Posted on 06/22/2007 7:00:52 AM PDT by Tolik
"Mess," "fiasco," "disaster," "blunder," and "catastrophe."
Fill in the blanks with almost any stock noun of gloom these days when speaking about Iraq.
For finger-in-the-wind politicians, writing off Iraq is mere throat-clearing before moving on to any discussion of immigration reform or taxes. For ahead-of-the-curve pundits, starting out with “The failure in Iraq” is like opening their browser before daily pontificating. No need of explanation or empiricism, one just gets things out of the way at the very beginning with our new postmodern ritual.
Usually the more vehemently one used to clamor for the idea of removing Saddam Hussein — such as a Sen. Harry Reid or an Andrew Sullivan — the more now they are likely to use superlatives in damning the enterprise.
That there are 160, 000 Americans — at the moment in an enormous offensive against al Qaeda — fighting to save Iraqi democracy means little, as evocation of pullouts, withdrawals, and timetables is mixed in with the language of defeat, despair, and finger-pointing.
That the war has morphed once again into one largely against al Qaeda and Islamic terrorists is lost on critics. All the old bogeymen — Ashcroft, Bremmer, Feith, Libby, Pearl, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz — are gone. But the media and opposition searches for new ones to blame for a policy they largely once endorsed. Witness the new slurring of the Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Pace as incompetent and Gen. Petraeus — our most innovative commander in a generation — as less than candid and not in touch with operations under his command.
But then few have offered any consistent policy of what we are to do after Iraq. Once again generalities — best mouthed by John Edwards — about multilateralism, restoring American popularity abroad, working with allies — are thrown out, as if the world will be safer and more harmonious once we return to some mythical Democratic past. By default that could only mean something akin to the foreign policy of our last two such presidents, Messrs. Carter and Clinton.
Have we gone mad in our amnesia about that awful past? The epithet “the Great Satan” was coined out of hatred for the diplomatic efforts of Jimmy Carter. Do we want Andrew Young back praising the humanitarianism of Khomeini?
Bin Laden started out his 1996 promise to slaughter Americans with the warning to a sober and judicious Secretary of Defense Perry “I say to you William…” — in furor over the basing of American troops in Saudi Arabia.
Al Gore weighed in on the aftermath of the Gulf War by damning the senior Bush — but for doing too little, allowing Saddam to stay in power, and proceed to acquire nuclear technology and weapons of mass destruction.
Just as journalists, generals, and politicians rush to get into print another tell-all, I-know-the-answers book about the “disaster” in Iraq, so too in the 1990s the mini-Middle East publishing industry used to be devoted to equally furious attacks on realism, neo-isolation, and cynicism of Republicans and conservatives for an array of sins — sacrificing the Kurds and Shiites, not supporting Democratic reformers abroad, leaving Saddam in power, failing to prod Gulf sheikdoms to liberalize, cynically prodding on the Iran-Iraq war, etc.
What is lost, then, in the present pre-election hysteria and the repositioning on Iraq, is that there were never any good American choices in the Middle East. The present ones in Iraq and Afghanistan came about only from 9/11 and a general consensus that the failures of the past had led to that mass murder — and thus a new course of action was needed to replace both the liberal appeasement and conservative realism that had worked in the interest of bin Ladenism.
Legitimate debate is necessary about the mistakes in Iraq, as it is about the blunders of every war. But before writing off Iraq as lost, unnecessary, or a result of some such conspiracy, we had better ask ourselves whether a return to the sermonizing of Carterism or Clintonian diplomacy by focus group and straw polls — or even cynical horse-trading of Jim Baker — is what we really want.
So here are questions to ponder as reactionaries yearn for a pre-Bush past. Imagine: One of the various foiled terrorist plots — a Fort Dix slaughter, a JFK airport attack, or the suicide teams ABC news claims are headed our way from Afghanistan — succeed after 2008. Thousands of Americans die.
What does President Clinton or Obama do? Draft a tough federal indictment? Ask for a U.N. resolution condemning such violence? Count on a unified response with NATO, battle-seasoned after its heroic offensives in Afghanistan? Hope for help from the EU rapid-response force? Bomb the source where the jihadists trained (Gaza?, Pakistan? Syria? Iran?) — but only from 30,000 feet, and, as in 1998, without U.N. or congressional approval? Work with the Saudis and Egyptians and Mr. Abbas to curb such atypical zealots? Have John Edwards globe-trot the globe to use his courtroom flair to win over allies?
Or imagine that Iran announces that it is going to set off a bomb in its desert. Do we resurrect the EU3? Ask Hans Blix to return as nuclear inspector with Mr. El-Baradei and others to assure us the test was genuine? Send Jimmy Carter to Teheran (or better, find an aged Ramsey Clark to return as a special envoy as in 1979?). Or maybe beseech the new U.N. head, Mr. Ki-Moon who just enlightened us that global warming (read the U.S.) — not Islamic Jihadism and age-old sub-Saharan thuggery — caused Darfur?
Or imagine the very real possibility of an Islamic takeover of Pakistan, in which a theocratic nuclear jihadist government becomes a Sunni version of Iran and begins to send tens of thousands of jihadists into Afghanistan. What to do? Put our eye back on the ball? Bomb whom and what?
The point is twofold. Our present policy, however poorly managed in postbellum Iraq, arose as a reaction both to the do-nothingism of past administrations, which, by general consensus, had emboldened al Qaeda to up its ante on 9/11, and the decades of amoral realism that propped up thugs and dictators who ruined their societies but blamed the ensuing mess on Americans and Jews.
After 9/11, we did not, as alleged, invade countries serially, but removed only two fascistic governments, the worst in the Middle East — both with a record of supporting enemies of the United States, and both of whom we had bombed or sent missiles against in the very recent past.
We did not leave after such punitive measures because we felt that the last time we did that, whether in Afghanistan in the 1980s, or Iraq in 1991, or Lebanon, or Somalia, things only got worse — and after 9/11 they might well get much worse. And unlike the bombing of 1998 in the Balkans, both operations in Afghanistan and Iraq were sanctioned by the U.S. Congress, discussed at the U.N., and widely supported by the American people.
Removing the Taliban and Saddam, and promoting constitutional governments in their places, were not the only options after 9/11, but they were good choices — if the desire was to address comprehensively a quarter-century of terrorism that was insidiously escalating both in frequency and vehemence.
If both governments can be stabilized even at this late date, the landscape in the Middle East from Lebanon to the West Bank will be much improved; if not, much worse. For those who wish to give up the struggle in Iraq, go home, and stay clear of the Middle East, a final question: What would Mr. Assad in Syria, al Qaeda in Iraq, President Ahmadinejad in Iran, or Hamas and Hezbollah wish us to do — and why?
And what in turn would Mr. Karzai, Mr. Maliki, the women educators of Iraq, the Lebanese democrats, the Syrian exiles, and the Iranian dissidents prefer? And which group should we in turn enlist as friends and which accept are our enemies?
It would be nice to go back to our pre-9/11 past, just as in a bloody 1944 the calm of 1937 looked to many of the starry-eyed far preferable, just as in the midst of the nuclear stand-off of 1962 we lamented the loss of the old “friendly” Russia and China of 1945.
But while our ancestors engaged in the same despair, the same blame-gaming that we so enjoy, they at least were not stupid enough to lose those far more deadly and dangerous wars. We can win like they did as well, but only if we face the future with confidence, and not pine for the return of a mythical past that never was.
Let me know if you want in or out.
Links: FR Index of his articles: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/keyword?k=victordavishanson
His website: http://victorhanson.com/
NRO archive: http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson-archive.asp
Pajamasmedia: http://victordavishanson.pajamasmedia.com/
The Democrat’s only plan for Iraq was to shamelessly exploit it to win the 2006 elections. There only future plans are to exploit it for the 2008 elections.
...Have we gone mad in our amnesia about that awful past?
...What is lost, then, in the present pre-election hysteria and the repositioning on Iraq, is that there were never any good American choices in the Middle East. The present ones in Iraq and Afghanistan came about only from 9/11 and a general consensus that the failures of the past had led to that mass murder — and thus a new course of action was needed to replace both the liberal appeasement and conservative realism that had worked in the interest of bin Ladenism.
...The point is twofold. Our present policy, however poorly managed in postbellum Iraq, arose as a reaction both to the do-nothingism of past administrations, which, by general consensus, had emboldened al Qaeda to up its ante on 9/11, and the decades of amoral realism that propped up thugs and dictators who ruined their societies but blamed the ensuing mess on Americans and Jews.
After 9/11, we did not, as alleged, invade countries serially, but removed only two fascistic governments, the worst in the Middle East — both with a record of supporting enemies of the United States, and both of whom we had bombed or sent missiles against in the very recent past.
We did not leave after such punitive measures because we felt that the last time we did that, whether in Afghanistan in the 1980s, or Iraq in 1991, or Lebanon, or Somalia, things only got worse — and after 9/11 they might well get much worse. And unlike the bombing of 1998 in the Balkans, both operations in Afghanistan and Iraq were sanctioned by the U.S. Congress, discussed at the U.N., and widely supported by the American people.
Removing the Taliban and Saddam, and promoting constitutional governments in their places, were not the only options after 9/11, but they were good choices — if the desire was to address comprehensively a quarter-century of terrorism that was insidiously escalating both in frequency and vehemence.
If both governments can be stabilized even at this late date, the landscape in the Middle East from Lebanon to the West Bank will be much improved; if not, much worse. For those who wish to give up the struggle in Iraq, go home, and stay clear of the Middle East, a final question: What would Mr. Assad in Syria, al Qaeda in Iraq, President Ahmadinejad in Iran, or Hamas and Hezbollah wish us to do — and why?
And what in turn would Mr. Karzai, Mr. Maliki, the women educators of Iraq, the Lebanese democrats, the Syrian exiles, and the Iranian dissidents prefer? And which group should we in turn enlist as friends and which accept are our enemies?
It would be nice to go back to our pre-9/11 past, just as in a bloody 1944 the calm of 1937 looked to many of the starry-eyed far preferable, just as in the midst of the nuclear stand-off of 1962 we lamented the loss of the old “friendly” Russia and China of 1945.
But while our ancestors engaged in the same despair, the same blame-gaming that we so enjoy, they at least were not stupid enough to lose those far more deadly and dangerous wars. We can win like they did as well, but only if we face the future with confidence, and not pine for the return of a mythical past that never was.
Nailed It!
This ping list is not author-specific for articles I'd like to share. Some for the perfect moral clarity, some for provocative thoughts; or simply interesting articles I'd hate to miss myself. (I don't have to agree with the author all 100% to feel the need to share an article.) I will try not to abuse the ping list and not to annoy you too much, but on some days there is more of the good stuff that is worthy of attention. You can see the list of articles I pinged to lately on my page.
You are welcome in or out, just freepmail me (and note which PING list you are talking about). Besides this one, I keep 2 separate PING lists for my favorite authors Victor Davis Hanson and Orson Scott Card.
I love this essay for its truthfulness but I continue to be annoyed at the American consensus of failure in Iraq.
The US has not at any point failed in Iraq.
Saddam removed from power: check
Casualties lower than predicted: check
Democratic elections for interim govt: check
Democratic elections for constitution (while EU fails): check
Democratic elections for permanent government: check
94% disapproval rate for Al Qaeda among Iraqi citizens: Hearts and mind checkmate
Continual failure of Al Qaeda to establish sovereign space in Iraq: check
Economic development in Iraq: check
Hand off of vast percentages of military bases: check
building of 200K plus army and police force: check
It takes more than Al Qaeda bombings of mosques and marketplaces to convince me this war is a failure.
All it convinces me of is their absolute cowardice. Anyone with a gun can kill children. Why do we term them “victors”?
C'mon, you have to ask? We don't, but for the American left, defeat in Iraq (or anywhere else for the US) is imperative. For the politicos, this is wholly intentional. One word: TRAITORS. For the minions and even average Americans, well, they are bombarded by the traitorous press and politicos, so of course that is what they believe.
Doesn’t Kucinich run something called the 9-10 Forum, where he wants to bring this country back to where it was September 10th, 2001?
I hope they spend the night at the World Trace Center, and make sure they’re around the next day at, oh, 9am or so.
There are few different answers to your thoughts.
1. Our opponents on the Left believe that they are so much better in solving life’s problems that anything, I mean ANYTHING, is acceptable for them to get their power back. As a result in their anti-Bushism they totally lost a big picture that many things we are trying to do in Iraq is exactly what they where advocating in opposition to “our SOB” policies and in their support for human rights, women rights, etc. This why they put themselves into a position that any success of Bush is a loss for them, everything else be damned.
2. Propaganda works. When the Left bombards people with the negative info and Bush administration does not even fight the info-war, they were able to persuade people that the Left’s biased view is indeed a fact.
3. It used to be that if you did not earn any enemies you did not do anything good. Now the mushy multi-culti thinking goes that if you have any enemies its all your fault. There are people in the world that I’d be appalled if they called me a friend, but Carterism wants to hug everybody. Its make some very useful idiots out of them. They call a view that evil and enemies exist simplistic. I think its more simplistic to think that evil and enemies don’t exist.
I think you are quite right.
Well stated.
IMO, the current disdain for our Democratic lead Congress and the Pro-Amnesty Rinos have galvanized Conservatives and bode well for us in 08.
The DNC with the aid of their sycophancy in media will force this nation to wear the rose-colored glasses and ignore the enemy now set on destroying US ... and thereby aid and abet that enemy. Such treasonous behavior/complicity ought to bring a firing squad but it only brings more democraps into office. The American people are going to get what they deserve for their failure to be the sovereigns they are. By not taking the responsibility for what we send our courageous men and women ‘over there’ to accomplish, we ignore our ultimate responsibilities and thereby bring our own destruction more swiftly.
I still believe they were good choices.
Thanks for the ping, T.
I hope that you are correct.
The most positive thing that I’m seeing and hearing here on the Left Coast is the disdain the so called moderates have for the lefties in charge of congress.
This one is an illusion, so long as the "democratic" elections choose shari'a law as the ultimate goal. It simply postpones the inevitable, consolidating militaristic muslim power while preparing for the next democratically-elected Saddam...
"Democratically" elected Nazi Germany was still Nazi germany, with everything that history shows us followed.
Shari'a law and secular government are permanently and terminally at odds, and can never coexist.
If, however, one carries this over to an appreciation of present conditions we get the currently skewed version of events in Iraq - they must be failing because that fits the Left's model; that things must be bad because the prerequisite to things working is the Left in power, and that things must have been better when they were and will be better when again they are. This is, actually, little more than a game of make-believe writ large.
That is one of the consequences of excessive partisanship. The real damage comes in when it requires historical revisionism to make the model work, such as the convenient amnesia concerning Democratic statements relating to Saddam Hussein's WMD programs. If one denies history in order to make the story - sorry, the "narrative" - straight one loses whatever chance one had of learning from it.
That is certainly taking place. Yesterday a young acquaintance asked me impassionately "What did Saddam ever do to threaten anyone?" and when I pointed out, "Well, he did invade Kuwait" the fellow looked at me quite earnestly and asked "When did he ever do that?" It didn't fit the model of ruthless U.S. imperialism that he had constructed in his head and he simply hadn't heard the abundant evidence to the contrary and didn't really want to. Serious dialogue with such individuals is simply impossible, which accounts for the degraded nature of political discourse these days. It is a pity that childish habit has been picked up by media editorial boards, but it is also a fact.
I agree.
I am still fine with by force destroying such elected results. I know people take that as some sort of indictment on the original struggle. I don’t.
They can keep voting until they get it right.
Our demands are not complicated. All forms of Sharia can bite bullets until they relent to the rule of law and permission of dissent.
The destruction of Hamas and other form of Sharia that may emerge in Iraq is not a problem for me.
We have extended the vote though and this is a success not a failure.
So appeals to reason, such as this column, simply bounce off the shield of invincible stupidity, the Leftist surrounds them-self with.
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.