the fact nobody from the reps has the balls to say what needs to be said. Nothing to do with the fact that our borders are still wide open after 9/11. Nothing to do with the fact that 'IF YOU ARENT FOR US, YOU ARE AGAINST US" is just more bs from a politician. Nothing to do with the fact that we cozy up to most mohos who are financing terrorism out the back door.
Some say theres been no terror attacks since 9/11. I believe all acts of terror have been covered up since 9/11. Theres been plenty of things happen that are all dismissed after a few days as just a random fruitcake. Nothing to do with the religion of peace. They are just buying thousands of cell phones that americans wont buy.
Its more then just what is going on in Iraq. Its the entire cesspool in Washington DC. Many of us are sick and tired of being lied to and treated like commoners as the elite make land deals and their relatives get rich working for lobbiests who dont have the best interests of the American people in mind.
I could go on but I need to get my 06 tax info together so I can send more money to the sorry parasites and predators in DC.
Yes, and I agree.
Crushing the enemy "changes" him!! And a hell of a lot faster than "changing the enemy"!
"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."
War? We're at war? If we were REALLY at war, per Michelle Malkin:
"--A true state of "heightened alert" would mean barring any new religious visas for Muslim clerics and ending all visa-free travel, which means scrapping the anachronistic and insecure Transit Without a Visa program and the dangerously lax Visa Waiver Program.
--A true state of "heightened alert" would mean a targeted visa moratorium for terror-sponsoring and terror-friendly nations. The Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act of 2002 placed such a ban on temporary visitor visas for individuals from the seven official state sponsors of terrorism. The list should be expanded and revisited if and when intelligence points to new al Qaeda breeding grounds. And yes, that means tourists from Egypt, Yemen, Syria and the Philippines might be denied a Grand Canyon vacation the next five years. Tough noogies.
--A true state of "heightened alert" would mean killing off the idiotic Diversity Visa Lottery Program once and for all and scouring the H1-B visa program for Islamist exploitation.
--A true state of "heightened alert" would mean unapologetic government monitoring of Arab and Muslim foreign students on temporary visas, Muslim chaplains and soldiers serving in the military and in prisons, and Arab and Muslim pilots and flight students.
--A true state of "heightened alert" would mean immediate deportation of illegal aliens from terror-sponsoring and terror-supporting nations, increased National Guard dispatches on both the northern and southern borders, aggressive police-federal cooperation to catch illegal border crossers and overstayers on the interior, and vigorous encouragement of volunteer border security efforts like the Minuteman Project."
Continuing to try for bestest buddy status with people who "understand terrorist actions against the U.S.--but don't condone them," is foolish at best and suicidal at worst.
However, trying to "convert" the country to a democratically elected representative republic is heart stopping stupid.
The mistake was not finishing off Saddam right after he invaded Kuwait, way back when.
Like who?
And the Vice President of the United States, too?
Dick Cheney said that "establishing peace and stability in Iraq would be easy"?
Even if he did, I wonder why that isn't outweighed by, like, what Bush said about how wouldn't be easy.
And yet did it ever occur to you to ask yourself why the same Dick Cheney who thought it was a bad idea to invade Iraq with 500,000+ troops in 1991 suddenly decided it was a good idea to invade Iraq with 130,000+ troops in 2003?
Not really. It's not really an obsession of mine to track the history of Dick Cheney's opinions. But if that's what Cheney thought in 1991 I think he was wrong then.
What was repudiated in 1917-18 was the silly notion that we could order the world to our own liking.
Ordering the world to our own liking is what human civilization, knowledge, striving, and indeed virtually all human activity (of which warfare is a subset) is all about. If this is impossible, because it was "repudiated" in 1917-1918, I suppose the only rational path available is nihilism.
"Wilsonian" is synonymous with "silly" and "delusional."
Which means that, to automatically win an argument, all you gotta do is to place the adjective "Wilsonian" in front of your opponent's opinions. Yeah, I get it.
This is a carefully crafted use of language to spotlight your concerns about the newest sentiments of some suspect talking heads. They do not speak for me--you do.
Nicely done.
BravoZulu... perfect lady.
Good point. We showed what a good job we can do when we let the Russians "partition" Eastern Europe.
Nicely done. I am reminded of P.J. O'Rourke's book with the title "Give War a Chance". Some of his arguments for war as part of foreign policy mirror some of what you have stated in a clear, pithy manner.
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.