Why the rush?—The New York Times, the Iraq pullout, and the Nixon scenario
Jules Crittenden has a well-worth-reading takedown of the NY Times’s editorial demanding that we get out of Iraq ASAP. I’m not going to spend a great deal of time exhaustively fisking the Times piece; Crittenden and others have done so quite effectively.
But I do need to add my own observations on the murky thinking evinced in the editorial, including the lack of any support for two linchpins on which the entire thing appears to rest: the idea that it is already a foregone conclusion that what is going on there now (the “surge”) will be ineffective; and the idea that a pullout will not effect a cure worse than the present disease, and that therefore it represents some sort of solution.
And yet the Times not only thinks these things are truths, but it holds them to be self-evident. The authors assert that additional troops have not changed anything without offering any evidence of this, too impatient to even wait for even the extremely modest September deadline that was proposed by Congress, and unable to assimilate or even acknowledge any contradictory news (such as that of Michael Yon). The editorial asserts that “keeping troops in Iraq will only make things worse” and then proceeds to list the many ways in which withdrawing them is highly likely to make things even more dangerous and bloody.
Perhaps the worst part of the piece, however, is when the authors suggest how to deal with those problems. The UN is trotted out, of course, in a shorthand manner that suggests that even the august personages at the Times who wrote this thing don’t believe much in that corrupt body, but simply have to pay lip service to it and get it out of the way. Here’s the entire quote on the subject:
Congress and the White House must lead an international attempt at a negotiated outcome. To start, Washington must turn to the United Nations, which Mr. Bush spurned and ridiculed as a preface to war.
Forget the fact that the UN has no bona fides in negotiating the end to conflicts of this nature, those that are still extremely “hot.” Forget that Bush not only did not “spurn and ridicule the UN as a preface to the war,” but instead lost precious time (and alerted Saddam and his forces as to what would be happening, and how best to prepare for it and its aftermath) in a vain attempt to gain some much-needed credibility for the UN by trying to get it to stand by and enforce its own resolutions. Once again, the editors feel no need to present any details of what this spurning and ridicule might consist of; it is enough for them to state that it happened, and to expect their readership to swallow that assertion whole.
The Times then goes on to list what I call the “musts” or the “have-tos” or the “shoulds”—those things that will happen just because the Times says so. Forget about whether such things are possible or realistic; like a two-year old, the Times editors believe in the omnipotence of their own wishes.
Here are a few of their “musts” (with my commentary added in brackets):
Washington also has to mend fences with allies [citing the new governments in Britain, France, and Germany as being angry with the US, and ignoring the fact that those new governments are either just as friendly to the US, or even friendlier, than those in power there at the start of the war]….those nations should see that they cannot walk away from the consequences. To put it baldly, terrorism and oil make it impossible to ignore [oh yeah? Just try ’em]….
One of the trickiest tasks will be avoiding excessive meddling in Iraq by its neighbors ”” America’s friends as well as its adversaries…Just as Iran should come under international pressure to allow Shiites in southern Iraq to develop their own independent future, Washington must help persuade Sunni powers like Syria not to intervene on behalf of Sunni Iraqis. Turkey must be kept from sending troops into Kurdish territories [and how, pray tell, is that to be done? Only the Times knows.]
For this effort to have any remote chance, Mr. Bush must drop his resistance to talking with both Iran and Syria. Britain, France, Russia, China and other nations with influence have a responsibility to help [okay, teach, if you say so; they will all now work and play well with others].
Why is this all so poorly thought out on the part of the editors? Is it that they are unintelligent? Is it that they really believe that wishing can make it so? Or is it that thinking through these matters may not be the main thing on their minds?
If not, then what is? I propose that the following is where the Times editors disclose their true concerns, including the reason for the extreme haste about the pullout:
It is frighteningly clear that Mr. Bush’s plan is to stay the course as long as he is president and dump the mess on his successor.
The Times is indeed terrified, not by the consequences of a pullout—either for the Iraqis (possible genocide, in the Times’s own words), or the resultant chaos in the region as a whole, or for the resultant loss of trust and respect for the US and its ability to keep its word (an issue that goes unmentioned and unnoticed by the Times).
What is the source of the terror the Times feels? It’s what’s known as “the Nixon scenario.”
Reader Eric Chen described it well in this comment on July 6:
Nixon came to office on a promise he would end what was painted as LBJ’s war. As far as our commitment to Vietnam, the Republican president accomplished what he said he’d do. However, popularly much blame for our history with Vietnam has been laid on Nixon; essentially, he is blamed by partisans for delivering on his promise because the actual extraction of America from Vietnam was not – could not be – as immaculate as the domestic political rhetoric.
I believe the Dems want very much to avoid a Nixon scenario where the next president – presumably a Democrat – would be forced to take charge and become accountable for the realities of the Iraq mission. Withdrawal from Iraq will be costly and ugly, with consequences and costs that will reshape the historical narrative. Rather than be responsible for their own political advocacy regarding Iraq, the Dems would rather that the current president take the political costs of the consequences of withdrawal from Iraq onto himself.
Thus, the undue haste. The Times drops another hint about this concern when the authors write:
Accomplishing all of this in less than six months is probably unrealistic. The political decision should be made, and the target date set, now.
The Times editors also state, earlier in the piece, “The political leaders Washington has backed are incapable of putting national interests ahead of sectarian score settling.” They are referring to those in charge in Iraq. But they might just as well be referring to themselves: score-settling—and, as Chen says, covering their own asses—is the name of their profoundly cynical, poorly-reasoned, and highly self-centered game.
Why would Michael Yon’s tale about an alleged al Qaeda massacre of a village right under the noses of our troops be considered “contradictory news?”
If anything, it reinforces the case for withdrawing our troops from Iraq.
It almost seems that what the NYT editorial is demanding, is a withdrawal out of fear that the surge may yet be successful. Nah, couldn’t be that could it?
alphie, it’s clear that you don’t really read Yon, or you’d know about statements of his about the surge such as this one (from the linked article):
The big news on the streets today is that the people of Baqubah are generally ecstatic, although many hold in reserve a serious concern that we will abandon them again. For many Iraqis, we have morphed from being invaders to occupiers to members of a tribe. I call it the “al Ameriki tribe,” or “tribe America.”
You show the same rigor of thought as the NY Times. And believe me, that’s not a compliment.
Neo,
You should read the latest articles on terrorism in the English edition of Der Spiegel Online. Someone has been seriously shaken by the British doctor bomb plot. People here are finally talking seriously about the problem of fighting terrorism with current civil law and the Geneva conventions. They also cover a bit of Al Qaeda history in Germany. Of course, the serious people in positions of responsibility have always known this, but no one wanted to hear. It was easier to blame Bush for violating human rights. The articles debunk some of the leftists myths about terrorism that the NYT seems to believe. This info has been available for quite a while to those willing to read page 8 stories in lots of papers, but when Spiegel does a cover story like this, it is a big change.
Alpo questions the authenticity of the “alleged” Al Qaeda massacre, but takes AP at it’s word. You know, the guys who photoshopped for destruction in Lebanon last year, took pictures of the same “body” in village after village, and more recently, had to retract a June 28th story of 20 beheadded bodies south of Bagdhad.
Sorry, Alpo, but making stuff up is your guys’ calling card.
By the way, we’re still waiting for your detailed plan for getting Osama and pals. Put up, or shut up.
Neo,
Do you really think anyone who was against our troops presence in their town would approach Yon and his armored escort, much less express their opinion?
Whenever I hear the “we’ll be greeted as liberators” shtick, it always reminds of this great bit from Catch-22:
I was a Fascist when Mussolini was on top.
Now that he has been deposed, I am anti-Fascist.
When the Germans were here, I was fanatically pro-German.
Now I’m fanatically pro-America!
You’ll find no more loyal partisan in all of ltaly than myself.
Alpo,
Back at you.
Do you really think you would come out in public and shmooze with the hated occupiers if most in your village would label you a collaborator?
Alpo once again demonstrates how much he “cares” for the Iraqi people by equating them with the “shameful opportunist” old man pimp in a movie.
neo alludes to it, yet I find it interesting that Britain, France, and Germany have moved towards the U.S., via electing more conservative leaders/governments (though I realize “conservative” is relative in each case). Rather than “mend fences”, as NYT advises, we are displaying leadership.
I wish, as David McKennon says, NYT wanted us to hurry and pull out before we effectively succeed. Harry Reid may fear our success in Iraq, maybe. I don’t believe Pelosi or the NYT can conceive of our military aiding Iraqi success as a democratic state. I think neo is correct: NYT fears a Dem Pres getting pulled into the muck.
I hope we still have a significant troop presence in Iraq in 2050. We are in a generational war. We need presence in Iraq to have influence in the region, and to aid our intelligence capabilitites.
Can we cut the crap for just a bit, Lee?
There’s only one reliable way to gage how the people of Iraq feel about letting our troops stay in their country:
Let them vote on it in a national referendum.
Considering how much our occupation of Iraq would be bolstered, both there and here at home, if a majority of Iraqis voted for us to stay, I think it’s safe to assume Bush and pals know full well the people of Iraq would vote us off the island if they were given a chance.
And by this point, it should be obvious to everyone that Alpo’s plan for getting Osama and pals is nothing more than tossing platitudes around. He’s just going to ignore the question put to him because platitudes are all he has. Thank you for making my point, Alpo.
And when the majority of Iraqis ask us to stay, what will you say then? It was “rigged”?
So far, they’ve had three national referendums, and you were on the wrong side of history all three times.
And how many times do I have to say it before you get it in your pinhead skull. I will not “cut the crap” until you do. When you start to act like an adult around here, I will treat you as such.
I’ve come to consider about anything the Slimes prints to be America-hating claptrap. Reading it’s a waste of time for me.
meanwhile, back in the real world, the republicans are gearing up for bringing the troops home. You keyboard warriors are prepared to fight on with this war/occupation/shambles. Me I can’t wait for the cries of “sell out”
Really, elvis?
You mean, we weren’t aware Bush told us back in November,’06 that troop levels would be coming down by early ’08, wether the surge was sucessful or not? Something to the Iraqi government that “American patience is not indefinite”, or some such thing? Unlike you and your ilk, we endorsed the plan. Why would we call him a “sell out” for implementing his 18 month plan we approved?
Hi –
What the New York Times is actually dreadfully afraid of is having to actually deal with Iraq and all the problems that it entails: this is also the Democrat’s fears.
Right now, they can blame Bush, vilify him, scream to the heavens who it should have turned out differently. How the President “betrayed” them and what a rotten scoundrel he is for making them face reality.
That there is no way that they could have done better is completely ignored, as is the fact that if we hadn’t done anything, it would have been worse.
What the Democrats are deathly afraid of is having to realize that the whole region is totally screwed up and has been for decades, and that waiting and putting off dealing the with problems has made the situation worse, vastly so: the US has ignored the severe demographic and economic problems of that region, preferring, as so many nations did, that we promote “stability” instead.
Well, pardon my language, unless you want to turn the US isolationist – which is apparently an increasingly attractive option for the Democrats – then it’s time people realized that it’s a big shit sandwich, and we’re all going to have to take a bite.
We – the West – created the Middle East by destroying the Ottomans in the wake of WW1, and it’s been a mess since then. The kleptocrats that are called governments have been supported in the name of stability, but that has just made things worse, creating generations of the frustrated and repressed. Any psychologist will tell you that frustration and repression can work for a while, longer sometimes than anyone can imagine, but unless you get to the core problem, you are just waiting for the explosion: it is key to channel that energy, the released frustration, to be something positive, rather than being destructive.
And the same thing applies to the US: the Democrats,right now, are heading towards a pyrrhic victory, one that will destroy them as much as those who they believe to be their enemies. We are rapidly approaching a point where if Congress interferes in the war and cuts the funding, denying the troops the means to fight the war, then the US will no longer be a superpower, but rather will have abrogated its responsibilities. What do you think the backlash will be on that? You think that having an isolationist US will mean fewer wars and less bloodshed? How quaint and naive.
Now I can just hear the “we shouldn’t have gone in, we shouldn’t have gone in” crowd scream their denial, with their vilification of Bush as the man who screwed everything up.
Wake up: it’s not Bush. You just don’t want to admit that regardless of who is in charge, the situation won’t automagically change to bunnies and butterflies just because Bush is not involved: that is clinical BDS.
The fact of the matter is that what is going on in the Middle East is the culmination of generations of mistakes and stupidities, starting with our so-called allies who partitioned countries with the goal of creating divided nations and contradictory loyalties. The French and the British screwed up the area royally. The Russians didn’t help, financing anyone who was anti-West during the Cold War, interested in only one thing: that the US not succeed in anything it attempted to do. Finance caustic Arab nationalism? Fine, as long as the ragheads do what we tell them in opposing US interests.
The goal today must be nothing less than creating a working framework that political conflicts and tensions not be carried out via violence and the literal destruction of enemies. It means breaking the cycle of violence and giving people the chance to make their own decisions.
But as the Democrats block this in the name of partisan politics, they will gain a pyrrhic victory at the cost of their own destruction when people realize how fickle and inconsequential they really are. The Democratic Party, right now, is its own worst enemy. How far it has fallen.
The democrats want to avoid it, but it’s piling up all over them like dog shite–they are going to own Iraq and the Iraq war if they get elected to the whole gazoo.
Bush is not going to walk away from Iraq if it shows any chance at all of succeeding. This means the war will be going full steam if and when the democrats take over both executive and legislative branches–which means that they will own it.
And the dirty little secret they can’t tell their donors is that if the US does not back the attack dogs of Islam into the remotest deserts of arabia and Iran, and mountains of Pakistan, and keep them there, those dogs are coming over here to mess with US civilians.
If the democrats let that happen, then nothing can save them.
Neo: You [alphie] show the same rigor of thought as the NY Times. And believe me, that’s not a compliment.
Alphie actually shows even less, neo, if that’s possible — but since he’s only a troll, what does it matter? Arguing with him is like trying to argue with a wind-up doll. E.g., we should get out of Iraq because the violence is just sectarian, nothing to do with terrorists; but if it is to do with terrorists, well, that too just”reinforces the case the withdrawing our troops”. Same mindless message.
But, quite apart from that sort of assinine stupidity, there’s a serious point to be made here: we went into Iraq in the first place, and remain there to this point, not primarily to free the Iraqi people from the tyranny of Saddam, and not even because of concerns over WMDs (though those concerns were real and valid) — we went in because Iraq was one of the locuses (along with Iran and Syria, and of course Afghanistan) of state-supported international terrorism. And we should remain in Iraq and Afghanistan, at least, until we can be reasonably sure that they won’t revert to that role soon after we leave, regardless of opinion polls or referendums. That’s the point that we should keep at the focus of our attention.
Whether we actually will or not, on the other hand, is looking increasingly doubtful (which explains the idiot smugness of the left). But, after all, it ain’t over yet.
Sally,
Apparently you feel the correct way to debate the Iraq war is with a mix of ad hominem attacks and dubious facts.
Iraq wasn’t a “locus of state-supported terrorism” until we invaded it.
Now, though, terrorism is one of Iraq’s major exports along with oil and refugees.
John’s imaginary participation of the United States in the breakup of the Ottoman Empire made more sense.
Why?
Cause terrorism is increasing in Iraq under our watch, not decreasing.
I believe Opie hinted at the truth. The Democrats–political or print– are panicked at the prospect of dealing with real issues–not the imaginary ones they have invented to be relevant–and so they must see the U.S. out of Iraq at any cost, lest they be the ones to inherit responsilbility for a draw down or maintaining a presence. Fighting things that do not exist they can manage. Fighting a sworn enemy that turned the stomachs of Jefferson and John Quincy Adams will receive the Clinton treatment. They cannot afford to have even the fallout from a withdrawal raining down next summer as an election issue.So it must end now, or it’s no good to them.
Neo: Alfies is a troll, and a stupid one at that. Don’t feed the trolls.
“Apparently you feel the correct way to debate the Iraq war is with a mix of ad hominem attacks and dubious facts.”
No, A, that’s your M.O.
That the NYT could even consider printing such tripe is clear evidence of its utter uselessness. That any sane individual would think such a solution is preferable to the current state of affairs–given the Times’ own iteration of the probable consequences–is a measure of the absence of any coherent thought regarding the state of the world today, and emblematic of the netroot Left, as alphie continues to prove, time and again.
Alphie –
I’m not imagining the US broke up the Ottoman empire, since I didn’t say that: I said the West did, most noticeably the French and the Brits.
I wish that you would improve your reading comprehension. In my sentence above I do not refer to the US in this context.
Sally –
Exactamundo: Iraq isn’t about WMD (the media pumped that one up and out), it’s all about destroying the international terrorism networks. They’re the enemy.
nytimes.comEven when they “get it right”, they have to mix in opinion to try to make it “wrong”.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/08/weekinreview/08burns.html?_r=2&n=Top%2fReference%2fTimes%20Topics%2fPeople%2fB%2fBurns%2c%20John%20F%2e&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
I just love the part where they feel obliged to ask whether what worked in Ramadi will work in Bagdhad.
John,
Are you suggesting “The West” should act in unison on all issues, like global warming and trying suspected terrorists in civilian courts?
How nice of you to ask him in the middle of the night when he’s probably asleep, Alpo. You know you and I are the only ones awake. Why don’t you ask me.
Alphie –
No, I’m not. I’m suggesting that until the West gets it shit together, the US is carrying the weight. Recent French elections threw the venal pack out (and I really hope that de Villepin does some hard time, he really deserves to).
For the West not to be unified means that the enemy doesn’t have to take the West seriously, picking and choosing its attacks: the Lisbon bombing was a clear case of that. If the West were unified, if the UN had enforced its own by-laws, if, if, if.
Neither global warming nor the absurdity of giving illegal enemy combatants access to the courts has anything to do with this.
After 9/11, many overseas said “we are all Americans” and then **they** failed to live up to that. If you want to imagine a past that worked better – you seem to like to do that – then consider this one: where France and Russia, China supported the UN closing Iraq down, instead of their rank betrayal.
Fixing that will take years.
John,
I agree completely with everything you’ve said. That is why I recommended the Spiegel articles. It has taken our friends six years to begin a realistic analysis of the problem in the public forum. And given the rising popularity of the neo-commies in Germany, who are pushing for a German pullout from Afghanistan (no doubt hoping for the destruction of the evil capitalists), it will take a while for reality to strike the general population.
It has everything to do with it, John.
There’s strength in numbers, and compromise is the way to get numbers.
The “Clash of Civilizations” crowd labels everyone who disagrees with them an enemy, then acts amazed when they find themselves in a tiny minority.
Gotta do something about all that CO2 Texas is pumping into the atmosphere if you want to have a hope getting more support on the war from Europe.
And we have to try our terror suspects in civilian courts, like Britain manages to do regularly, without any fuss or bother.
And no more partisan oddities like Scooter’s get out of jail free card if you want more domestic support.
If the war is so important to him, he should have done the time instead of costing Bush a few more percentage points of support.
So, let me get this straight…
If Bush cuts CO2 emissions from Texas, then Europe will say “gee, I guess you guys were right all along about this terror thing. Sign us up.
And you, Alpo. You would leave the Iraqis to their fate because Scooter got a pardon?
And Britain tries the terror suspects it catches in Britain in the courts. It treats the illegal combatants they catch on the battlefield in accordance with the Geneva Conventions: militarily.
With friends like Europe and Alpo, who needs enemies?
God, Alpo, what a jerk.
You remind me of Bob Dylan’s ‘I Shall Be Free No. 10’:
Now I gotta friend who spends his life
Stabbing my picture with a bowie-knife
Dreams of strangling me with a scarf
When my name comes up he pretends to barf.
I’ve got a million friends!
There’s strength in numbers, and compromise is the way to get numbers.
The only strength in numbers you had was Stalin’s belief that there was a quality to quantity all on its own. It is fundamentally ineffective.
And we have to try our terror suspects in civilian courts, like Britain manages to do regularly, without any fuss or bother.
You can certainly give it a try, but we won’t.
blackfive.netHey Neo. Grim Beorn sounds just as you do, Neo.
Link
My personal view is that the media saw what happened on January 2005. They know that pumping “bad news” isn’t enough, they must accelerate and advance the narrative to some decisive conclusion. Otherwise, they have the threat of reality disproving their illusions, as it did in January 2005 with the purple fingers.
Pingback:“Defeat on the homefront”… at Amused Cynic
I’d like to see some discussion somewhere, maybe here, about what was happening in the Ottoman Empire before and during WW1. My view, without doing the necessary reading before I post, is that even if the British and French hadn’t drawn up boundaries that suited these two countries, some boundaries would have been drawn up that would prove unsatisfactory by today’s standards. But who would have drawn these boundaries? The Soviets? The Persians? Some local Arab sheik?
There are no “good old days” to look back to in the Middle East. The Turks ruled by allowing the various communities to rule themselves and pay heavy taxes to the Turks. I.e. they were an “empire,” though a weak one.
Also, since I’m commenting, PLEASE DO NOT RESPOND to Alfie. He’s a troll who drags down the quality of any thread. There are a lot of interesting issues raised in Neo’s post, but they don’t get discussed properly due to Alfie.
My question is, why does anyone continue to listen to the opinions of people who have been %100 wrong about everything for the past five years? How many times do they have to be wrong before they are shunted off into the gutter of public discourse where they belong?
I’m talking about NeoNeocon, Instapundit, the Weekly Standard, and oh yes, the administration…
Why don’t you all just shut up and give the folks who have been right all along a chance to lead? Instead of standing on the deck as your ship sinks trying to bring the world down with you. Try this: as democrats take power in the coming years, instead of undermining and sniping and seeking to shift blame, why don’t you SHUT UP and do your part to help and nothing more.
Otto says “Try this: as democrats take power in the coming years, instead of undermining and sniping and seeking to shift blame, why don’t you SHUT UP and do your part to help and nothing more.”
You mean help like this?
“My son’s best friend, Jon, who’s in the Air Force stationed in New Jersey at Fort Dix/McGuire Air Force Base was shot by a crazed anti-military white guy on Independence Day and he remains in critical condition. He had been on leave here in Ohio and got back to his home off base and was unpacking stuff from his car when this 22 year old guy walked up to him and asked him if he lived in the house. When Jon said yes, the guy said “not any more” and shot him point blank in the chest. He tried to shoot him again, but his gun jammed. Jonathan made it into the house. The guy then shot himself. Turns out the guy left a couple of suicide notes stating how much he hated the military and he wanted to go out making a statement, so he chose to make his statement on Independence Day trying to kill a soldier. We are very worried about our Airman. He’s the sweetest, nicest, do anything for ya kid and he’s like a son to me. He’s been to Iraq and Afghanistan on our behalf and then gets shot in his own driveway here in the U.S by an anti-war, anti-American lunatic. This is gut wrenching.”
That’s the kind of “help” you anti-war folks have been giving the administration for the last 5 years. Had you “SHUT UP” and let the people who really know what’s going on, like Gen. Petraeus and others do what they do best, we’d be in a lot better shape.
There is a real sickness in America, and it doesn’t come from the right.
indybay.orgOtto says “Try this: as democrats take power in the coming years, instead of undermining and sniping and seeking to shift blame, why don’t you SHUT UP and do your part to help and nothing more.”
You are projecting. However, the left should have taken that advice long ago and helped defeat the IO campaigns of the terrorists and help keep the MSN honest. Instead it sided WITH the islamofascists.
Stumbley, My best to Airman, one soldier to another. This is one reason that I am getting my CCW moved to my new duty station. The disgusting attack plan against US Service Members, however, was already published on leftist websites years ago by a “al-masikin”.
link to Indybay
One point the Times also displayed their ignorance is in the religious description of Syria. Syria is majority Sunni, but is ruled by Shi’ite dictators funded and supplied by Iran. Syria was allied to Saddam, but through the fact both leaders were part of the National Socialist Ba’ath Party which blew the “Shias and Sunnies *never* work together theory away long ago.
What else could we have done? The Iraqis bombed Pearl Harbor, or something.
Someone did something. Whatever it was, it isn’t as important as believing in war in general, and President Bush’s War in particular.
All we are saying, is give war a chance. And then some more chances. And when those stretch out, some more chances.
That is why President Bush went to Congress and asked for a Declaration of War, and why he refused to politicize that war. His weekly trips to aircraft carriers to “Welcome the lads and ladettes home” are arduous on him, but someone has to do it.
And President Bush loves the banners that Read: “Mission On-Going & Endless”, because, again, he is a uniter, not a divider.
Neo, whom I respect, wrote the following passage (thanks copy and paste!). Substitute the President and his pre-war planners and you will understand why the American People have turned a deaf ear to this war:
“Why is this all so poorly thought out on the part of the editors [FOR NEO”S EDITORIAL WRITERS, READ: The Post-War planners]? Is it that they are unintelligent? Is it that they really believe that wishing can make it so? Or is it that thinking through these matters may not be the main thing on their minds?”
I would ask those of you who think this war is going well and that opposition to the war makes a person a traitor or stupid: what about that belief that wishing makes it so?
TomJ:
Opposition certainly doesn’t make you a traitor. There are valid reasons for opposing any violent intervention anywhere. What makes the NYT editorial and those who believe in it stupid, however, is ignoring the litany of consequences that the Times itself lists. Tell me how those consequences are any better than the current situation? Tell me how the consequences benefit the U.S. in any meaningful way?
Otto: Try this: … instead of undermining and sniping and seeking to shift blame, why don’t you SHUT UP and do your part to help and nothing more.
Heh.
As others have already pointed out, this would have been — and still is — good advice to give to partisan Democrats and left-libs generally over the past five years. And had the advice been taken, the islamist strategy of playing on the fears and political fractures within the west, fostered by its liberal media, would never have had the success it’s had, the islamist butchers would have had to try something else, and our troops would be on their way home from a democratized Iraq by now.
As it is, unfortunately, the odds are now good that the US will again experience a major defeat and retreat, in a war with a much more vicious and evil enemy than it’s ever faced. There’s still hope, of course — at least until, as Otto says, “the democrats take power”. Then watch for not just the bloodbath and “genocide” (that even the New York Times is predicting, in a gruesomely offhandish way), but also the triumphant flourishing of Al Qaeda within a protected state environment again. What’s funny about Otto’s little tantrum above (however sad and sick as well) is the evidence it provides that, as the good-fun era of Bush-bashing begins to draw to a close, a certain level of foreboding has begun to leak into the sealed compartments of the left-lib mindset. It’s not that they’re worried about the slaughter of Iraqis — heavens no! It’s that they’re already starting to sweat about the possible exposure of their own asses, and the worry that they might actually be blamed for such slaughter. Hence Otto’s ironic — and preemptive! — attempt to SHUT any such critics UP.
I would ask those of you who think this war is going well and that opposition to the war makes a person a traitor or stupid: what about that belief that wishing makes it so?
The war is not “going well”. But the war was not an easy decision in the first place, and is hardly a choice now. Opposition to the war in a principled way is certainly defensible, though at this point it would be nice to see such opposition come up with real alternatives that didn’t involve just shrugging at the prospect of genocide (see the NYTimes), or over the likelihood of another Al Qaeda state sponsor. On the other hand, opposition to the war that involves rooting for the butchers (a la Sicko Moore’s description of them as equivalent to “Minutemen”), or cheap, cynical, partisan potshots (e.g., bfflo tom’s jeering at Bush’s “weekly trips to aircraft carriers”) does indeed make one stupid or treasonous or both. Not that anyone cares enough to say or do anything about it, for now. But let’s see what happens after the Democrats take power, the country flees from the region, and the blood really starts to run.
Tomj,
I have been to Iraq and seen the truth. I have seen the MSM make up stories/lies out of thin air. I have seen them ignor progress day after day. War is very rough. I know this first hand. You have to ask yourself then, why are the US Troops comming back screaming at the “anti-war” crowd to let us do our jobs and keep the terrorists away from you. War is a terrible thing, however, surrender and dhimmitude is FAR worse.
I have also seen leftist “anti-war” groups brag about sending funds to terrorists in Fallujah (Code Pink), side with dictators who support terrorists, and seen Democrats come to the IZ and do everything possible to ruin our progress (without even once asking the troops our opinion).
I have also seen the list of WMD components we recovered in Iraq. Here is a partial list (all of this is open source and declassified). If these are not a “threat”, I would be happy to contact the man who inventoried them and have you taken to the site they are stored at. You should ask your congresspeople, who have seen the classified ISG Report from 2003, why they keep stating we found no WMDs? Do not tell me Bush said we didn’t. He sated that we did not find them in the quantities pre-war intel said they would be in. Then 20 tons of it is captured trying to cross into Jordan from Syria. I state that because you seem to like throwing the “Mission Accomplished” soundbyte around without adding what Bush said next (hint, read his speach).
Nuclear:
-1.95 tons of enriched uranium
-1000 radioactive sources (cesium and other isotopes)
-16 drums of yellowcake from Al-Qaim extraction plant
-An undesclosed rail gun system used to test nuclear detonations. Iraq developed this in secret in 1999. The gun was built at Al-Tahadi. It, along with 500 tons of natural uranium wsa found south of Baghdad in 2003.
Biological Agents.
-Live C. botulinum Okra B (makes batulinum toxin: 1 gram kills 10,000) found hiden in Iraqi Bilogical Weapon’s Scientist’s home.
-Discovered continued, out-lawed and concealed, research on Brucella, Congo Crimean Hemorragic Fever (CCHF), ricin, and aflatoxin. None of this was declared to the UN even after 12 years of sanctions.
-Ricin discovered in Sargat, Iraq along with hidden sacks of castor beans (labled as “fertilizer”) in al-Aziziyah.
-Human testing facilities (prisons) for BW agents.
-Mobile labs for BW agents buried in the desert. 11 found in Karbala.
-Mulitple small fixed BW sites/labs which the UN never knew about.
Chemical
-Multiple attacks against US troops using Mustard and Sarin gas filled shells
-Multiple attacks by terrorists against Iraqi civilians using chlorine gas
-Cyanide labs found in “Safe Houses” in fallujah
-5,000 Lbs of Cyanide found in Taji (total cyanide as of 2004 was 2,370 Kg or 2.4 million leathal doses)
-Various Chemical Weapons Labs
Most of this is in the released ISG Report from 30 Sept 04.
Pingback:sisu
Thank you for the list, ChrisG.
It is just a fact that civilian populations are far more vulnerable to enemy attacks, both physical and psychological in nature, than the soldiers of the US military and navy.
If Americans often act like useful idiots, then I suppose that’s due to how well protected and insulated from reality we are. The President has always been designed as a safeguard against such foreign and domestic influences, in my view. (That bit about foreign princes with a lot of money buying into the Presidency comes into mind) HIs powers of pardon and Executive Orders can literally stall and nullify any attempts to propagandize or deceive the American people. If those powers are used.
Pingback:Yankee Wombat | An American in Oz
Still peddaling the snake oil, eh Paleocon.
Still haven’t learned to spell, eh, Teddie?
Pingback:Jules Crittenden » NYT Cover