Posted on 02/24/2006 7:12:07 PM PST by CometBaby
"I can tell you the main reason behind all our woes — it is America." The New York Times reporter is quoting the complaint of a clothing merchant in a Sunni stronghold in Iraq. "Everything that is going on between Sunni and Shiites, the troublemaker in the middle is America."
One can't doubt that the American objective in Iraq has failed. The same edition of the paper quotes a fellow of the American Enterprise Institute. Mr. Reuel Marc Gerecht backed the American intervention. He now speaks of the bombing of the especially sacred Shiite mosque in Samara and what that has precipitated in the way of revenge. He concludes that “The bombing has completely demolished” what was being attempted — to bring Sunnis into the defense and interior ministries.
Our mission has failed because Iraqi animosities have proved uncontainable by an invading army of 130,000 Americans. The great human reserves that call for civil life haven't proved strong enough. No doubt they are latently there, but they have not been able to contend against the ice men who move about in the shadows with bombs and grenades and pistols.
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
Odd, you appear to think you're disputing/refuting the point I was making. You're not.
The fact remains (and your above narrative shows) that the particular nationalities of the nineteen 9/11 hijackers (your comment I originally responded to) is not relevant to anything, and you've stopped even trying to defend the notion that it is, so you've effectively conceded the point. Nothing further to say on that note.
Based on several things: wasting lives for one, wasting money and resources for two and three.
Apparently you think it's a waste of lives/resources to prevent Al Qaeda from gaining a foothold in a wealthy Middle Eastern country which has a power vacuum. Fair enough. I disagree, and think that ceding territory to Al Qaeda is the far bigger, and more shortsighted, waste.
We should not be meddling in the affairs of other countries
Again, we "meddled in the affairs of" Afghanistan, and continue to, and you seem ok with that (correct me if I'm wrong?), if only because you've defended the logic of the Afghanistan invasion. So you are not true to this principle; you do not actually apply it with any consistency. I see no reason why I should take this principle seriously as a point of discussion when neither of us actually believes in it consistently.
You and I both believe there are times when we should "meddle in the affairs of" other countries, the only real question is when and where. I think it's perfectly legitimate for us to maintain a presence in Iraq if only to prevent Al Qaeda from gaining a major foothold there; you don't, because, presumably, you do not actually care about combating/resisting Al Qaeda at this point. (Do kindly let me know if there's some other rational explanation.) Best,
His last comments about the Schiavo case were odd as well. Old age seems to have warped his judgement.
Perhaps Buckley has written on this elsewhere, but I see in his article the same problem I see with the anti-war left and anti-war right: no solution is offered on how best Saddam Hussein and his terrorist connections could have been handled. Just a denunciation of our policy. With Buckley at least it is well considered and respectful, but with the anti-war left and right (I can no longer tell them apart) it is usually accompanied by virulent anti-American rhetoric that makes one think that they oppose the war on terror because they really don't think America is worth saving. Obviously I do not include Buckley in this group.
Please, if you know of any more efficient ways to kill the enemy, I'm all ears. Merely asking "Why is this taking so long????" does not qualify. :-)
Noncombatant deaths on the battlefield are a tragedy, but I would prefer if as few as possible Americans must give their lives for our country - if this means bringing in the MOAB, so be it.
Agreed, actually. But where shall we use the MOAB, in order to efficiently kill the enemy? Coordinates please? Dropping a MOAB on a random city is not, by any reasonable definition, an "efficient" way to kill the enemy, even if a few of 'em should happen to get hit by it.
For "use more force!!!" to be a sensible piece of advice, rather than just empty, valueless criticism that gives comfort ("see? conservatives are complaining too") to morale-sapping political-point-scoring war opponents for no good reason, one has to actually have some idea of where and how to use the force, as well as a good explanation for why that use of force will advance rather than hinder our objectives. (It's not obvious how dropping a MOAB somewhere in Iraq will advance any sensible objectives.)
We are facing a terror insurgency, and that means by definition that (because they are so weak, mind you!) they hide amongst the civilian population as one of their primary tactics. That's why combating terror insurgencies can take what seems to be a "long" time (cf. Malaysia), but it's fashionable to speak nowadays in awed, hushed tones (ooh! they blew up a building, then there were reprisals, so let's give up!) as if prevailing against terror insurgencies is somehow physically impossible, which is rubbish (cf. Malaysia).
Like I keep saying: yes, this will take a long time, but there is no good reason not to have the patience for it. We are a powerful nation which has the luxury of conducting this operation in a way that, frankly, barely touches the lives of most of us. American Idol hasn't been pre-empted, has it? Are people being asked to turn in their iPods for military use? What the hell am I missing here? "How much longer?!?!!? How much longer??!?" cry out millions of people from their couches between slurps of Starbuck's lattes. How much longer what, I can only respond? How much longer will "Iraq" be a TV news story that gives them unpleasant feelings?
Because, frankly, to 99% of the whiners, that is all that it is. So why the panic? Why the impatience? It is simply not rooted in reality.
Good observation, but it's even worse than that. Even forgetting about Saddam, and regardless of the merits of having invaded, the fact remains that right now Iraq is a naturally-wealthy Middle Eastern country with a power vacuum, where Al Qaeda is operating to wreak havoc and gain a foothold. They simply cannot be allowed to succeed. If we hadn't invaded this country already, there would be a good argument for establishing a military presence there now. Yet the left, and Buckley, in their "it's over/pull out now" criticisms seem not to actually care about doing anything about Al Qaeda. Or forgotten about Al Qaeda. Or something. I am sure (at least in Buckley's case) that can't be really the case, but there is a studied ignorance of the fact that Al Qaeda is in Iraq - and the obvious ramifications of that fact - which is maddeningly frustrating at best, downright irresponsible at worst.
Anyone who advocates a pullout of Iraq - a place where Al Qaeda is in force - needs to explain why they don't want to use our military to disrupt, capture and kill the Al Qaeda operatives in Iraq, because if they do not or cannot how can I but conclude that they are not interested in combating Al Qaeda?
Yeah, right. We are engaged in more than an academic debate and literary allusions. The reality is that we have been repeatedly attacked for over a decade by AQ culminating in 9/11. These are objective facts. If you insinuate by your "Orwellian age of perpetual war" that the USG is manipulating and manufacturing this state of war, you are totally wrong. AQ exists, declared war against us, and attacked us.
Then we obviously misunderstand each other.
The fact remains (and your above narrative shows) that the particular nationalities of the nineteen 9/11 hijackers (your comment I originally responded to) is not relevant to anything, and you've stopped even trying to defend the notion that it is, so you've effectively conceded the point. Nothing further to say on that note.
As this paragraph obviously shows. How many times do I have to say that the main folks behind the 9/11 fiasco were Saudi and that THATs who we should pursue. Keep denying its relevance if it makes you feel better.
Apparently you think it's a waste of lives/resources to prevent Al Qaeda from gaining a foothold in a wealthy Middle Eastern country which has a power vacuum.
Created by Uncle Sam.
You and I both believe there are times when we should "meddle in the affairs of" other countries, the only real question is when and where.
No we do not. Are you willfully misreading my statements or do you not understand the subtle difference between pursuing a rogue gang of thugs in a foreign country (Ali-Quieda) and toppling a foreign government (Hussein)? If this is beyond your ken we should drop this discussion as its fruitless. FWIW, if you are going to make the point that our present foreign policy is okey-dokey, don't waste your time with me, but do prepare fore an American public who will soon start growing tired of having our troops occupy foreign countries and dying off for an American interest that appears hazy at best.
You have to say it in a way that makes sense. Are you saying that because 15/19 hijackers were Saudi, we should only "pursue" the nation of Saudi Arabia? (In which case I'd say you're being silly.) Or just that we should pursue Al Qaeda wherever they are (but then why keep bringing up the hijackers' nationalities?). In which case, we have already done and are doing that - in Afghanistan, and now in Iraq.
[Apparently you think it's a waste of lives/resources to prevent Al Qaeda from gaining a foothold in a wealthy Middle Eastern country which has a power vacuum. Created by Uncle Sam.]
Indeed, created by Uncle Sam (since we're the ones who toppled the dictator). So, you think that since the United States is who created the power vacuum, that makes it less important for us to prevent Al Qaeda from filling it? It's ok to let Al Qaeda fill the power vacuum because we created it? Bizarre.
Are you willfully misreading my statements or do you not understand the subtle difference between pursuing a rogue gang of thugs in a foreign country (Ali-Quieda) and toppling a foreign government (Hussein)?
What you don't understand is that we didn't merely "pursue a rogue gang of thugs" in Afghanistan. We actually did topple that foreign government, remember!?! And nowadays, there's not all that much "pursuing" we're doing in Afghanistan. We're mostly there safeguarding the new government we've put in the previous government's place. Just as we're doing in Iraq. You seem to see this huge difference between what we're currently doing in Iraq vs. in Afghanistan but there isn't one.
Maybe you should get your facts straight before formulating these conclusions. Am I really having a discussion with someone who doesn't know that we toppled the Taliban government of Afghanistan?
This is hard to stomach coming from WFB.
I'll have to chalk it up to, even a genius sometimes is wrong in judgement.
Well if somebody owned a glass company and they went around town breaking windows, I wouldn't commend them on how well their company is doing.
What you don't understand is that we didn't merely "pursue a rogue gang of thugs" in Afghanistan. We actually did topple that foreign government, remember!?! And nowadays, there's not all that much "pursuing" we're doing in Afghanistan. We're mostly there safeguarding the new government we've put in the previous government's place.
You're right, we did topple the Taliban, do you understand that like Hussein in Iraq, WE put the Taliban into power? How many governments are we going to install and topple in foreign countries and how does that endear us to anyone?
You seem to see this huge difference between what we're currently doing in Iraq vs. in Afghanistan but there isn't one.
You are quite right, there isn't one. My bad.
Consider that WFB has also been in favor of legalizing marijuana in the past.
Not all of his thoughts are that brilliant.
Operation Able Danger
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/search?s=Operation+able+Danger&ok=Search&q=deep&m=any&o=score&SX=440334fcd6a27a7e881983f9e6fbf0313e4cb7e4
Salman Pak
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/search?s=Salman+Pak&ok=Search&q=deep&m=any&o=score&SX=440334e7d624b741f50d661f348c805055fb1e8a
Docex Project
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1570495/posts
Oh...and they also said "We're Not Dodge City."
They did? That's news to me.
You do realize I was just having a little fun, right?
And the "Dodge City" reference was from when DC was the nation's murder capital and Mayor Marion Barry got on TV and said "We're not Dodge City."
The mayor of the real Dodge City got on TV and said "We're not DC."
I thought it was hilarious, but then, I have a warped sense of humor.
BUMP
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.