The big issue is still Iraq
Anyone who reads this blog knows I consider the Iraq war one of the biggest issues of the day. Yes, it’s faded in the news, mostly because it’s going relatively well now.
But Vietnam was also going relatively well in the Abrams/Vietnamization “second act” of the war, too—that is, until Congress made sure the South Vietnamese lacked the funds to carry on.
If anyone doubts that both Hillary and Obama are determined to repeat the history of our sad end in Vietnam, please read this. And don’t say it’s just rhetoric; words signify intent, even in politicians.
The Democratic Party—to which, when I last checked, both Hillary and Obama belonged—has been dedicated for quite some time now to pulling out of Iraq, and pronto. Once they have a Democratic Congress and a Democratic President who won’t offer the impediment of a veto, do you really think they’ll change tunes and say “never mind?”
In Vietnam the entire “second act” of the war—the Abrams/Vietnamization half—was a race between politics in this country and events on the ground in Vietnam. The first act was poorly run by LBJ, Westmoreland, McNamara, and company, and valuable time and especially positive US public opinion were squandered. The very real gains of the second half of the war fell on deaf ears and on resistant minds that had already decided that the war was a lost cause.
As Dr. Alain Enthoven, head of systems analysis at the Pentagon under the “first act” direction of McNamara, , wrote (quoted in Lewis Sorley’s book A Bettern War):
I see [the Vietnam War] as a race between, on the one hand, the development of a viable South Vietnam and, on the other hand, a gradual loss in public support, or even tolerance, for the war. Hanoi is betting that we’ll lose public support in the United States before we can build a nation in South Vietnam. We must do what we can to make sure that doesn’t happen…Our horse must cross the finish line first.”
Unfortunately, the bet—and therefore the horserace—was lost.
I’ve never seen the wars in Vietnam and Iraq as exactly parallel. The enemy, weaponry, terrain, culture, and administration in charge are all different, as well as there being a volunteer US military now as opposed to a draft. In addition, in the jihadi world we have an enemy who—unlike the Vietcong—has shown its willingness to take the fight to our own shores.
But there are similarities as well: the fight is against an insurgency funded and supplied by others with a dog in the race, willing to use terrorism, and knowledgeable about the importance of influencing public opinion and taking advantage of the impatience of the US populace for any sort of lengthy conflict; there are vocal antiwar politicians and media in this country to give the enemy hope; precious time has been lost to mistakes in the early years of the war; and a later reversal that pointed towards success occurred after much public opinion had already hardened against the war.
Those in the Republican Party who castigate John McCain and feel his Presidency would be at least as dangerous (a word I keep reading)—or even more so—than that of a President Hillary Clinton or a President Barack Obama have yet to explain what would be so very dangerous about it.
To me, the most dangerous thing would be a premature withdrawal from Iraq, sending a message to the world—once again, as if it needed repeating—that American resolve in war does not exist. It would underlining the understanding gained in Vietnam that you no longer have to beat the US in battle. It’s enough to wear down the US populace, and that’s relatively easy to do.
No need to inflict especially heavy casualties. No need to make the people of the US suffer particularly at home. No need to do much of anything, actually, except to kill a bunch of innocent people every now and then in the country under consideration, to do it for enough years, and to get the attention of the US media to publicize it. Then just wait, and you’ll be home free.
[ADDENDUM: Shrinkwrapped comes to the same conclusion from a slightly different angle.]
McCain would not be worse than Obama or Clinton. But neither would he be much different from either. Elections are supposed to be about choice, but McCain offers very little choice from the typical democratic candidate.
If a Democratic president is going to sink the country, I would rather they actually admit being a Democrat. That way, voters will not be so confused the next time they vote.
McCain has never led in his life–he has always been a maverick. Fighter pilots are typical mavericks, and he has chosen the maverick role in the Senate–no surprise. He has flirted with joining the Democratic party, and has sponsored legislation that gave the democrats everything they wanted.
Al Fin: McCain, not different from either Obama or Clinton? Have you read this post at all?
The really terrifying specter is the day that the USA wakes up from the Dhimmicratic stupor and realizes that it is in deep, deep trouble. At that point, the panic will swing the pendulum so far that ROE will go out the window and committing atrocities will become a virtue. In previous wars, as various people have pointed out, when the USA brought its full might to bear, things got very, very ugly. Survivors of both the Russian Front and the Battle of the Bulge said that for all its sheer volume, the Russian artillery was nothing compared to what a desperate, retreating, supposedly disorganized American army unleashed. And Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined did not match the destruction that the Army Air Force meted to Germany.
Marx wrote that history repeats itself, the first time as farce, the second as tragedy. If we wait until we are desperate, the world should be very, very afraid.
That is, if we go down the Dhimmicratic path.
God love you, neo, for banging on this. Those with America’s interests at heart need to keep their eye on the ball to preserve the country from the strategic disaster that would almost certainly befall her if either of the Democratic candidates should be elected.
OK, so some don’t like various bits about McCain. No one says you have to take a long shower with him. But he’s solid on the war, and that’s the one issue that trumps every other consideration, to my mind.
Everything else – everything – is a detail.
not a fan of mcCain based on character alone (i consider myself a moderate) but he will likely be better than the democrats. having said that, when you are president, even as a democrat, you will have access to national intelligence not available otherwise, and will likely end up doing close to the right thing anyway. i know close to the right thing may not be good enough though. WBush really stood out for me when i came to Iraq. lots of character and integrity and spine in sticking it on through all the belly-achings and whinings.
Oh, I read the post, neo. If McCain could win nationally—which is patently impossible—his leadership in Iraq would not distinguish himself from what Hillary or Obama would do. A lot of people seem to be entertaining a fantasy John McCain rather than the real person.
You may as well run a piece of burnt toast in the national election as John McCain. Perhaps you do not remember Bob Dole in 1996. McCain’s loss in November will make Dole’s candidacy look like a close thing.
Suicidal republicans? It certainly looks like it so far.
Fair enough. Electability is another issue, and you may be right about that (although at present I don’t think so).
I was referring to people rejecting McCain on philosophical, rather than tactical, grounds.
Well Al Fin, I guess we’ll all just have to take your word for it. Because I’ve offered evidence to the contrary, but you’ve seen fit to offer absolutely none to rebut what I’ve said.
his leadership in Iraq would not distinguish himself from what Hillary or Obama would do.
So why not vote for McCain if he wins?
Perhaps you do not remember Bob Dole in 1996. McCain’s loss in November will make Dole’s candidacy look like a close thing.
So which Republican nominee did you throw your support behind?
The sleazy backroom tactics in West Virginia today is typical for that part of the country, but not admirable. But it is John McCain through and through. Spiteful to a fault, he wants to destroy anyone who annoys him. He is not in control of himself, which is a bad characteristic for a US President.
I say, if he is elected (snowball’s chance in hell), give him a loaded M-16 every time he holds a Presidential News Conference. Then take bets on how long before he loses it completely and takes out a room full of White House correspondents. It shouldn’t take long.
Al, just the thought of McCain taking out a roomfull of flannelmouthed Andrea Mitchells and other leftover leftists is a great endorsement for him!
I say, if he is elected (snowball’s chance in hell), give him a loaded M-16 every time he holds a Presidential News Conference. Then take bets on how long before he loses it completely and takes out a room full of White House correspondents. It shouldn’t take long.
Hmmmm, are you trying to give me a reason to vote for him?
McCain voted against the “Assault weapons Bill” and “The Brady Bunch Bill.”
Romney supported them.
Ditto on hoping McCain would turn on the press, They are going to turn on him and with Limbaugh disliking him he could pull this out. If he’ll go after the press before he’s elected, I’ll give him another look.
I agree with you, neo: McCain is better than the Dems on the WOT.
McCain is also better than the Dems on taxes; talks a better game than the Dems on SCOTUS and on border protection(if he follows through); and is no worse than the Dems in other areas.
Some of the recent heat, I think, maybe happened like this:
1. Conservatives spliner their votes amongst Huckabee, Thompson, Romney, Giuliani.
2. Moderates/Independents – with MSM cheering them every step of the way – push momentum to McCain.
3. Money and endorsers and voters sense McCain will win. All begin to flow his way.
4. Conservative reaction: What?! We’re only now settling on the one possible conservative candidate who can win – Romney – and money/endorsers/voters are telling us it’s too late?! McCain is a shoo-in?! Conservatives are thus outraged and frustrated. Big names: Limbaugh/Coulter et al, overspeak in opposition to McCain. However, let me postulate: w/o Limbaugh/Coulter et al overspeaking(maybe for political purposes), Romney had no chance. After the overspeaking, Romney does have a chance.
5. Moderates outraged at conservatives who went too far with their rhetoric (said they would never vote for McCain in general election).
6. Conservatives who did not go too far with their rhetoric (i.e. me and most conservatives), sense, fairly or unfairly, a mood across the media and many blogs: it’s over; McCain is the winner; just accept McCain and hush up.
Now, that has not been your messag, neo, on this blog. Yet, from our perspective, it has been an almost perceptible message in media and in much of blogosphere. And so we (me, anyway) have fought back against that meme as best we could.
First, even after McCain wins Super Tuesday, the Repub nomination race is not over. Romney will still have a chance. Seriously.
Second, if McCain wins the nomination, he will need to be pressured by us. We need to start that pressure now.
McCain responds to pressure. He doesn’t respond to philosophic reasoning. He responds to pressure. If those are the ground rules, we must do what we can, and fight the good fight. Light up the White House phone lines.
And that’s my interpretive recap of the brouhaha over the last days.
If McCain wins the nomination, I will be sick over it. Excepting Iraq, and maaybe taxes(but I’m not holding my breath) I don’t trust McCains words to be translated into policy.
Even on the overall, worldwide WOT, I’m not positive McCain understands the mind of the enemy. I hope he does. Yet, his instinct is always – make people like me via concessions, make people like us via concessions – I’m afraid McCain might instinctively try to win Jihadi favor through strategic concessions. He might try to negotiate w/people who cannot be negotiated with.
I’m comfortable w/McCain on Iraq, yet I’m not completely comfortable with him on the wider WOT. And I’m waiting (skeptically) to see about every other area. My hopes are not even one inch high. I’m just waiting to see what the man will do, as I can do nothing else. Except call my Senators. Put em on speed dial.
Right. If McCain takes out a roomfull of reporters before the election, he gets my vote. But I want to see death certificates.
😉
A lifetime Democrat, and for many years a party activist, I voted Republican and for McCain in Michigan’s primary, and on the single issue, the war.
There is one difference, Neo, between Iraq and Vietnam. In the latter, those who wished for the defeat of American arms could at least claim they believed that the North Vietnamese were agrarian reformers, a nation of poets, nice, gentle people…they certainly mouthed all the slogans that leftists love.
In Iraq they can’t possibly do that; the insurgents open espouse every value that progressives claim to detest. In Iraq they’re rooting for the success of the enemy for sheer partisan political reasons.
Bush could preempt a Obama or Hillary surrender by issuing a an orderly pull out … stating what and why he is doing it along the way.
Alex Bensky: there’s another difference as well. While the Vietnam War and the pullout there was happening, we didn’t really know how it would all turn out. Now, in Iraq, we have before us the history of the Vietnam years, so no one can claim ignorance on that score.
talks a better game than the Dems on SCOTUS and on border protection(if he follows through);
No matter who is president, the next administration will sign a guest worker program that includes some kind of amnesty for the Mexicans already here.
There is no way around it. Boomers didn’t have enough kids to sustain this economy and the ‘Millenials’ are getting too old for the crappy minimum wage jobs the Mexicans will take.
The economic osmotic pressure is into the US and short of STASI Border Guards and lots of dead brown people on the border, they will come North.
They will die to come here to take the crappy jobs we need cheap labor for.
We should at least be honest about it rather than playing “ollie, ollie, oxen free!”
It’s a New World Country: I grew up in New Mexico and I live here still.
For myself, I would rather have my corner store selling “Budweiser Clamato, Sal y Limon” than “a nice chardonnay”
“I say, if he is elected (snowball’s chance in hell), give him a loaded M-16 every time he holds a Presidential News Conference. Then take bets on how long before he loses it completely and takes out a room full of White House correspondents. It shouldn’t take long.”
You make my mouth water. This alone raises McCain up a notch.
Fantasy image:
Dana Perino is conducting a new conference when interrupted by the sullen, indolent Hellen Thomas making some smart assed statement disguised as a question. Dana reaching down behind the podium to produce an AT4 and turns Thomas into a grease stain.
Oh, I gotta stop doing that to myself. Its not healthy. It really isnt.
Heh…. I didn’t even vote in the NM Republican primary.
I’m just voting against Obama al Hussein and Billary in the general….
Mitt = Toast
Maybe I missed the point of this thread. What I got out of it is, McCain may not be the candidate we all want, but he’s still better than em>Obambi or Her Royal Thighness. I have to agree with neo here, the main issue is still Iraq, and we have to see it through.
McCain may not be any kind of Republican ideal, but at the end of the day he’s so far above Billary and the Obamanation abomination that no credibly mature person could possibly rationalize choosing “cancer over the flu”… Survey the numbers tonite, and realize how much of the country is leaning hard lame left; Consider the long-term ramifications that is the billion strong black hole of islam from Afghanistan thru western europe, and the tenacity which will be required to survive and thrive in spite of that threat; People need to understand that Iraq and the related affairs is nothing less than a resurgence of WWII, with Hitler’s original hardcore allies, the “islamists”, with the Pali’s again (remember the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem) at the lead, picking up where they left off…. There is simply too much at stake now, even the WWII stakes pale by comparison, to gamble on the manchurian candidate, or the little fame and fortune game being played by the ultimate “power couple” Billary…. For an eye opener concerning Obama’s insidious (important word) agenda check out this from Front Page magazine.com/Joe Kaufman or at The Unity Coalition for Israel: Radical Muslims for Obama, http://www.israelunitycoalition.org/news/article.php?id=2318
Then I had this other fantasy, or dream rather, where Im sitting in front oif the TV watching the news and stuffing myself with a tasty Marie Calander microwave chicken dinner when the White House holds a press conference, and in this press conference, two small doors open up from behind and either side the speaker and a pack of Doberman pinchers erupt through them and leap into the screaming reporters. The spokesperson says “see ya suckers” and makes her departure, leaving the cameras to pan the action with dogs leaping thru the air, and yours truly with a mouth full of food and a loaded fork paused in mid feed, eyes wide a saucers:
holy shit.
WHO LET THE DOGS OUT!?! WHOOF, WHOOF, WHOOF, WHOOF!!
I leap out of my chair. “UHHMMF! MUMMPH MU SSHTUFFA MUMMANUHNA”
(AHH! Serves you right you stupid sons of bitches!)
Right then, and only at that moment do I come to my senses and realize a very horrible event is now taking place:
Im not recording this for later!
AHHHH!!! WHERE”S MY REMOTE!!!
WHO LET THE DOGS OUT!?! WHOOF, WHOOF, WHOOF, WHOOF!!
This is where I wake up screaming and thrashing. My VCR remote is never far away from where I am, just in case.
Little question that McCain is a better choice for POTUS if for no other reason than the war. Problem is he isn’t as electable as the MSM has been making him out to be. He’s going to ride into the nomination appealing to voters in states that he will lose to Hillary/Obama anyway. Does anyone really think he’s going to steal NY or NJ or IL, or CA away from the Dem candidate? Few other places (of electoral significance) can he seem to draw even a majority of Republican votes. How can he draw enough in those places in a general election?
All those who voted for McCain for supposedly tactical reasons have been had.
Oh, and before someone shoots back ‘what about PA or MI or OH?, let me just say that those are places where his alienation of the base will come back to bite him.
Sure, I think those who sit it out are doing the wrong thing, but really, we’ve got no one but McCain to blame. He’s the one who got people so riled up and essentially said ‘F- ’em! I’m a maverick! I’ll win without them, I’ve got moderates!’.
Good luck to him.
By attempting to rationalise voting for an inferior candidate–long before his nomination was a foregone conclusion–the apologentsia may have managed to shoehorn the badly flawed candidate into a job he cannot fulfill. It seems likely.
By taking opinion polls seriously about an election that was over six months in the future, this apologentsia may have set in motion events certain to not only put a Democrat in the White House, but to destroy the Republican base that formerly got out the vote for Republicans.
Iraq is a surface phenomenon. You can sacrifice the deeper, more meaningful reality by thinking you are “seeing it through”, when what you are actually doing is blinding yourself to larger events than 9/11 looming over you.
McCain is not the problem. He is a symptom of the problem. A lack of depth and understanding of what is truly happening.
nj, you misquoted Marx. He wrote that history repeats itself, but in the opposite order: the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce.
There was a successful precedent of expulsion of Mexican illegals from US. Onle several dozen thousand of them were actually rounded up and bussed, but over 700 000 were scared enough to leave the country voluntary.
After the war, the U.S. began a new campaign of deportation, on a much larger scale than during the Depression. The expulsions lasted well into the 1950s, and sent more than 4 million immigrants, as well as many Mexican Americans, to Mexico.
If it’s Mac vs. Hillary, I think the vast majority of Reps will vote McCain, and only the elite “purists” will be holding their noses.
The real Rep problem is that, except for pro-Christian Huckabee, the other Rep candidates aren’t so great in most positive ways. McCain is pro-Victory in Iraq, and I really believe a LOT of Americans want, desperately, to win there. Yes, in huge part because of Vietnam, and the reality of what not winning really looks like.
(GC Scott as Patton: “Americans love a winner, and will not tolerate a loser. That is why America has never, and will never, lose a war.”) America did not lose the Vietnam War — it lost the Vietnam Peace after the 1973 Peace Accords.
Huckabee has his Christian, plus the small but real Fair Tax folk. McCain has many veterans (tho many hate him, too — for his impurity).
But winning in Iraq really IS so important, that I believe a Dem President in 2009 will not reduce to 0 the number of US troops left there.
And Iran, even more than Iraq today, is the problem of the near future. How to stop the mullahs from getting a bomb?
I suggest the US gives to Iraqi Generals a non-nuclear cruise missile for every person killed by IEDs, and let the Iraqi forces decide how long they will tolerate Iraq being the public bleeding / leading (lede?) cannon fodder for the Iranian (and Saudi) anti-Western terrorist killers.
The US forces are now training the Iraqi Military — which will probably become the Army that Liberates Iran when a competent (more than non-corrupt), nationalist Iraqi General starts getting more political support against Iran.
With limited but victory-decisive US air support.
(I think McCain should be asking the newsfolks why their paper supports the terrorists, and telling folks to stop reading those papers. I’d like him to use RICO laws and the fact that the NYT violated the National Security Laws to help out the terrorists — in conspiracy with terrorists to support murder of Americans. If NYT goes bankrupt, I fantasize about the widows of US military getting ownership instead of the current owner, Sulzberger )
Excellent post, Neo. I agree, Iraq is still THE issue, making McCain the only choice if he gets the nom.
Tom Grey:
“If it’s Mac vs. Hillary, I think the vast majority of Reps will vote McCain, and only the elite “purists” will be holding their noses.”
I dont know why the label “purist” and or “elitist” must be used. Your going to have to explain that. Do you mean that an actual conservative candidate came along with better electability, you’d stick with McCain?
Please, Its bad enough he’s the front runner, I dont need the added insult as being labeled a crank for being a conservative looking for a conservative candidate. It should be enough for you that Ive pledge to hold my nose to vote for this guy in the general election. (Im not voting for the guy in the primary). You guys arent making that choice easier by insulting the rest of us.
Obama is sugar; Hillary is vinegar; McCain is castor oil. Castor oil probably loses to sugar but wins over vinegar. Go vinegar! go!
Somebody once told me that in the old days whenever a King of Spain was coronated, the assembled nobles and grandees would say, by ritual, “We who are just as great as you, accept you for our king.” So must we be with McPotus.
This is no time to slam the door and sulk.
I cant get any respect at any time at all can I? If I dont accept “the Maverick” completely, I’m a hardcore purist and an elitiest. Now Im told Im sulking. Enough of the insults already.
The ritualy spoken pledge in this case might well be: “We who are despised by you have no choice but to except you as king.” The least you can do is quit demanding that I should like the idea.
Pingback:The Thunder Run
You don’t have to like the idea. i sure as hell don’t. Don’t you want any hold at all over the arrogant jerk?
“I think McCain should be asking the newsfolks why their paper supports the terrorists. . .”
Good luck, Tom – sucking up to the media has been McCain’s M.O. from day one. Which, as one of the “purists” and “elitists” who can’t stand the man, is yet another reason I cannot bring myself to vote for him. The man’s entire career has been spent making deals and shaking hands with his “good friends” in the Democrat party while running to the terrorist-supporting media to knife the GOP in the back at every opportunity. To think that such a windsock would stand up to Pinch Sulzberger’s quivery frown when it comes to the conduct of the war, on border security, on conservative judges or on the economy is to indulge, in the words of the Horny Hick from Arkansas, in a “fairy tale.”
I will say that the only pleasure I will have in seeing McCain as the GOP nominee will be the look of awestruck incredulity on his face as his good Democrat friends and his media pals turn on a dime and gut him like a fish. That arrogant smirk on his face will be slapped off so hard, he’ll have to charter a fishing boat to the Grand Banks to find his teeth.
Speaking of stupid reasons to vote for a guy – I’m thinking of pulling McCain’s lever just to piss off all the McCain haters out there. If Bush were running again, I’d vote for him. Same reason, different haters.
Whoa, Christopher, eloquently phrased. For those us forced to vote for the guy in order to preserve our efforts in Iraq, I just hope that look of awestruck incredulity doesnt happen to all of us.
That’s actually fairly honest, although you and I might define “relatively well” by two different standards.
Only in the politics, which is all that matters apparently. But the “stabbed in the back” theory appears to broadly applicable to many wars, at least by its proponents.
As you appear to be considerably more reasonable about these things, you may not be aware that their biggest fear is that while we may defeat the Arabs in Iraq, will be run over by Mexicans at home.
Xanthippas–
Actually, overrun with ‘foreign criminals,’ who just happen to be from Mexico.
It’s going relatively well now.
Neoneo this statement not really the real truth we can argue this,
But in my view two major things make Iraq war faded:
1- The surge of US troops this one issue that US have sale it hard it’s worked.
2- The US lection years which make more attentions to candidates and the race for presidency in US pick the attentions far from Iraq especially inside US although Iraq war comes and goes in all candidates race but its one issue of a list that concerned US citizens.
In the end there is still believe about those reporters and media, and how the filleting goes on, lets don’t forgot that inside Iraq things goes ugly between Iraq themselves make things for them looks bad (reality its their fault) with all ugly and crimes corruptions power seeking fiddling inside Iraq without any sense showing love to their country and their land