Posted on 11/22/2005 11:19:29 AM PST by NutCrackerBoy
The headlines today --- "Iraqi Factions/Seek Timetable/For U.S. Pullout" --- encourage another look at the Iraq situation, focused not on the desolation of the enterprise, but on the planks of despair. Is it really true that the Sunni and the Shiites are making common cause? Indeed, the report in the New York Times tells of 100 Sunni, Shiite, and Kurdish leaders who have signed a statement in which "a withdrawal of foreign troops" is demanded "on a specified timetable, dependent on an immediate national program for rebuilding the security forces."
A learned observer writes about that which he classifies as "increasingly surreal." "I find, about discussions of Iraq, two universes of discourse, parallel but not contiguous. When I talk to one set of friends and acquaintances or read what they write, I get one version of what is going on. When I talk with another set, or read what they write, I get an entirely different and incompatible assessment. If you talk to military affairs specialists like Victor Davis Hanson, or political analysts like David Pryce-Jones, you get the sense that immense progress has been and is being made both in getting rid of the terrorists and in establishing a workable society in Iraq."
It is certainly true that we do not read much about, or ponder at all, the importance of terrorist plots discovered and disrupted. We are not told how many senior al-Qaeda agents are in custody.
We are reminded of the Iraq constitution and know, of course, of the great election only a few weeks away, on December 15. Is there a corresponding explosion of municipal and business infrastructure? Water and sanitation and communications systems, schools, oil pipelines, local and national business initiatives? Does the eye of reason see in the frenzies of the terrorists desperation of the kind insurgents feel who see defeat ahead, not victory? The kind of people who are prepared to bomb children to express their desperation?
Critics talk of "racing for the exits" in Iraq. But --- most emphatically, by a vote of 403–3 --- Congress recently rejected with fervor exits of the type associated with despair. The terrorists are acting like the beleaguered Japanese in Okinawa when they saw themselves destined to defeat, alienation, and even deracination. My friend writes of one critic's "tendentious assertions, typically offered in the protasis of his sentences in order to enhance the aura of casual but apodictic assurance. 'But while the war is lost both as a political matter at home and a practical matter in Iraq . . . ' Hello? What confirmation do we have of exit strategies going on by the president or his Secretary of State or his Secretary of Defense?"
The New York Post on Sunday assembled a comparison of what Messrs. Reid, Clinton, Dean, Biden, Kennedy, Kerry, Gore, and Byrd had to say about going into Iraq, the threat of Iraq, the dangers in ignoring the threat of Iraq, the advantages, strategic and moral in asserting ourselves there, the need to enforce the resolutions of the U.N. being ignored by Saddam Hussein. . . The Post set these comments over against the language being used today by the summer soldiers. It is illuminating and casts a long shadow over the future of the United States, the security of the commander in chief, and the longevity of the national will.
My correspondent concludes, "You told me that your friend predicted that within six months of the election, it would be clear to all that the country was on its feet. Is he correct? I do not know. I note that many people assured me that a constitution would never be ratified in Iraq. They were, by and large, the same people who assured me that were the U.S. to invade Iraq, the Arab street would erupt in a world jihad.
"The supposedly impossible thing in fact happened, and the dead certainty failed to take place. Even more curious is how little difference that has made in the --- is the word appropriate? --- debate. Reality --- what actually happened or seemed to happen --- somehow hasn't counted for much when it comes to informing opinion on Iraq. Six months from the election takes us to 15 June. It would be interesting to step back and specify some milestones by which we could judge the campaign: what developments, were they accomplished, would lead us to judge the venture a success? What are some alternative eventualities that would compel us to acknowledge failure?
"We could scribble a few such criteria on a sheet of paper now and seal it in an envelope marked, 'Do not open until June 15, 2006.' Then, on a balmy summer eve, we could have an envelope-opening ceremony and see where things stood. I suspect the backers of Mr. Bush would have something to celebrate."
Reading WFB and NR in high school gave me a 96% score on the SAT vocabulary segment.
Our troops have become the enemy." Rep. John Murtha of Pennsylvania
“The fact is that, unlike during other times of national threat or crisis, the United States of America is not at war.” Jimmy Carter
Precisely my conclusion. Buckley's adoration of the obscure, is to me, pointless self-aggrandizement betraying the likelihood that there is less substance to it than at first appears.
While I have no compunction about abstruse terms when they optimize succinct communication, I view it as more effective to employ common synonyms with two exceptions: they are either redundant or would require so many modifiers as to obscure the intent.
"When Passion is on the throne, Reason is out-of-doors." - Matthew Henry
""tendentious assertions, typically offered in the protasis of his sentences in order to enhance the aura of casual but apodictic assurance.""
I thought but was spelled with 2 t's?
When passion governs, it rarely governs wisely -Benjamin Franklin.
What an excellent article. The reasoning is crystal clear, and the idea put forth is superb. Get a list of success crieria together then measure by them at a later date.
The Dims could not draw up such criteria, of course. Their rhetoric depends on short memories and rubber rulers.
Yeah, my mother was a master linguist and I know a lot of words but there are a few I'll have to look up. I do believe Mr. Buckley knows EVERY word in the English language...
I was comparing the two also..This is terrific.
LOL! Perfect!
Part of intelligence is the recognition of patterns.
Remember a few months after the invasion, the Bushbots told us that all but three provinces were quiet? They are still telling us today that because all but three provinces are quiet, that much progress has been made in the preceding years. . .
Remember a few months after the invasion when the Bushbots told us that the insurgency was waning and in it's death throes?
Remember when the insurgency was compared to the (utterly nonexistent in truth) dead-enders in Germany and Japan?
Remember when the transfer of power was supposed to end the insurgency (with a short period of quiet afterwards because we locked down the whole country)?
Remember when the first elections were supposed to end the insurgency (with a short period of quiet afterwards because we locked down the whole country)?
Remember when the draft constitution (complete with it's affirmation of sharia law. . .) was supposed to end the insurgency (with a short period of quiet afterwards because we locked down the whole country)?
Now, we are supposed to believe that the elections on Dec.15 are going to end the insurgency? Hmmmmm. Why should we believe that?
Remember when we didn't DRESDEN (perhaps Mr. Buckley can find a use for this new verb. . .) Fallujah and the other places because we respected muslim holy places? Remember when we jailed our own because they put panties on the heads of enemy terrorist sh*ts? Remember when Capt. Pantano was court martialled? I say to the Bushbots to name any war that was won by pulling punches and punishing one's own soldiers for fighting the enemy.
The insurgency lives on, and will continue to live on because (among other things): We won't secure the Iraqi borders; we won't destroy our enemies and their sympathizers; we telegraph our weakness by not doing what history dictates what is required to win wars; we don't recognize that Iraq is not a country - it is a collection of irreconcilable ethnic groups mistakenly shoved together by the Brits 80 years ago; we fail to recognize that Islam in it's fundamental form is our enemy; we have sinister neocons who care nothing about this country, and affirmative action frauds like Condi Rice managing our President.
Remember a couple of months ago when the Pentagon admitted that there is only one battalion (~500men) of Iraqis who can be counted on to fight without US help? This was a step backward from the three battalions of a year ago or so. At this rate, the Iraqi army will never be capable.
What to do? Either fight the war right, or get out. I say fight the war right. Wipe entire Sunni towns off the map with their inhabitants in them. Tell the remaining Sunnis to behave, or we will arm the Kurds and put the Kurds in charge of the Sunnis. Kick the Iranians out of the Shia lands in the South. Shoot the Shia who are associated with Iran. Shoot the Shia judges and police who arrested the British soldiers a couple of months ago. Write the constitution ourselves (get rid of the Sharia garbage in it, and include autonomy for the three groups), and shoot anyone who doesn't like it. Inform Iran and Syria that they must close their borders. Arm the Kurds, give the oil to the Kurds, leave, and keep Guantanamo style bases there.
Why are we wasting the lives of our soldiers to protect an Islamist constitution? If the Iraqis love freedom so much, why won't they fight for it?
What will really happen? The dims will make major gains in '06, and we will be out of Iraq - humiliated. Iran will be the winner, fresh off the announcement that it now has nukes. China may use the opportunity to grab Taiwan at that time, forcing us to face a problem that makes Iraq look like chump change.
I have always supported the Iraq War. It's the botched prosecution of the war that I cannot abide.
To which I would add trying to buy their favor at the expense of the military readiness with which to deal with both Iran, China, and (an already nuclear) Pakistan if need be. Did I mention Venezuela and Brazil?
As things are, methinks we are potentially in a world of hurt, especially if the Arabs shift to the Euro as a reserve currency as Chavez is now doing.
Damn Straight.
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.