In Search of A Survival Plan

(Long post alert)

A few months back, Senator Chuck Hagel—a Republican senator from Nebraska--said that the Iraq War was turning into another Vietnam. Elections and many other differences aside, in a certain sense, the senator was correct. The concept of the Vietnam War—rather than the actual war itself—was shaped by the media of that time and today’s overwhelming Democrat, leftist, "anti-war" media is attempting, with some success, to shape how the American public thinks about this war. The question needs to be revisited, however: to what end?

For whatever reason, the vast majority of the American media, a good portion of the Democrats and even some so-called Republicans envision the defeat of the Republican/conservative agenda in general and the disgrace of the sitting Republican president in particular by the proverbial any means necessary. Whether the endeavor is something as serious and far-reaching as war and its purpose or a triviality, any endeavor by the “neo-cons” must be stopped. Whether the issue is objectively good or bad in actuality matters not; the only thing that matters is that the undertaking is authored by Republican/conservative. But in order to color any of these endeavors as objectively bad in the minds of a significant portion of the American public, Republican/conservative authorship isn’t quite enough. Not yet. The endeavor must be flawed or tainted somehow. The truth, logic or importance of the flaw/taint is irrelevant, however. It is merely enough that the idea has been planted.

Example: remember the so-called fake turkey incident? It is a perfect illustration of how willing the media were to collectively lie about a petty issue in order to besmirch an unqualified public relations coup by a Republican.

And it was successful to a point: there are people out there who still think that the turkey was a fake and who are petty enough to let that lie overshadow that piece of personal courage and thoughtfulness by the president. If something that small can be picked apart and lied about in this age when “knowledge is increased,” then we shouldn’t be too surprised that a president who has selected two secretaries of state who are black along with the most “diverse” cabinet ever and who has increased spending in the traditional areas of social welfare for the disadvantaged classes can be called a racist.

Example two: the Plame/Wilson affair, in which a reporter goes to jail to protect a source (a Republican) that told her that it was okay to reveal his name and in which that source and another Republican are under Grand Jury scrutiny for revealing the name of a covert CIA agent that wasn’t actually covert.

(4) The term “covert agent” means—

(A) a present or retired officer or employee of an intelligence agency or a present or retired member of the Armed Forces assigned to duty with an intelligence agency—

(i) whose identity as such an officer, employee, or member is classified information, and

(ii) who is serving outside the United States or has within the last five years served outside the United States; or

(B) a United States citizen whose intelligence relationship to the United States is classified information, and—

(i) who resides and acts outside the United States as an agent of, or informant or source of operational assistance to, an intelligence agency, or

(ii) who is at the time of the disclosure acting as an agent of, or informant to, the foreign counterintelligence or foreign counterterrorism components of the Federal Bureau of Investigation; or

(C) an individual, other than a United States citizen, whose past or present intelligence relationship to the United States is classified information and who is a present or former agent of, or a present or former informant or source of operational assistance to, an intelligence agency.

If such things can be believed to be scandalous on a wide scale, then it shouldn’t be too difficult for the “anti-war” types to turn Iraq into Vietnam in the minds of many. But, the main “culprits” of the war—the president, the military and peace- and democracy-loving Iraqis--aren’t cooperating to complete the scenario that the "anti-war" types have envisioned; they aren’t confirming the “anti-war” version of how the world should work. For his part, President Bush isn’t bending to “reason,” for the military’s part, most of them know what their duty is and their morale is high. And, most alarming for the naysayers, the Iraqis are taking advantage of the benefits of democracy, in spite of the high stakes and the evil perpetrated by this era’s violent fascists bent on world domination.

These people just aren’t cooperating in the pre-authored story of their own futility.

*****

While accidentally viewing the nerve-wracking “Hannity and Colmes” a week or so ago, I happened to catch Brent Bozell and Juan Williams discussing a study—conducted by the conservative Media Research Center--on the media coverage of the Iraq War. Alan Colmes tried to talk down the study’s credibility (because it only covers this year), but Bozell and even the very liberal Williams seemed to find it credible.

The study’s findings say that the mainstream media’s transmittal of bad news is disproportionately high as compared to the good news. (Yes, I hear the “duh” chorus out there.)

It’s not as if there was no “good news” to report. NBC’s cameras found a bullish stock market and a hiring boom in Baghdad’s business district, ABC showcased the coalition’s successful effort to bring peace to a Baghdad thoroughfare once branded “Death Street,” and CBS documented how the one-time battleground of Sadr City is now quiet and citizens are beginning to benefit from improved public services. Stories describing U.S. and Iraqi achievements provided essential context to the discouraging drumbeat of daily news, but were unfortunately just a small sliver of TV’s Iraq news.

(Emphasis mine.)

Here’s one of the charts from the study.

Pretty unambiguous results, no?

In spite of the imbalance in the coverage, however, the professional media’s Vietnam War narrative cannot possibly be complete without the throwing up of presidential hands in surrender….oh, excuse me, “honorable” withdrawal from Iraq. Unless he admits that the war is wrong and pulls the troops out as soon as possible and retires (in 2009) in disgrace the Vietnam analogy cannot be complete. And unless the American public repudiates the Republicans en masse, the victory (against the Right) isn't achieved.

And that is what many, if not most of the "anti-war" types want--for the Republicans most ambitious and risky effort to fall to ruin. But the proponents of seeing the war through will not accommodate the naysayers; the president will not willingly give up. So he has to be forced to do so. Are the “anti-war” types willing to take drastic measures to complete the story in their favor? That remains to be seen. Right now, the means consist of demoralization of the American public and, if possible, the US military. If both segments can be demoralized to the level that the pro-war legislators will be thrown out in sufficient numbers in the 2006 elections, the Vietnam scenario could very easily come to pass.

Even though last week’s constitutional election in Iraq saw an even larger percentage of Shia, Kurds and, most importantly, Sunni participation than in the country’s parliamentary election in January, it seems as though the naysayers want to dismiss those results. This past Sunday, on ABC’s “This Week,” DNC Chairman Howard Dean played into the hoped-for scenario.

Dean: Secondly, on "Washington Week" this week Martha Raddatz from ABC said she had recorded on tape I believe that she saw a gentleman come in, fill out seven ballots, yes, yes, yes and stick them all in the box. If that's what we're fighting for in Iraq, we don't belong there.

Stephanopoulos: So we should pull out?

Dean: I said if that's what we're fighting for. If this election was corrupted it's time to figure out how to get out. What I think there is an intermediary position, we need to get through the next couple of elections, this one, we need to find out if this was an honest election or not apparently it wasn't certainly completely honest.

Stephanopoulos: Early indications are they believe there was no widespread fraud.

Dean: All I know is an ABC correspondent saw it and talked about it on television. That's what I know. Let's find out more. When you have 99% of the people voting yes, that's always some indication that things may not quite be exactly as they seem.

So one alleged incident of corruption means that three years of blood, sweat, tears and money have gone for naught? Or is this wishful thinking on the part of Mr. Dean and those whom he represents?

Being able to say “I told you so,” being able to point to the futility of American military might, being able to thrust their fingers at the “evil ones” and their leader—the Republicans, the pro-war crowd, the military and President Bush, respectively—means more to this group than does the ultimate well-being of their fellow human beings and the eventual defeat of those who would see us dead or converted to Islam at gunpoint.

They couldn’t care less about the consequences for the people of Iraq any more than their ideological parents cared about the fate of the Vietnamese, nor do they care about the honor and free will of the American men and women who are going to bat for the Iraqis. (Some are even planning a vigil to celebrate mourn the death of the 2000th GI in Iraq.) Power is the goal and it must be reached no matter the cost.

However, the prophecy of the “anti-warriors”—the Vietnam debacle--isn’t fulfilling itself fast enough. I’m sure that they are wondering whether something more drastic would speed things along. Would great mass death do the trick? Perhaps something in the tens of thousands at minimum--something that would unequivocally indicate the failure of the Iraqis to peacefully (relatively) transform their country. No doubt, a single-incident large body count would get the Fat Lady to humming a few bars of the “I told you so” aria.

I don’t think that most of the "anti-war" crowd would assist in something so heinous, but one wonders how many of them have to hide a smile every time a group of GIs and Iraqis meet their Maker at the hands of one of Michael Moore’s “freedom-fighters.” Think of it. There are people--there are American people who would actually do the happy dance over the dead bodies of the good guys. There are people who would laugh in the face of such horror because in would signal the defeat of President Bush and the Republican agenda, because the defeat of the rightwing is what matters more than freedom for the Iraqis or victory and honor for America’s military. It matters more than anything else.

But let’s say that the "anti-war" elements get their way. Let’s say that the House and the Senate go Democrat next year and that they vote to pull the troops out of Iraq two months after the 2006 midterm elections. What will be the results? The president will be nearly paralyzed for the last two years of his second term and we’d probably get a Democrat president in 2008.

But what comes after that and after that and after that? What about the things that matter more than the possession of political power?

Americans will have proved the terrorists Osama bin Laden and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi correct—that we have no stomach for war and can be easily cowed into submission.

What will be the results in the Middle East? Civil war in Iraq and exponentially more dead Arabs all over the region—the vast majority of the dead being the Shia…and, eventually, the Islamists will deal with the Jews. It’s always about the Jews.

Terrorist Ayman Al-Zawahiri spelled it out in his letter to Zarqawi; they most definitely have a "survival" plan.

So we must think for a long time about our next steps and how we want to attain it, and it is my humble opinion that the Jihad in Iraq requires several incremental goals:

The first stage: Expel the Americans from Iraq.

The second stage: Establish an Islamic authority or amirate, then develop it and support it until it achieves the level of a caliphate- over as much territory as you can to spread its power in Iraq, i.e., in Sunni areas, is in order to fill the void stemming from the departure of the Americans, immediately upon their exit and before un-Islamic forces attempt to fill this void, whether those whom the Americans will leave behind them, or those among the un-Islamic forces who will try to jump at taking power.

There is no doubt that this amirate will enter into a fierce struggle with the foreign infidel forces, and those supporting them among the local forces, to put it in a state of constant preoccupation with defending itself, to make it impossible for it to establish a stable state which could proclaim a caliphate, and to keep the Jihadist groups in a constant state of war, until these forces find a chance to annihilate them.

The third stage: Extend the jihad wave to the secular countries neighboring Iraq.

The fourth stage: It may coincide with what came before: the clash with Israel, because Israel was established only to challenge any new Islamic entity.

So, Democrats, leftists, and "anti-war" advocates, we know what the Islamists have planned for all of us—right and left, black, white and other, Christians, Hindus, Atheists, not a few Muslims, and, most especially, Jews. We know because they conceived it, planned it and spelled it out for us, long prior to the Iraq War. (In the letter Zawahiri is merely reiterating the bin Laden edicts and filling in the details for the contingencies that exist right now.)

However, Democrats, leftists, and "anti-war" advocates here are some things that it would be nice for you to answer.

• After you have trashed the efforts of the Iraq War so thoroughly and caused our troops to withdraw in disgrace and have made the sacrifice of the dead meaningless; after you “throw the bums out” and ascend to your rightful place in the power centers of this nation, what will you do to keep us safe and prosperous? I mean, since the plans of the neo-cons are all wrong and, possibly, evil, what will you do that is different but will achieve the same objective?
• When you’re back in power, Democrats, leftists, and "anti-war" advocates, what are you going to do to increase the probabilities of our survival?
• Are the objectives you have in mind better than the ones we are shooting for at present? If so, what are they? added: What quality/qualities make your objective(s) better?

Thinking American citizens want to live, want their children to live, want their way of life to survive. The overarching issue that needs to be resolved in the minds of such citizens is whether the present onslaught against all things Republican and conservative stems from honest disagreement on how to live/survive or from the desire to grab back power.

If all you hope for comes to pass, Democrats, leftists, and "anti-war" advocates—if the Vietnamization of the Iraq War is successfully carried out in the sphere of American public opinion and you are voted back into power on the heels of the disgrace of the Republican agenda--what happens next? What will you do to keep us safe?

I wonder how many of you have thought that far in advance.

(Thanks to the Corner, to Larry Elder and to LGF)

UPDATE 10-26-05, 9:39 PM PST: Some slight editing has been done.

UPDATE 9:42 PM PST: Whew, and just in time, too. Welcome LGF readers!

Comments

[teal marie]

I'd like to see this post in every newspaper in the nation.
Brilliant clarity, my dear, like a diamond of the first water. You shine something fierce.
Thank you.

[AJackson]

Bravo! A Den Bestean commentary.

[Toren]

Applause!
However, to me the other way the Iraq conflict (the "war" is over) can be compared to Vietnam is in the lack of will to prosecute it as necessary. In Vietnam we could have wrapped it up in a few weeks by bombing the rail lines and supply routes inside China, and taking out Saigon and Haiphong harbor.
To an extent, we're doing the same sort of waffling in Iraq. If we are serious about "draining the swamp," then supply routes, storage areas and terrorist encampments in Iran and Syria need to be destroyed without handwringing over the diplomatic consequences. And Iran's nuclear facilities should already be a sea of rubble.
Every soldier that dies because we're not being as serious as we should be is a real crime, and one that can be firmly laid at the feet of both parties--the Republicans for being spineless, and the Democrats for being on the other side--and the MSM.

[V the K]

That is a brilliant and well-articulated point --- but I have come to expect no less of Baldi. The thought occurred to me as the 'Grim Milestone' was reached today was how the media (who, frankly, want us to lose in Iraq) and all the left are treating it as a defeat and an occasion for wallowing in further defeatism. In ages past, this would have been the signal to steel our resolve and kill the bastards who had done this to us.

[Mr. Hyde]

I've wondered exactly the same thing myself. After they ascend to power over the bodies of their fellow Americans, what then? Do they unveil their magic plan, or do they continue with pretty much the same course we're following now?

Any liberal politician who wants my vote needs to address this issue.

[Justin]

Baldilocks--good post, although I disagree with most of it. The bottom line is that the pro-war crowd controls the House, Senate and Presidency, so how is the fault of the anti-war crowd that we may be failing in Iraq? Try to blame the media or leftists all you want, but any failure that may arise from Iraq rests on the shoulders of the administration.

I think the three questions you posed at the end of your post are good, and I would like to hear the President answer those questions as well.

For the record, I do not think that we should pull out (but I have heard compelling arguments for a phased withdrawal). And, while I think we will win in Iraq because of the dedication and training of our troops, I have no faith in Bush (whose administration still seems out of touch with reality).

Also, I don't think it's very productive to talk about the Plame investigation until indictments or no indictments come down. Nobody questions Fitzgerald's integrety, and it is unlikely that he would be conducting such an extensive investigation unless there was a possibility that a crime was committed. I'm sure he can read the statute too.

[baldilocks]

Justin:

so how is the fault of the anti-war crowd that we may be failing in Iraq?

Sorry, bud. I didn't say that, so the premise of your question is faulty. In order for it to be the "anti-war" crowd's fault that we are failing in Iraq, we have to actually be failing in Iraq.

Reality and perception are often at odds with one another. I contend that this is so now, as it was thirty-five years ago. The traditional media is attempting to shape a perception different from reality, as their forebears of the Vietnam Era did.

[Steve]

Not that it is any suprise but I'll have to agree with baldilocks on this.

I think she sees what many of us have seen. I'll keep it short so as not to start a fight but there is so so much more that could be said here on this issue. Baldilocks could have said more and more on this issue if I understand where she is coming from. The length of the article still does not complete all the thoughts I am guessing she has had on this whole issue.

[Panther]

Hello baldilocks,

First time for me to post here and i must say, yours is an excellent post indeed!

You are quite right. I, myself... according to most political test i've taken a "centrists"... am quite perplexed on what the left is looking to achieve, not domestically mind you. But, then again, the party out of power does have to play the loyal opposition; Sadly, the emphasis doesn't seem too be on loyal now-a-days.

If you don't mind me saying so, the title of your post brings a different thought to my head, the MSM's "In search of a quagmire". Defeating the american people with every falsely reported story, one person at a time!

I've often wondered on why there was a need to constantly revise schoolbook's & their texts. Now we know why! But, i leave that to more intelligent people too figure out! I'm just some poor shcmuck without any luck!

In awe of your intelligence,
Panther

[Steve]

Sorry about saying "issue" three times and repeating the same thoughts in different ways. Its a little late and I am tired. I had written a long response earlier and withdrew it and so I am now tired and burnt out. OK? :-) Later.

[baldilocks]

Thanks to all.

Steve: 2500+ words and, no, I didn't put everything down. Gotta stop somewhere. :-)

[Justin]

Well, the MSM is in the best position to evaluate the mission in Iraq, and the consensus seems to be that it is not going well to say the least. Wishful thinking will not make it different. What I sense happening among conservatives is the creation of a scapegoat if, God forbid, we do fail in Iraq--it will be the "liberal media's" fault. This is much the same as the new meme that we could have won Vietnam if it wasn't for the media.

So, if you don't trust the MSM for news on Iraq, where exactly are the optimists getting their good news from Iraq?

[V the K]

How is the fault of the anti-war crowd that we may be failing in Iraq?

Failing? Saddam's in prison, on trial, and guaranteed to never develop WMD's or support terrorists. The Iraqis have just ratified a democratic constituion. Our troops are killing terrorists at the rate of something like 10-to-1. Everything we set out to do is being achieved. A most peculiar definition of 'failure.'

The MSM does not want America to succeed in Iraq. And their policies of hyping bad news (casualties and bombings), burying good news (progress), failing to provide perspective (only three of Iraq's 18 provinces are problematic, relative to past wars casualties are light, most of the 'insurgents' are foreign terrorists)... have been highly successful at manipulating public opinion against the war.

[Panther]

Justin,

From the horses mouth , of course!

http://michaelyon.blogspot.com/

One of the best among the many able warblog-reporters bucking the MSM system! Check him out, if you wish. I have many, many others. But, out of respect for this blog site owner i'll refrain from posting all of them.

It's not just the good news i look for, but, also the very reason(s) for all of our endeavors in this WOT. In which, iraq is just one of the many fronts of this war.

Regards,
Panther

[Steve]

http://www.jfednepa.org/mark%20silverberg/papertiger.html

Talking of Somalia:

Our enemies and Middle Eastern "friends" alike sneered at us. The aid we gave to them only convinced them further that we were weak and ripe for an Islamic takeover. The perception grew that the West not only could not fight, but would not fight. We became viewed as a great power who spoke in principled terms, but who was adverse to spend blood and treasure in pursuit of them.

Al Qaeda and its global Islamic terrorist affiliates came to the conclusion that America's weakness stemmed from a post-Vietnam conviction that required future wars to be short, antiseptic and casualty free. Bin Laden summed up his perception of Americans in an interview with ABC News reporter John Miller, published in Esquire in 1998: “After leaving Afghanistan, the Muslim fighters headed for Somalia and prepared for a long battle thinking that the Americans were like the Russians. The youth were surprised at the low morale of the American soldiers and realized, more than before, that the American soldier was a paper tiger and after a few blows……would run in defeat.”

In another portion of that interview, Miller quotes bin Laden as saying: "We have seen in the last decade the decline of American power and the weakness of the American soldier who is ready to wage Cold Wars, but unprepared to fight long wars. This was proven in Beirut in 1983 when the Marines fled after two explosions. It also proves they can run in less than 24 hours, and this was also repeated in Somalia (in 1993)." Three years later, on September 11, 2001, al Qaeda turned our planes into cruise missiles and murdered three thousand Americans in New York, Washington and the fields of Shanksville, Pennsylvania.
-------------------

I really think that another drawback to our entertainment media culture for Americans is that there is an expectation that things should go way too well and be wrapped up quickly like a three hour made for TV movie.

So many of the naysayers have lost credibility because they were never positive in their reporting. In tone they sound the same as they did in May of 2003.

The power of the media as a tool against the enemmy with a free press has been written about by too many people to now flatly deny its effectiveness. Its effects in history are studied in our universities. Propaganda has been employed so often, or been used as an accusation against others, that it can't be so easily discounted.

If the media's reporting doesn't matter why were people so angry a couple of years back when it was suggested that the Pentagon had considered using "propaganda" stories? And somewhat relatedly why the suggestion that the United States improve their image overseas via the media during this time of war?

To flatly deny it matters does not ring true and it would leave anyone using that denial in a state of contradiction if their past statements were to be examined as well as their future statements.

[Steve]

One other thing to consider. It isn't what the "journalists" think about the effort in Iraq. It is really much more up to our own soldiers and what they think of President George Bush or Donald Rumsfeld.

Not that I would want it this way but if it were up to our soldiers who are actually in Iraq to determine who our president would be they would have picked George Bush in the last election and I believe he would also be sure to win among them if he were to run against Gore or Kerry (or most anyone I can think of the democrats could field) in 2008.

[V the K]

Also, if journalists spent more time passing on the opinions of troops actually serving in Iraq instead of just repeating their own opinions about the war, a very different picture would emerge.

[Steve]

The only place I really get to hear about what is going on in the MSM news media is on the Internet second hand because I do not pay attention to them anymore. They are just too weird and with too many behind the scenes interests and big money players.

It is hard not to get the feeling that the MSM news, Hollywood, and the DNC are too far into something to give it up. They are headed in some direction based on a plan coming from somewhere. I think most everyone has heard lately of the evidence that has emerged that the hit on Tom Delay by Ronnie Earle has been orchestrated by George Soros and other people from outside of the state of Texas. Contend with that statement if you like but I know what I make of it based on what I know. And so, as it is with that story so it has been with so many many other stories we now get from the MSM news media. It is a joke I guess, if you can laugh. This has now been so entrenched in the MSM news media for so many years it is hopeless to think that it will change. They are simply beholden to someone and play a part of some larger plan.

Whatever that plan is it is done with all the culpability that sober adults receive for planned actions. So whatever they ultimately bring upon themselves by having behaved the way they have during these war years is on them and not on any larger concept of a country I've conceived of belonging to.

If our dying soldiers and losses in Iraq are seen as a windfall for the point of view of certain people and groups in this country I might then also do the same too next time something happens in New York, or in Washington D.C. for that matter, and call it a windfall of my own. Now, you may protest what I am implying but is there really anyway to help those thoughts coming to mind as we listen to these people and consider where they are coming from physically and politically?

[Justin]

V the K: Iraq is on the brink of breaking out into a full scale civil war, and the insurgency is getting stronger, not weaker. I'm still cautiously optimistic, but this wild-eyed optimism on behalf of many war supporters is just baffling--I really don't get it at all. Fine, you can say you don't trust the MSM, but that just seems to be a convenient way to ignore a portion of reality (I will admit the media does tend to over-hype bad news, and that's why I say a "portion" of reality) that strongly contradicts any optimism.

Plus, I really think it's absurd to say that the MSM somehow wants us to fail in Iraq--where is your evidence? Does the Wall Street Journal want us to fail? The Economist (who supports and supported the war but has had blistering and sobering commentary on our hopes of success). Does GE, who owns NBC, want us to fail? Does the board of directors of Viacom sit around and plot how to bring down the war effort?

Steve said
I think most everyone has heard lately of the evidence that has emerged that the hit on Tom Delay by Ronnie Earle has been orchestrated by George Soros and other people from outside of the state of Texas.

That's absurd. If you're going to question Earl's integrety, you should have something to back it up. Maybe there are nothing to the charges, but we need to wait and see what he has first.

Steve said
I really think that another drawback to our entertainment media culture for Americans is that there is an expectation that things should go way too well and be wrapped up quickly like a three hour made for TV movie.

You are absolutely correct. Again, I don't think we should pull out of Iraq, and one thing I would like to see political leaders on both sides of the aisle call for is more sacrifice on the part of ordinary Americans in the war effort. People should be encouraged to enlist, Americans should be asked to reprioritize spending for the war, and we should be willing to face the fact that more Americans will be killed in the effort and that we are in a very difficult situation now in Iraq. Unfortunately, my blood boils when I hear things like the insurgency being in its "last throes".

And, we'll see how many soldiers continue to vote Republican after they get back from Iraq.

[V the K]

My evidence is simply the consistent failure of the MSM to report progress, to put the war and the insurgency into perspective, and to highlight every casualty, every setback. Add to that, the Cindy Sheehan whitewash and hypefest, and its pretty obvious which side they're rooting for.

The media want Iraq to be Vietnam, because Vietnam was an American failure. The media left simply love to see America fail. That's why they adore Jimmy Carter.

[Steve]

As for Tom Delay here is just two articles:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/
Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=17686

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=19783
=========================

As for words like "optimism"? I think that there is a disconnect between the understandings of the left and right in this country as to what those words mean to ourselves, and what we expect of our listeners, when we speak words like "optimism". There is also the thought that "liberals" are delibrately mocking the use of that word because that would be consistent with the meaness many of us have come expect from them.

Assuming instead that liberals are sincere in their feeling that there is no reason for conservatives to be "optimistic" I would say that it is due then to another misunderstanding. I think conservatives knew the war would be difficult as wars are. I don't think we saw that these Baathists and foreign Sunni Muslims would behead women and children and blow up any public gatherings. Certainly not to this extent at least. Now again, assuming that liberals are being honest in their ridicule of conservative's use of words like optimism, it would I think possibly stem from projecting their (the liberal's) own naive sense of what this war was going to be about and what words like "optimism" mean when applied at a time of war. My assertion that it is by-and-large the party of Hollywood, the Democrats, that are misunderstanding the war and the words used by conservatives to decribe their feeling about it. I think some proof of that is the fact that so many of these liberals have been on this exact same negative tone since before the war or at least since June 2003. That is, I am claiming, evidence of television and entertainment media induced thinking.

[Justin]

Steve, I think you're reading too much Front Page and they are making you paranoid about the Soros political machine. Conservatives are awfully sensitive that there is a billionaire that doesn't support them. Poor babies--I guess they can't have all the billionaires on their side.

Are you saying that Soros is influencing Earle? Why can't conservatives refrain from attacking the integrety of people who may disagree with them or hurt them politically? The same thing is happening with Fitzgerald too. If you have evidence, that's one thing, but to blanket accusations of corruption are unbecoming, even on the Internet.

Also, when exactly did conservatives deal with the reality that the war would be tough? When Cheyney said we would be greeted as liberators? When Bush declared "mission accomplished". When O'Neil was pushed out of the administration for suggesting the war may cost $150 billion? When Shinseki was shuffled out of his position when he said 150,000+ troops would be needed? When Iraqi oil revenues were expected to pay for the war?

Please. Before the war us liberals made many arguments against the war, one of them was that the administration was underestimating the difficulty of bringing together an ethnically hostile and diverse country. Those arguments were met with sneers from the right.

It's one thing to be optimistic, but it's another to ignore any counter evidence and to go into some paranoid caccoon where you don't trust the MSM on anything that may counter your optimism. Again, where exactly do you get your news from if not from the MSM--with people on the ground who are covering the war?

[V the K]

Just because the first draft of Arab Democracy doesn't look like Sweden, I don't consider that a failure by any means. After the Korean War (a war that consumed 16 times as many American lives in a comparable period of time with a far less decisive outcome), South Korea remained under an authoritarian government for most of the next four decades before finally emerging as a vibrant democracy. Our American ADD and demands for immediate gratification, unfortunately, make too many of us too often impatient to stick with a project for the long-haul. Make it too easy for too many of us to say, "We can't do that, it's just too hard."

[Jim - PRS]

Bravo!!

[Daniel Lew]

Whilst I understand your point in striking it out, the word "celebrate" can also be used in reference to sombre commemnoration (e.g. celebrating war victims).

From Dictionary.com To observe (a day or event) with ceremonies of respect, festivity, or rejoicing

Of course it's seldom used that way but I thought I'd mention it as its not always bad taste (even though that's what they are doing to 'celebrate' 2000 dead).

[matoko-chan]

Even more insidious and evil is the abject failure of the left to critique GW where he is doing wrong--Consider the horror of the "bioethics" council, the ludicrous proposal of ID in schools and the patently idiotic Terri's Law.
For the first time in history, America is behind other nations in a high tech field, bioengineering. Even tho Johns Hopkins solved the mouse feeder cell contamination cell problem, other nations (like china and SK) are using that technology to advance the state of the art.
The left is more afraid to lose votes than to do the right thing.

[Justin]

V the K--Did we overthrow the S. Korean gov't and install a democracy? I'm not following the analogy, which seems to counter the point of the war (i.e., to install a democracy friendly to the US by force). Are you talking about the post WWII division of Korea? That hardly seems to be a good model for us to follow now. So somewhere around the year 2040, after 50,000 American lives are lost, we can expect a democracy in Iraq? I hardly think that's what W. had in mind when he was planning the war, to the extent he actually planned for anything.

[reliapundit]

what the left did to the south vietnamese and the contras is what they'll do to the afghanis the iraqis and the lebanese and the syrians, etc...

if you think the carter adminsitration was bad then, wait till you see the sequel!

[gumshoe]

"Being able to say “I told you so,” being able to point to the futility of American military might, being able to thrust their fingers at the “evil ones” and their leader—the Republicans, the pro-war crowd, the military and President Bush, respectively—means more to this group than does the ultimate well-being of their fellow human beings and the eventual defeat of those who would see us dead or converted to Islam at gunpoint."
-baldi

i prefer to think of myself as a
member of the "pro-victory" crowd.

come to think of it,
that's also my survival plan.

[Bob Daniel]

The Iraq Electricity Minister Muhsen Shallal announced that the country’s power production reached 5,400 megawatts and is now higher than before the U.S.-led war in 2003.

[caspera]

Justin,

"Also, when exactly did conservatives deal with the reality that the war would be tough?"

Here is a typical quote in a public speech from George W. Bush, this one in particular from the Army War College:

"Iraq now faces a critical moment. As the Iraqi people move closer to governing themselves the terrorists are likely to become more active and more brutal. There are difficult days ahead."

More?

"Two years ago, I told the Congress and the country that the war on terror would be a lengthy war, a different kind of war, fought on many fronts in many places. Iraq is now the central front. Enemies of freedom are making a desperate stand there -- and there they must be defeated. This will take time, and require sacrifice." Speech to Nation, Sept.8, 2003

There you go. Concrete examples. There are tons more quotes like this. They are not hard to find. Bush's remarks that the war on terror will be a long difficult struggle unlike any we've seen before are almost a cliche at this point, yet somehow it still slips past you.

If you are baffled by what you call others' optimism, consider this: your own view is equally peculiar. Your view essentially boils down to the following, as Christopher Hitchens expressed it: the root cause of terrorism is the struggle against it; if we desist from the struggle and try to give them what they want and show them we are good guys, the problem will go away, and whatever small terrorist incidents happen henceforth we will treat as police matters. Talk about unwarranted optimism! Talk about willful naivete!

[Tom W.]

Justin:

The "insurgency" is getting stronger? So why have they been unable to stop a single one of the many steps the Iraqis have taken toward democracy? Why was their last big show-stopping attack a colossal failure? Why are they being run out of every town in Anbar Province?

Iraq is on the brink of a civil war? So why have the three major Sunni opposition groups just today joined together to take part in the next election? Why is the Sunni defense minister willingly sending Shi'ite and Kurdish troops against Sunni terrorists and getting the cooperation of Sunni tribal leaders?

Go read about the Algerian War of Independence (1954-1962). Donald Rumsfeld did before this war, and as a result we've made none of the mistakes the French did in trying to put down a Muslim insurgency with a modern army. OIF is in reality an amazing success.

Also, go to http://www.billroggio.com/ and read up on how well we and the Iraqi security forces are performing. I'll bet you $10 that you won't have heard any of the info Roggio has on his site.

[Steve]

I've seen it a few times myself and I need to look at it a whole lot more and I also second the recommendation by Tom W. for:

http://www.billroggio.com/
------
Very good caspera. In speech after speech we've been told the difficulties that lie ahead by both George Bush and Tony Blair. Whatever shortcomings there may be found it is still nonetheless true, as you just said caspera, that as compared to the left it is still by far the most hopeful and coherent strategy. It is the left that has in so many ways failed and brought us no alternatives. They are the ones that have been out to lunch.

I don't fault the administration if as the situation began to develope in Iraq they then had to rethink their own plans. There is an old saying about war plans are thrown out as soon as the war begins. If you were to ask a President, or a General, before any war the United States has taken on if they thought the military planners had a complete plan for everything they could conceivably encounter that answer would have throughout history been no. I've haven't read about it in detail but F.D. Roosevelt's adminstration made some whoppers that cost the lives of thousands of soldiers and yet Tom Brokaw's "Greatest Generation" didn't melt over it and demand Roosevelt be removed.

The Iraqi people have been very good to us for the most part and have had good things to say. There have been plenty of good moments between our soldiers and Iraqi civilians and also those Iraqis now serving their country. I am saying that Cheney's statement holds true. But it is also a gross distortion to suggest that the mood of anywhere near a majority of the Iraqis concerning the U.S. military's presence is being expressed by Al-Zarqawi and former Baathists.

As for George Bush on May 1, 2003 he was anouncing that major combat operations were completed and the mission of taking Baghdad and removing Saddam's regime had been completed. There needed to be some acknowledgement and celebration of that even for the sake of the troops. They did need to have their accomplishment recognized at that point. But I'll be fair and admit that I doubt George Bush would have done it in that way again even if the press hadn't taken him to task over it. But I could also say "good for George Bush" and "good for our troops" for that moment and who cares what people think about it given what we now know about them and their worse faults. "Consider the source" as the saying goes.

Here is excerpts from that speech on May 1, 2003:

Our nation and our coalition are proud of this accomplishment, yet it is you, the members of the United States military, who achieved it. Your courage, your willingness to face danger for your country and for each other made this day possible.

We have difficult work to do in Iraq. We're bringing order to parts of that country that remain dangerous. We're pursuing and finding leaders of the old regime who will be held to account for their crimes. We've begun the search for hidden chemical and biological weapons, and already know of hundreds of sites that will be investigated.

We are helping to rebuild Iraq where the dictator built palaces for himself instead of hospitals and schools.

And we will stand with the new leaders of Iraq as they establish a government of, by and for the Iraqi people.

The transition from dictatorship to democracy will take time, but it is worth every effort. Our coalition will stay until our work is done and then we will leave and we will leave behind a free Iraq.
-------
I understand that the VtheK point was not about the nature of the war itself but about the nature of nation building.
-------
As for George Soros I have much more to look into concerning him and I will someday get around to it. The two artlicles I gave do not say it all and I didn't give them under that presumption. I've read enough about him that those articles can mean more to me than someone who read them as though they were meant to be the total amount known about George Soros. Like anyone else here I will not be giving comprehensive studies. You asked for some links. Those I gave you could get you started if someday you wanted to look further. And as for billionaires I would say that they are predominantly "left" or "liberal" so George Soros is no rare exception.

[RubiksF16]

Baldilocks--Great post!

I've been on the ground in Iraq, and I got to see with my own eyes a simulcast of reality and CNN-International. Despite the fact we'd been in a shooting contest with the Jayeh al-Mahdi for the previous two nights, CNN seemed to have this idea there was a cease-fire in effect. The first night a reporter was embedded with a patrol was on the third consecutive night of fighting. Not surprisingly, that night the reporter broke into the newscast in somewhat dramatic fashion and declared "The cease-fire is over!" After he returned from the patrol, he was apparently told to shape up his reporting or he'd get sent back to Baghdad. He did better the following nights.

I've seen the MSM get things wrong on other fronts. I don't bother with CNN or CBS anymore if I'm looking for facts, because I have to question the veracity of their "facts."

How do I get my news? Very carefully!

[V the K]

Thanks Steve, my point was partly about nation-building, but also to point out that we ought not sacrifice Iraq on the altar of immediate gratification and short attention spans. We have come a long way in Iraq in a short period of time with relatively few casualties... even if we haven't achieved the perfect democracy, yesterday, with zero casualties... which is apparently the yardstick by which many on the left measure success, and consider anything less to be failure.

Under Hussein, nearly 4,000,000 Iraqis... near 20% of the population... fled the country. Now, if things were as awful there as the media and the left would have us believe, we could expect a massive Iraqi refugee problem. But that is not the case. Not only are Iraqis NOT fleeing their country, some ex-pats are returning. The real estate markets in Baghdad, Mosul, and the oil-bearing Kurdish regions are booming. People don't buy real estate unless they have faith that things are getting better.

[directorblue]

Plain and simple, they have no plan. That much is obvious.

Remember, their agenda for lo these many years has been laser-focused: get George W. Bush out of power.

Saddam used chemical weapons? No matter - get GWB out of power.

Iran threatening to wipe America and Israel off the face of the earth? No matter - get GWB out of power.

Hamas terrorizing more innocent souls? No matter - get GWB out of power.

A fundamental inability to (a) recognize evil and (b) then deal with the brutal facts of our existence are (and have been) hallmarks of the left.

Remember Neville Chamberlain? That same level of ignorance is a cornerstone of the left.

[Leftism = Slave Morality]

What happens after we lose the Iraq War? Easy, we wait for a US city or cities to be nuked. Then we wait for death reports in the millions. Then we wait for the US to nuke them back. Then we wait for the US to crack down on civil liberties. Then the food riots, then the coups...

After we have this nuked-police-state, we cheer, since this is LEFTIST UTOPIA! This is what the Left wanted all along, a nuked, police-state USA.

Do you get it yet? The Left wants you enslaved or dead. The Islamists want you enslaved or dead. What do you want?

Stock up on shotgun shells.

[John]

What is their plan after their ascent to power? It is to defeat America. Losing this war would not be a byproduct of a Leftist victory; it is its primary objective.

[Greg]

You're a bad-ass!

[Tim in PA]

"The bottom line is that the pro-war crowd controls the House, Senate and Presidency, so how is the fault of the anti-war crowd that we may be failing in Iraq? Try to blame the media or leftists all you want, but any failure that may arise from Iraq rests on the shoulders of the administration."

If our media and "peace" activists didn't egg the terrorist bastards on and give them such glowing press, they'd have already given up and gone home. THATS how they're hindering the war.

Without a sympathetic western press to create domestic political leverage out of the terrorist attacks, they are useless. Look at how many of the attacks have shifted from US troops to pretty much anybody they can kill in Iraq - those attacks make them no friends there, but shows who the real audience is: the US media.

THe only way we will fail is if we quit and go home, and the "peace" activists and media know it.

[Marty]

Fabulous post. Just discovered your blog and rather than lurk before posting, I decided to come out with effusive and embarrassing praise right away!

[Marty]

PS: We Bloggers can help keep the focus on the loony left. It will help us defeat them.

[JAG]

People like Dean, Clinton and Kerry aren't leftists. They simply want power.

This is reflected in the fact that they relentlessly attack and, as Baldilocks makes clear, have nothing constructive to say.

They are utterly and completely shameless. With any kind of balance in the media they'd be exposed for the rank opportunists they are but that fact isn't going to change.

The battle for reason is left to the blogs and, hopefully, more and more people will turn to the esposure the internet gives to thoughtful, alternative, opinions that contest the MSM.

Great work here, keep it coming.

[Madai]

If we pull out of Iraq, it will be a very brief pull-out. As soon as a terrorist attack hits the US, we will be back in full force.

And here's the interesting part. The terrorist attack will be conducted in a city. A major city. A liberal stronghold.

The next major terrorist attack will not be a nuke, I suspect. In order to smuggle a nuke into the US, it would have to be very small, a "suitcase" nuke.

Pakistan has nukes, that you could maybe put in a truck, but they don't have suitcase nukes. The Russians *might* has suitcase nukes, and the Chinese, but they aren't about to give the nukes to islamofascists-- the islamofascists would just as soon nuke Russia or China as they would the US.

So, if we pull out from Iraq, the anti-war crowd will have maybe 2, 3 years in power. Then, we'll be attacked, the attack will kill more anti-war people than pro-war people, and a good portion of the fence-riding antis will go pro.

[ev]

Wow, am I stupid or what? How stupid it was of me to come over to a person's blog and insult her instead of making my point as an adult would. This is especially moronic in light of the fact that this blogger is willing and able to change my comments to read anything she wants them to read if I piss her off.

I am also too stupid to know that there are dozens of blogs authored by men and women with "feet on the ground" in Iraq and even if I had known that they existed, I'd be too stupid to read them because the information that the authors send doesn't fit with my mindset that Iraq is the new Vietnam

I am really, really, really stupid.

[Greg]

This is a correct analysis of the Left in the USA...they will be in league with the Islamofascists because they want only power....as Orwell said "a boot stamping a human face forever"....

We have a civil war coming to our fare land and it will be patriotic Americans corraling the Left permanently.
_____________________

Posted by: directorblue | October 27, 2005 at 03:23 AM

What happens after we lose the Iraq War? Easy, we wait for a US city or cities to be nuked. Then we wait for death reports in the millions. Then we wait for the US to nuke them back. Then we wait for the US to crack down on civil liberties. Then the food riots, then the coups...

After we have this nuked-police-state, we cheer, since this is LEFTIST UTOPIA! This is what the Left wanted all along, a nuked, police-state USA.

Do you get it yet? The Left wants you enslaved or dead. The Islamists want you enslaved or dead. What do you want?

Stock up on shotgun shells.

[Steve]

How did the subject get on the disbarred Bill Clinton?

[Mark Jaeger]

Steve said: "Iraq is on the brink of breaking out into a full scale civil war, and the insurgency is getting stronger, not weaker."

Umm, well, how do you figure that? If the insurgency was "getting stronger," then:

1. The Sunnis wouldn't have voted in the numbers they did--or at all--in the constitutional referendum. Indeed, the the "strong" insurgents wouldn't have even permitted the referendum to take place at all, right?

2. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the so-called "insurgency" has no unified command structure and does not speak with one voice. It hasn't even been able to offer a coherent and viable political program for Iraqis other than vague promises of a glorious Islamic Caliphate (under Sunni rule, of course). Needless to say, the Shiites, Kurds, and even a lot of Sunnis are decidedly unenthusiastic about this prospect. Indeed, Zarqawi's method of governing by "assassination and sharia" is a pretty piss poor way to run a country and has likely alienated Sunnis more than anything we may or may not have done.

3. Tying in with the above, the December elections will go off as planned, which means the nascent Iraqi democracy will be three for three in a single year. This is what makes Bush's strategy so brilliant: it will effectively paint the Democrats into a corner and make it nigh well impossible for them to abandon a legal, duly constituted, and internationally recognized Iraqi government. We might well say that, from a strategic vantage point, we have already won the war.

4. Dare I also add that the "insurgency" (or is it "insurgenCIES"?) are deeply factionalized. They seem to have spent almost as much time fighting with each other as with the U.S. and Iraqi forces. The VC and PAVN they AIN'T. In Vietnam, the enemy could mass in sizeable numbers, but this simply isn't the case in Iraq. If they do mass, that allows us to see them...and kill them.

5. To a great extent, the fount from which all blessings flow for the insurgents is Syria. The problem here is that the continued survival of the Syrian Ba'athist regime is now very much in doubt. If I were in Vegas, I'd bet the farm that Assad & Co. are going to be holding a "Lost Our Lease" sale at the presidential palace sooner rather than later. If Assad goes, then I suspect the Iraqi insurgents will find the world a much colder and crueler place.

6. Yet another thing that augurs poorly for the continued viability of the insurgency can be summed up in two words: "cell phones." Yeah, it's swell to terrorize men, women, and children, but how long can you keep them in line if they can place anonymous phone tips about your activities to the authorities? Let's put it this way: If I were an insurgent cell leader, I'd definitely schedule an appointment with an estate planner, because the odds of my getting killed or captured would be, at best, 50-50. And even those odds would be heading south on a monthly basis as every new Iraqi battalion came on line.

Capisce, paisan?

[justin]

Mark Jaeger said:

Dare I also add that the "insurgency" (or is it "insurgenCIES"?) are deeply factionalized. They seem to have spent almost as much time fighting with each other as with the U.S. and Iraqi forces.

That's sort of the point, right? The danger is that Iraq is breaking out into a full scale civil war.

Greg said:
This is a correct analysis of the Left in the USA...they will be in league with the Islamofascists because they want only power....as Orwell said "a boot stamping a human face forever"....

Greg, Orwell was a leftist and a quasi socialist.

Tom W. said

The "insurgency" is getting stronger? So why have they been unable to stop a single one of the many steps the Iraqis have taken toward democracy? Why was their last big show-stopping attack a colossal failure? Why are they being run out of every town in Anbar Province?

Dude, are you serious? Do you ever read the newspaper, or state department reports? Do you really need links for this?

And Steve, you say that the admnistration's plans for the war were thrown out as soon as the war began, but it was and is clear that the administration had no plan. That's been reported over and over and over again, by even the neo-con publications like the Weekly Standard.

Realipundit said:

what the left did to the south vietnamese and the contras is what they'll do to the afghanis the iraqis and the lebanese and the syrians, etc...

OK, and isn't it clear that our military presence in Nicaragua and S. Vietnam were not critical to our national security? Try to find a better anaology next time.

if you think the carter adminsitration was bad then, wait till you see the sequel!

Are you blaming the Vietnam pull-out on Carter? Um, we stopped direct military assistance in 1973, and Saigon fell in 1975. Carter was elected in 1976. Nice try. Maybe it was Bill Clinton's fault too.

[X]

"The danger is that Iraq is breaking out into a full scale civil war."

Justin, you ignorent slut. Iraq WAS under civil war under Saddam.

It was the Baathists vs. Kurds, Shiites, anti-Baathists, etc.

[Brett]

History cannot be planned. That is the great delusion of all reformers.

[justin]

X said:

Justin, you ignorent slut. Iraq WAS under civil war under Saddam.

Uh, no it wasn't. Saddam was ruthless enough to suppress any such dissent (see, e.g., gassing the Kurds).

And hey, Brent Scowcroft has been blasting Bush too. Is he a liberal elite now?

Great quote:

neoconservatives -- the Republicans who argued most fervently for the second Gulf war -- believe in the export of democracy, by violence if that is required, Scowcroft said. "How do the neocons bring democracy to Iraq? You invade, you threaten and pressure, you evangelize." And now, Scowcroft said, America is suffering from the consequences of that brand of revolutionary utopianism. "This was said to be part of the war on terror, but Iraq feeds terrorism," he said.

http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/001024.html

[X]

"Uh, no it wasn't."

Yes. It. Was.

Unless you are enough of a moron to believe that the Baathists were legitimate, elected officials?

Otherwise they were a criminal band making war on the non-Baathists.

I didn't know Bill Clinton was a neocon. Was he Jewish?

Mark Jaeger said that-

Steve said: "Iraq is on the brink of breaking out into a full scale civil war, and the insurgency is getting stronger, not weaker."
---
That was Justin that said that but you probably knew that and oops'd.
---------------------------
Justin,

As for the insinuation that the administration had "no plan" whatsoever. This is a quote I gave earlier from George Bush's May 1, 2003 speech. These words sound like so many of the words I read and heard before and after the war.

"We have difficult work to do in Iraq. We're bringing order to parts of that country that remain dangerous. We're pursuing and finding leaders of the old regime who will be held to account for their crimes. We've begun the search for hidden chemical and biological weapons, and already know of hundreds of sites that will be investigated.

We are helping to rebuild Iraq where the dictator built palaces for himself instead of hospitals and schools.

And we will stand with the new leaders of Iraq as they establish a government of, by and for the Iraqi people.

The transition from dictatorship to democracy will take time, but it is worth every effort. Our coalition will stay until our work is done and then we will leave and we will leave behind a free Iraq. "
--
Apparently there was a "plan" but maybe not an adequate plan for what we were to encounter. Especially in the way of the sickness of the insurgent's willingness to mutilate Iraqi civilians. But that would be in keeping with the Baathists and the way they treated their own throughout their reign.

These men and women in Iraq who experienced the Baathist regime are now heroically fighting for their country and know what they are fighting to achieve and also what they are fighting to prevent. Our soldiers stand with them and so should we.

Justin you are (like many of your ilk) coming across as heavily implying that you have some perfect world or solution to offer (Soros-Kofi like). Life is always a little dirty at the very least and the great things you are told that happened in history were always fought for in the midst of that "dirty" real life. You also seem to believe that you must inform us that it is messy but in doing that you give yourself away as the naive one for thinking we don't already know that.

You behave as though time with Saddam & Sons was worth the risks. Lets see if I can transmit to you Justin how you are coming across. You are coming across like the people who recommended bringing Yassir Arafat back into the West Bank with assurances that the future would be better and all the while people who were warning against it were ridiculed. Once Yassir was in the economy tanked, funds were stolen by the billions, palestinians were killed by Arafat's thugs, terror and reprisals began, checkpoints and unemployment resulted. Saddam and his regime were developing into something as bad but only on a world sized scale. The basics for that developement were already set in the 1970s.

You know Justin we can see a pattern from history that you may be unaware of to the extent you need to be in regards to some context to these observations about the "left" (long way of saying "hint hint").

You also seem to be naive about the history of wars or you are again trying to pass off a ruse that you have some other time in history (as though you lived it) to compare this current war negatively with.

There comes a time for decision or a "fork in the road". That decision was made in a 78-22 vote in the Senate in October 2002. Once that fork was taken the attitude doesn't always have to be 100% concern and always positive because no one can maintain that. But what many people in this country have done since then is inexcusable given that vote. Many people should have solemnly kept that vote in mind as they went about expressing themselves afterward. I find nothing to this day objectionable about that vote and I don't need any of those people in congress today yelling to anybody about this war. That vote sent a message to the rest of us that this situation was as important as we had already thought.

Come off it Justin. We see what you are doing and how you are doing it. Your calculated behavior is measured only for some future political reward you hope to gain in order to square some grudge against some imaginary injury you have from an imaginary foe.

Either get in to help or get out of the way. We don't need a sissy on the sidelines pointing at dirty jerseys or a muffed play.

[ve]

ev, dude...take a pill or something.

[justin]

OK, X, please provide ANY evidence that there was a civil war in Iraq. You can't. What does being legitimate and elected have to do with anything? Do you even know the definition of a civil war? I'll help you--a civil war involves internal factions shooting at each other. Saddam was a ruthless dictator who viciously destroyed his enemies and made everyone afraid of open dissent, which is pretty much the opposite of a civil war.

And Steve, are you capable of thinking in anything other than absolutes. I'm serious. Yes, Saddam was a bad man who murdered his own people and was a threat to the region. But the question is whether the best way to deal with him was a US-led invasion. I think the answer was no, we had greater threats (Iran and North Korea) to deal with, and this great diversion has done nothing to make us safer, and in fact, has made us less safe. Now, Bush has put is in a tough position in Iraq--a position where failure is not an option. But it would have been nice not to have had to fight this war of choice and to go after real terrorists rather than creating new ones in Iraq,

Why do you think I have a perfect solution? I don't. But I'm sure as heck going to criticize an incompetent leader. And, where in that speach you quoted is there an actual plan?

[X]

"OK, X, please provide ANY evidence that there was a civil war in Iraq"

OK, first off: The Kurds rebelling in the North.

Second: Try examining the concept of "civil war."

Take off your "Morality Cap" and try putting on a thinking cap. Was Iraq in a state of peace under Saddam, or under military rule? What all about all those anti-Baathists shot in the head. A shot in the neck from a 9 mm isn't shooting? Do you know what "shooting" means?

[Steve]

Justin,

If you want to call an average of 1,500 prisoners a year dying in the jails of Saddam's prisons something that relieves you of calling Iraq a country at war with itself then fine.

Now this is very important to understand. "Peace" was maintained in Iraq due to the no-fly zones maintained by British and Amercican jets. Without that there was going to be at least a war between Saddam and the Kurds and way too likely a war with the Shia south. We could not stay in Saudi Arabia indefinitely as things were shaping up after 911. Iraq was, in a sense, in a state of frozen civil war. Frozen by the no-fly zones that were put there for that very purpose of preventing a civil war already in progress at the time.

Actually Saddam's war with the Kurds had begun in September and October 2001 when Afghanis began to enter Kurdistan. These Afghanis, who were to later make up Zarqawi's Ansar al-Islam, were said by the Kurds to be in radio communication with Baghdad and to have been controlled by Saddam's intelligence.

Justin you have got to remove from your mind that Saddam was just sitting around in the years after the first Gulf War and that he had no other furture plans but to sit around. It just isn't the case. He appears to be one important part of a large conglomeration of state operatives and terrorists through out the M.E. Not unlike a large version of the terrorist melting pot of Khartoum.

As for "absolutes" my post is claiming that fault belongs to you. That concept about you is a basis for those words of mine.

[Brett]

Justin votes for war with North Korea and Iran! Glad to see he's gotten with the program.

[justin]

Brett, I would have probably supported a war with Iran.

Steve--I accept that Saddam was dangerous, but there are other ways to deal with him. You say the country was on the verge of a civil war--well, why not pick a side and have locals overthrow him? Doesn't the "frozen civil war" idea counter all of your arguments? Saddam couldn't have been that much of a threat if he couldn't even maintain order in his own country? Or is the new reason for invading to prevent a civil war?

[Razorgirl]

Excellent post. I have often wondered the same thing. And to go further-when eventually the Libs allow us to evolve into a Taliban type government, do these liberal, anti-war mongers realize what sacrifices they will be making then? If they don't like the Christian influences out there now, how will they feel about being overseen by that type of maniacs? They will have no choice. And there will be no more Hollywood, no more TV, (no more stupid reality shows, that might be good) no more PBS, no more baseball, no more movies, no more fashion industry, no more Wall Street, NO MORE PORK. The list is endless. Think of anything American and it will be gone. They will wipe out our history and language. Is that what they really want? There will be no more women's rights. (Then again there will be no more Paris or Babs or Michael Moore, that might be good.) There will be no protest marches. Life as we know it will be gone. I don't think these idiots have thought beyond the present. What will life be like for our grandchildren and their children? I do not wish to live in a Muslim dominated society. At least in our present society one has the choice of whether to worship anything or not. In a Muslim society THERE IS NO CHOICE! Christians are not going to kill you if you don't convert. Muslims will! We might as well start getting fitted for our burkas, ladies. We can see what is happening with the political correctness issue in Britain.

I also wonder how life would have been different if Walter Cronkite and John Kerry had not been born. We could have finished up in Viet Nam and I think we would not be in the situation we are in today. NVN has already admitted they were ready to throw in the towell until they heard Walter giving up the ship. Yes, it would have been a "wonderful life" if these two communists had not been given a voice or a platform for their treason. But that's what America is all about: freedom of speech. Kind of a Catch 22. I am not an alarmist but when I see what is going on in the MSM and with Howard Dean and Moveon.org it makes me wonder why Libs have their heads up their butts.

Thanks for letting me vent. As always, Baldi, a great post.

[Terran]

I suppose my question would be, why are we fighting this war? Yes Saddam was a bad man, and killed his people, but isn't that happening in the war torn states of Africa daily? Why are we not useing our troops to find Osama Bin Ladin? Condi says we might be in Iraq for the next decade, well I hope that when the next decade is over, we can concentrate on fiding the man guilty of putting into motion the 9/11 attacks. Or maybe we'll find those WMD's after all.

[Terran]

Hey Razor girl, no more pork? Does that mean an end to the reckless spending we have seen these last five years? I'm no liberal, but someone needs to cut spending back down to Clinton era levels.

[Wild Thing]

Excellent Baldilocks! Awesome! Keep up the great writing!
I agree about wishing what Baldilocks wrote to be put into every newspaper in the nation.

[Ralph Thayer]

Good work. I have been mulling over a similar theme myself. Your article is substantial and something I can "sink my teeth into." It's helping me think through what I want to write. It has also drawn out a nice cross section of comments from the thoughtful to the inane. Thanks.

Justin,

There is reasons why it was not a good idea to use the Afghan approach, or the "Hammer and Anvil" method. In Afghanistan the Northern Alliance was used as the anvil and U.S. air power was the hammer. Reread in Kenneth M. Pollack's book The Gathering Storm page 293 to 334 the chapter titled The Risks of the Afghan Approach. You mentioned once that you either had the book or had read it. That strategy does begin to show a lot of difficulties as you get to thinking about it.

As for just allowing civil war in Iraq? Not a good idea. Saddam was not without some powerful allies in the world and he would have made quick work of the Kurds. In other words that is just the problem, he could maintain order in his own country given time, if you call that "order"? To prevent civil war isn't the "new" reason either. It is a factor among many that had to be considered and was discussed. This aspect of it isn't news. It is best to stay on the level with people and not indulge in impishness.

And after that "civil war", by the way things were going, his state would have developed into something like an amalgam of Baathism, Wahhabist Taliban, Fedayeen, and Al Qaeda. And as it would appear Russian advisors (as always) along with Russian and French (and various others) armaments. Besides, what does oil-for-food money have to do with the activities of East Star Trading Co. and also Babel & Wael of the U.A.E.?

It is complex, and it is complex because of all the things that went on in the 1990s and all the various things going on at the moment Resolution 1441 was passed. There are a lot of various scenarios anyone could imagine if Saddam was to remain in power into the future. WMD was not the only thing mentioned for reasons for removing Saddam. Actually WMD was not the main point of the bill passed by the Senate in October of 2002.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/
media/Homepage/CSPC_WhyWeAreInIraq_r8.pdf

excerpt:

The Authorization of the Use of Force in Iraq that President Bush sought and obtained on October 16, 2002 has 23 clauses. These clauses spell out the rationale for the war. Among the 23 clauses, however, there are only two that mention stockpiles of Weapons of Mass Destruction. In other words, the possession of Weapons of Mass Destruction by Saddam Hussein could hardly have been the rational for the war. What the resolution did stress-in twelve seperate clauses-were the 16 UN resolutions that Saddam had ignored or defied.

These security council resolutions, were more than mere expression of UN opinion. The first two of them-687 and 689-provided the terms of the truce in the first Gulf War.
--------------------
As for other countries like in Africa that have despots. It was mentioned in an article, I believe in the New York Times on June 1, 2003, that under the current criteria the United States should invade the Congo. The only thing about that statement is that it reveals the very (the exact) stupidity of which is purports to have found in someone else. Iraq and the United States have a history of actual conflict going back to August of 1990. Iraq has spoken of revenge and their sites are set on the United States as their regime had stated. And there is reason to believe that Saddam was involved already in terrorism against the United States but Iraq was at least illegally (according to ceasefire resolutions) involved in support of terrorist organizations and terrorism.

And as for Saddam and 911? Maybe no one has any right to say that Saddam was in on 911 but it is also not right to say definitively that he was not. The 911 commission report was not claiming to know or claiming to be giving you the definitive and final answer to that. It is possible especially given the evidence surrounding the World Trade Center attack in February 1993.

[Steve]

Justin,

There is reasons why it was not a good idea to use the Afghan approach, or the "Hammer and Anvil" method. In Afghanistan the Northern Alliance was used as the anvil and U.S. air power was the hammer. Reread in Kenneth M. Pollack's book The Gathering Storm page 293 to 334 the chapter titled The Risks of the Afghan Approach. You mentioned once that you either had the book or had read it. That strategy does begin to show a lot of difficulties as you get to thinking about it.

As for just allowing civil war in Iraq? Not a good idea. Saddam was not without some powerful allies in the world and he would have made quick work of the Kurds. In other words that is just the problem, he could maintain order in his own country given time, if you call that "order"? To prevent civil war isn't the "new" reason either. It is a factor among many that had to be considered and was discussed. This aspect of it isn't news. It is best to stay on the level with people and not indulge in impishness.

And after that "civil war", by the way things were going, his state would have developed into something like an amalgam of Baathism, Wahhabist Taliban, Fedayeen, and Al Qaeda. And as it would appear Russian advisors (as always) along with Russian and French (and various others) armaments. Besides, what does oil-for-food money have to do with the activities of East Star Trading Co. and also Babel & Wael of the U.A.E.?

It is complex, and it is complex because of all the things that went on in the 1990s and all the various things going on at the moment Resolution 1441 was passed. There are a lot of various scenarios anyone could imagine if Saddam was to remain in power into the future. WMD was not the only thing mentioned for reasons for removing Saddam. Actually WMD was not the main point of the bill passed by the Senate in October of 2002.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/
media/Homepage/CSPC_WhyWeAreInIraq_r8.pdf

excerpt:

The Authorization of the Use of Force in Iraq that President Bush sought and obtained on October 16, 2002 has 23 clauses. These clauses spell out the rationale for the war. Among the 23 clauses, however, there are only two that mention stockpiles of Weapons of Mass Destruction. In other words, the possession of Weapons of Mass Destruction by Saddam Hussein could hardly have been the rational for the war. What the resolution did stress-in twelve seperate clauses-were the 16 UN resolutions that Saddam had ignored or defied.

These security council resolutions, were more than mere expression of UN opinion. The first two of them-687 and 689-provided the terms of the truce in the first Gulf War.
--------------------
As for other countries like in Africa that have despots. It was mentioned in an article, I believe in the New York Times on June 1, 2003, that under the current criteria the United States should invade the Congo. The only thing about that statement is that it reveals the very (the exact) stupidity of which is purports to have found in someone else. Iraq and the United States have a history of actual conflict going back to August of 1990. Iraq has spoken of revenge and their sites are set on the United States as their regime had stated. And there is reason to believe that Saddam was involved already in terrorism against the United States but Iraq was at least illegally (according to ceasefire resolutions) involved in support of terrorist organizations and terrorism.

And as for Saddam and 911? Maybe no one has any right to say that Saddam was in on 911 but it is also not right to say definitively that he was not. The 911 commission report was not claiming to know or claiming to be giving you the definitive and final answer to that. It is possible especially given the evidence surrounding the World Trade Center attack in February 1993.

[Steve]

Sorry about the double-post. Not sure what happened.

[Tully]

I think Justin's point is that there can't be an actual civil war until the left dogmatizes one into being, regardlss of what's actually happening. And when that happens, they don't even need an actual civil war, just a lot of ignorant "theme" slogans and an assist from the MSM.

After all, it's all about the spin. The lives only matter when they can be spun to the agenda.

[Barry]

I have asked my young nephew who is a Marine in Iraq, He says we are winning there.
I watch the news and all I see are reports of loses and victories, losses for us and victories for them.
This war can be lost here at home and I don't think the Democrates have a war plan beyond trying to buy off the Terrorist.
Good luck Cause a religious fanatic can not be bought off.
so the democrates plan is to become of Islam, they feel they will be in power even if they have to convert to Islam.
and you know what? I think they are right a Ted Kennedy would still be in charge here even if he had to become Mohammed kennedy.

[Skywarner]

Justin said: "Well, the MSM is in the best position to evaluate the mission in Iraq, and the consensus seems to be that it is not going well to say the least."

Justin, the MSM - has it is currently constituted today with alledged 'journalists' who couldn't for the most part report their way out of a paper bag unless it was handed to them - is the party LEAST capable of reporting and evaluating our mission in Iraq. Why? They want it to fail.

Have you been to Iraq? I have. The news as reported here in the States is NOTHING - yes, NOTHING - like what is actually happening in theater. For every soldier or Marine lost in battle, there is a story to be told. But, of course, it's a rare day when the MSM even bothers to report the death of a service person in CONTEXT (i.e., what was the battle, where were the troops going and why, was it an accident, etc). Hell, except for the freelancers and some of the Fox guys, none of the MSM idiots ever venture out of the Green Zone or bother to take a ride into an operation with the guys and gals.

For me, the MSM is dead.

[Eric]

(I actually wrote this comment Tues night, but comments weren't being accepted at the time.)

For those opposed to Operation Iraqi Freedom, there seems to be an assumption (to borrow GEN Powell's metaphor) that Iraq, our Iraq policy and the international regimen over Iraq were "broken" by President Bush. In actuality, Iraq, our relationship with, and the international regimen over Iraq were long broken by the time Bush Jr took office.

Reagan's Iraq policy, however 'sensible', was a failure. Bush Sr's conclusion to the Gulf War, however 'sensible', was a failure. (I wonder: is the Gulf War's false but slickly packaged 'victory' what folks are hankering for today in Iraq?). The subsequent finite-disarmament-turned-indefinite-containment Iraq mission of Bush Sr and Clinton - inherited by Bush Jr - was disastrous . . . and quickly became a cornerstone for al Qaeda's anti-US mission. Question: US involvement in what nation(s) triggered the terrorists' intense focus on US targets in the 90s? Hint: it wasn't Israel.

Clinton had even declared Saddam's Iraq a failure by Dec 1998. We were already inextricably involved with Iraq's fate, but the US's pre-OIF Iraq mission had one advantage: it was relatively cheap - for us. In the ruthless, self-centered cost/benefit analysis we called American foreign policy in the 90s (see Somalia, Rwanda, Iraq and Kosovo), it was just easier and cheaper - for America, at least - to allow the Iraq situation to fester, no matter the ethical, political and human cost. As long as we didn't bear the cost and someone else did, it was okay, right? Many of the same folks who accepted the Iraq mission of the 90s, because it was cheaper for us than fixing the situation, are the same folks who fundamentally oppose OIF today.

I felt our treatment of Iraq and the Iraqi people in the 90s was abominable, and short-sighted. We made so many false promises to the Iraqis after the Gulf War, and so many Iraqis died for believing in us - it's a wonder to me that so many Iraqis are willing to risk their lives for our promies today. Given the US's Iraq policy of the 90s, if I was an Iraqi, I wouldn't trust us. We owe them.

It was no secret that the alternatives to the pre-OIF status quo in Iraq would be enormously costly and difficult, eg, regime change and nation-building, or politically unacceptable, eg, lifting restrictions from Saddam's Iraq without his fulfilling the conditions of the UN resolutions. To blame the high cost and difficulty of OIF on this administration is either disingenuous or just ignorant. It's the cost of fixing a problem to which we, at worst, contributed to, and at best, avoided for decades. Yes, the fix is expensive, but who else would pay for it and do the toughest part of the work, if not us? The fix wasn't becoming cheaper the longer we drew out our pre-OIF Iraq policy. The US is a hegemony - deal with it. And if we are to believe America is anything like a moral, principled hegemony - that pretense doesn't come cheap. OIF is a cost of our elevated self-image.

Are there inadequacies and failures in our Iraq mission? Of course. They were expected. Look at the international track record before 9/11, to include our record, and it's obvious the entirety of international peace-making and nation-building institutions - policy, IO, GO, NGO and military - was insufficient to handle a mission on the scale and complexity of OIF. The catch-22 is that the only realistic way to develop sufficient capability for a mission of OIF's scale was to actually undergo OIF. Fortunately, history shows we've developed capability on the fly in past wars. Whether we successfully develop sufficient capability in the War on Terror remains to be seen.

The job is hard, expensive, dirty and bloody, but it's got to be done, unless we as Americans have decided that we are no better than a dog-eat-dog economic hegemony after all. If that's what we are, then we should focus on that and stop pretending we're something more. If we're unwilling to help Iraq beyond buying its oil, we should abandon our 20th century pretense of a moral political nature so we won't get caught up in anymore missions like OIF that we don't mean anyway. If we do mean what we claim to represent, then we need to accept the pain and cost of genuinely acting for the harder right, which is victory in Iraq.

There are consequences. Success in OIF will empower the US, in policy, will and capability, as a true responsible leader for humanitarian change and stability. Failure means the end of our noble pretenses as a global leader. Abandonment of Iraq will prove beyond any doubt that what America claims to represent and our promises to the world are no more than cruel lies.

[justin]

No, Skywarner, I haven't been to Iraq. So, where do you get your news then? Can you cite specific examples of MSM bias? It seems to me that you don't like the news you are hearing, so you just say it is biased, which is evidence of some sort of right-wing paranoia that has been going aroung (closely related to left wing paranoia about blood-for-oil, I'm sure). Is the Economist magazine biased (who strongly supported, and still supports the war) when it gives grim assessments in Iraq? What about the WSJ? Of course the media likes to report bad news, but it's not their fault the country may be turning against the war (although I think recent polls are starting to show more support for the war).

Eric, good comments. I disagreed with going to war, but I realize that there were serious humanitarian problems with our then-current way of dealing with Saddam.

Steve, you and I are clearly never going to agree on the wisdom of the invasion. But I think we both agree that now that we are there we need to win.

[Robert Cunningham]

EXCELLENT post!

here's the answer:

what you get, ironically for the left, is full-on Buchananism!

What do I mean by that? Simply that the consequence of a defeat in Iraq is an at least tacit endorsement of left isolationism -- of which Pat Buchanan (that's right --- Pitchfork Pat) is one of the most relentless exponents. (He has long since ceased to be a conservative, BTW, and on most issues is indistinguishable from the left. Not a new observation or an original one.)

The left (and Buchananoids) WANT a U.S. retreat from the world; the left, subjectively because they view the U.S. as irredeemably corrupt and Buchanan because he views the world as irredeemably corrupt. Objectively, however, they share a desire for the same strategic end-state. The consequences are certainly as you have described --- and then some!

The logic of these positions entailing strategic retreat and renouncing the Bush Doctrine/GWOT, as it relates to Iraq center on the phony distinction between a war of "necessity" and a war of "choice", the latter of which Iraq is said to be an example. What this amounts to in practice is the WWII model: only fight a war when you "absolutely must" (Bob Herbert, NY Times today)...ever! there are corollaries to this Buchananoid doctrine as well. My flippant characterization comes down to this:

"Let's wait for Pearl Harbor".."that way we'll know for sure!" "no more intelligence errors" "we'll retaliate after we're attacked" "then we'll know it's 'imminent' " "we'd rather risk 9/11 than Iraq" "there is no Islamofascist threat, anyway" "It's just a criminal nuisance" "they'll leave 'us' alone if we leave them alone" (Buchanan almost verbatim) "we don't need no stinkin' allies" (good thing, because we won't have any once we retreat) :"I'm all right, Jack"

This is the implication of rejecting the Bush Doctrine/GWOT....Buchananism = left isolationism = wait for Pearl Harbor, so we'll know for sure...

fine as long as you think (like Buchanan) (a) the threats are from nation-states and no "nation" would dare attack us (directly); and (b) there is no Islamofascist threat, once we retreat, leave them alone and just buy their oil, which they have to sell to us anyway; (c) we have no other extraterritorial interests.

They should be FORCED to embrace the logic of their position of rejection of Bush Doctrine/GWOT...it is the ONLY alternative.

[Robert Cunningham]

EXCELLENT post!

here's the answer:

what you get, ironically for the left, is full-on Buchananism!

What do I mean by that? Simply that the consequence of a defeat in Iraq is an at least tacit endorsement of left isolationism -- of which Pat Buchanan (that's right --- Pitchfork Pat) is one of the most relentless exponents. (He has long since ceased to be a conservative, BTW, and on most issues is indistinguishable from the left. Not a new observation or an original one.)

The left (and Buchananoids) WANT a U.S. retreat from the world; the left, subjectively because they view the U.S. as irredeemably corrupt and Buchanan because he views the world as irredeemably corrupt. Objectively, however, they share a desire for the same strategic end-state. The consequences are certainly as you have described --- and then some!

The logic of these positions entailing strategic retreat and renouncing the Bush Doctrine/GWOT, as it relates to Iraq center on the phony distinction between a war of "necessity" and a war of "choice", the latter of which Iraq is said to be an example. What this amounts to in practice is the WWII model: only fight a war when you "absolutely must" (Bob Herbert, NY Times today)...ever! there are corollaries to this Buchananoid doctrine as well. My flippant characterization comes down to this:

"Let's wait for Pearl Harbor".."that way we'll know for sure!" "no more intelligence errors" "we'll retaliate after we're attacked" "then we'll know it's 'imminent' " "we'd rather risk 9/11 than Iraq" "there is no Islamofascist threat, anyway" "It's just a criminal nuisance" "they'll leave 'us' alone if we leave them alone" (Buchanan almost verbatim) "we don't need no stinkin' allies" (good thing, because we won't have any once we retreat) :"I'm all right, Jack"

This is the implication of rejecting the Bush Doctrine/GWOT....Buchananism = left isolationism = wait for Pearl Harbor, so we'll know for sure...

fine as long as you think (like Buchanan) (a) the threats are from nation-states and no "nation" would dare attack us (directly); and (b) there is no Islamofascist threat, once we retreat, leave them alone and just buy their oil, which they have to sell to us anyway; (c) we have no other extraterritorial interests.

They should be FORCED to embrace the logic of their position of rejection of Bush Doctrine/GWOT...it is the ONLY alternative.

[justin]

RC said:
The left (and Buchananoids) WANT a U.S. retreat from the world; the left, subjectively because they view the U.S. as irredeemably corrupt and Buchanan because he views the world as irredeemably corrupt. Objectively, however, they share a desire for the same strategic end-state. The consequences are certainly as you have described --- and then some!

Wait, I thought the problem with the left is that they were too internationalist--you know, the UN, Kyoto, the War Crimes Tribunal. Now I'm just confused.

Can you actually give one example of a mainstream liberal wanting to retreat from the world? It seems that liberals like internationalism, and that is where they got a lot of criticism from the right

[teal marie]

Cindy Sheehan.

[Eric]

The right/left debate about who supports OIF is interesting because many of the fiercest opponents of the mission come from the so-called "right" who belong to the realist school.

The realist school that opposes liberal internationalism has long been entrenched in the conservative Right. In fact, Bush campaigned in 2000 on a realist platform. Before 9/11, "nation-building" - of the kind we're trying to do in Iraq - was a dirty concept for Bush. As President, he promised to reduce the growing load of overseas missions; in the Cold War missions, he's done so. In approaching the WOT, though, it appears that the terrorist attacks caused him to do a 180-degree shift and plunge into the liberal school, thus alienating much of his own realist consituency.

Bush, 2002: "Some who call themselves "realists" question whether the spread of democracy in the Middle East should be any concern of ours. But the realists in this case have lost contact with a fundamental reality. America has always been less secure when freedom is in retreat. America is always more secure when freedom is on the march."

That's a bold refutation of many of his core supporters.

I think a main reason that the anti-OIF message is formidable yet confused is that it's not just 'moonbat' opposition. Anti-OIF sentiment sources from 2 different crowds, the 'America only' conservative realists on the right and the anti-America types on the left.

Bush is miscast as the CinC in this war. OIF is definitively liberal, even muscular Wilsonian. Bush is from a conservative base (even if he often acts like a child of the 60s). Ideally, today's war-time President would be a liberal Democrat and Wilsonian disciple in the mold of FDR. But what we have is a conservative President trying to lead as a liberal war-time leader.

So, what folks support OIF? Let's say, liberal internationalist pragmatic idealists who believe in American primacy. We don't fit that well on the right or the left.

[Eric]

Oops, my bad. The Bush quote I used is from 2004, not 2002.

SOURCE: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/06/20040602.html

[Robert Cunningham]

Eric:

These etymological classifications can get confusing and are beside the point. The point is that 9/11 was a wake-up call; the "new realism", if you will, is that the priority of "stability" above all else did not, in fact, produce stability but rather the global threat of Islamofascism. Time for a new strategy...that's all.

The anti-OIF groups may each have a different SUBJECTIVE basis for their oppostion (what you called 'America-only' vs. anti-Americans), a point I agree with. My point is that OBJECTIVELY, they get to the same place:

"we don't need no stinkin' allies" "let's wait for Pearl Harbor - then we'll know for sure" "there is no Islamofascist threat; they'll leave 'us' alone if we leave them alone."

Both elements aspire to the same strategic end-state after a defeat/retreat in Iraq --- something that they would get, in fact, unfortunately.

[Robert Cunningham]

justin:

no inconsistency...the left wants to use these anti-American international institutions to hamstring U.S. foregin policy and position of influence in the world generally. They want to prevent the unilateral assertion of U.S. military power especially. The only exception would be the phony concept of a "war of necessity" by which they mean another WWII/Pearl Harbor type attack. Even then support is qualified; it might be our fault, "chickens coming home to roost" and all that. (Something that Buchanan and Cindy Sheehan agree on, btw.)

The left even opposed Gulf War 1 DESPITE it's having clear-cut international support! (Now they want to weasel out and attach themsleves to it as an example of a "good" exercise of U.S. power! See Kerry, John F.)

AT the end of the day the left wants exactly what Buchanan wants: a U.S. strategic retreat militarily at least from the ME and the rest of the world; and a "wait for Pearl Harbor" approach to global Islamofascism.

And that is what the implication of defeat/retreat in Iraq would be. Do you feel lucky?

[Eric]

Robert:

I agree that a bottom-line convergence of both radical anti-OIF crowds, from the right and left, is American-Iraqi defeat. Isolationism is an American tradition, and it's become apparent that to empower their various isolationist worldviews, radical OIF opponents wish to - first and foremost - defeat the ideology driving OIF. In their minds, losing Iraq would be just punishment for American hubris (whether of liberal idealism or hegemonic imperialism, take your pick). OIF is far more a contest of worldviews than it is the typical economic war, and to realize their worldview, radical OIF opponents are willing to sacrifice the Iraqi people. It's realistic. After all, how many African and Asian peoples have we (IO and GO alike) sacrificed for our own bottom-line in the recent past? So then, what's one more people abandoned by the US and international community?

Where I disagree is that since this war is so much based in political worldview, I do think it matters a lot that we understand the different factions obstructing our mission in Iraq, both here and over there. We need dedicated political warriors fighting on the homefront AND nation-building soldiers over there. I feel the 'Why We Fight' and 'Why We Stay' messages have been severely neglected. Until OIF supporters more aggressively and intelligently challenge both of the anti-OIF factions on the American public political scene, it's an exploitable weakness.

[Robert Cunningham]

Eric:

"...since this war is so much based in political worldview, I do think it matters a lot that we understand the different factions obstructing our mission in Iraq.."

"...the 'Why We Fight' and 'Why We Stay' messages have been severely neglected. Until OIF supporters more aggressively and intelligently challenge both of the anti-OIF factions on the American public political scene, it's an exploitable weakness."

Excellent points. I concur and concur that the war is more ideological than economic.

Note, however, that both the (standard) left AND Buchanan use expressions like 'hubris' 'hegemony' and 'imperialism' to describe U.S. policies. They make the same arguments against the war and GWOT policies generally. The only difference I can see is the "subjective" one.

I completely agree that pro-OIF/Bush Doctrine supporters (and alarmingly, the Bush Admin itself) need to make again and again the case for OIF and GWOT. The left and the MSM aredoing everything they can to bring about a defeat and need to be countered.

One psychologically effective technique may well be pointing out to "left" isolationists that they are, objectively, in league with Buchanan and vice versa! (They HATE when that happens!)

[Eric]

"Isolationists come from a broad swathe, from radicals who want to remove US influence from the world, to dogmatic realists who see 9/11 as the punishment for liberal Wilsonianism, to Michael Moore types who see the War on Terror as the elites' distraction from the masses-versus-elites populist issues they care about."

I wrote this last year on my blog:
http://learning-curve.blogspot.com/2004/10/contextualizing-argument-over.html

[Robert Cunningham]

great insight, well articulated! couldn't agree more...note that they are all in it together now, wherever it was that they started out from.

[Eric]

OIF should be the great liberal mission. It should be the mission where - finally! - the US invests itself fully for global change through liberal principles rather than on flowery speech contradicted by selfish 'realist' cost/benefit.

Therefore, as a liberal, it has been a great disappointment to me that so many of 'my' people, self-defined liberals, have opposed OIF with reasons that are distinctly illiberal. They parrot Buchanan-esque hard-core conservative arguments against the war. It makes me wonder, do these 'liberals' even remember anymore the noble principles they're supposed to champion? Or do they just define themselves in opposition, where any rationale will do? If so, it's a gross corruption of what it means to be a liberal.