Iraq, the surge, and Afghanistan: Obama’s mind is a difficult thing to change
Obama has long been trumpeting Afghanistan as the important front in this war, and so he has to keep on doing it. Going to Iraq and talking to Petraeus was a smokescreen; Obama knows much better than Petraeus what’s important.
Hear the condescension of the junior Senator from Illinois after his talk with Petraeus:
Obama and Petraeus have also staked out opposing positions on whether there should be a timetable for withdrawing American forces.
Obama said that in his meeting with Petraeus, the general discussed his “deep concerns” about “a timetable that doesn’t take into account what they anticipate might be a change in conditions.”
“My job is to think about the national security interests as a whole and to weigh and balance risks in Afghanistan and Iraq,” Obama said. “Their job is just to get the job done here, and I completely understand that.
So, let’s review: Petraeus, the guy who wrote the book on fighting counterinsurgencies, doesn’t get the big picture, but Senator Obama does.
And it’s Afghanistan that Obama knows is more important—although he really doesn’t explain why, except that al Qaeda is taking refuge in nearby Pakistan. That’s been true since the fall of 2001, and it doesn’t seem to have hurt us any.
I submit that Obama emphasizes the importance of Afghanistan over Iraq not for any special strategic geopolitical reasons but because (a) it makes him look like a tough guy; (b) it’s the “good war,” the one the Democrats always favored, so there’s no need for mea culpas; and (c) it’s a way to criticize Bush and McCain.
Obama makes it clear that he still will not admit he was wrong on the surge—and, amazingly enough, that he’d oppose it all over again. In order to justify that he must turn logic on its head, but being an experienced sophist he is capable of doing just that, to wit:
I think it is indisputable that, because of great work that they [it’s unclear who the “they” is in this sentence] have done, as well as the unbelievable work that the troops have done, we’ve made significant progress in terms of reducing violence in Iraq,” he said.
However, Obama would not attribute the decreased violence entirely to the troop surge, which he opposed, instead saying that it was the result of “political factors inside Iraq that came right at the same time as terrific work by our troops. Had those political factors not occurred, my assessment would be correct. …
So the whole thing was just a coincidence of timing, and although the troops of course did great work (we must support the troops, musn’t we?) it wasn’t important and didn’t matter—and, by the way, Obama was right all along.
And then Obama proposes to do in Afghanistan what he doesn’t think we should have done in Iraq, although the latter is a far more central and important country in the Middle East by anyone’s objective evaluation: nation-build. Yes, folks, here’s the plan:
Moreover, lasting security will only come if we heed Marshall’s lesson, and help Afghans grow their economy from the bottom up. That’s why I’ve proposed an additional $1 billion in non-military assistance each year, with meaningful safeguards to prevent corruption and to make sure investments are made—not just in Kabul—but out in Afghanistan’s provinces. As a part of this program, we’ll invest in alternative livelihoods to poppy-growing for Afghan farmers, just as we crack down on heroin trafficking. We cannot lose Afghanistan to a future of narco-terrorism. The Afghan people must know that our commitment to their future is enduring, because the security of Afghanistan and the United States is shared.
Why is this is so much more important than helping strengthen Iraq, including the solidification of that centrally located country’s stability in the wake of the surge? It’s not; one suspects it’s all about making Obama look good.
The Fadhil brothers from Iraq the Model have this to say about Obama’s expertise on Iraq’s importance in the war on terror:
Obama insists that he wants to end the war, as if that would achieve victory. This too indicates a lack of understanding of the nature of the war. Victory in a war on terror requires first and foremost that the ideology of extremists be made unattractive in the hearts and minds of the peoples of the region. The people are the center of gravity in a war of this type, and the winner is the one that attracts the people to his side. This goal can only be achieved by presenting a successful model for stability, liberty, and prosperity; a model that proves beyond a doubt that the people have a path that can lead to a bright future—a choice other than status-quo dictatorships and suicidal ideologies of extremism.
Terrorism cannot be defeated by killing Bin Laden or even killing every single existing member of Al-Qaeda, especially considering the decentralized structure of terrorist organizations. Terrorism can be defeated by offering a model for a bright future that gives people who have suffered for so long hope and saves them from despair.
Iraq is now closer than ever to becoming this model, and victory in this chapter of the war is within hand”¦unless Obama succeeds in ending the war his way.
Obama’s plan in Afghanistan is hardly anything new, and will hardly address the problem’s inherent with FATA, the weak and ludicrous Pakistani efforts in that tribal region. It’s high time we faced the fact that until we address the problems with the Pakistani government, nothing will be achieved in Afghanistan beyond a stale mate.
For a little more on the nonsense of Obama’s Afghanistan plans:
The Man Who Would Be President – Obama Goes to Afghanistan
The Afghanistan Meme is just that. A two-step way of bugging out. It is his last fish tossed to the trained seals of the true Obama believers.
Afghanistan is just getting out of Iraq the long way.
Oh please, I can remember when the left said the only reason we went into Afghanistan was to build a pipeline.
We went into Afghanistan in the months following 9/11 and brought down the Taliban government. Then the UN and NATO took over. The Democrats were not demanding more people in there. It was March 2003 before we went into Iraq.
The Brits do not want to eradicate all the poppies, they think it will be too unpopular. The other Europeans do not want to meet their commitments in terms of troops, etc. So what does Barack intend to do? Send them all packing and go in Soviet Style.
BO said: “My job is to think about the national security interests as a whole and to weigh and balance risks in Afghanistan and Iraq,” Obama said.”
Sorry, he’s not President yet! His “job” is to get elected President which he is are attempting to accomplish by being incredibly arrogant.
“So, let’s review: Petraeus, the guy who wrote the book on fighting counterinsurgencies, doesn’t get the big picture, but Senator Obama does.”
I’m sure Petraeus would be the first to admit that he’s no expert on the big POLITICAL picture. It’s not his job to be. Believe me, the somewhat more insular military picture is keeping him plenty busy.
“I submit that Obama emphasizes the importance of Afghanistan over Iraq not for any special strategic geopolitical reasons but because (a) it makes him look like a tough guy; (b) it’s the “good war,” the one the Democrats always favored, so there’s no need for mea culpas; and (c) it’s a way to criticize Bush and McCain.”
Ummm….(b) actually seems like a pretty good reason. It’s nice to be in the right, and not to be having to apologize all the time.
As for the troop surge, there’s no inconsistency in pointing that the surge was a successful military operation that has not brought us any closer to a political solution in Iraq. I don’t know anyone who doubted that the surge would have some MILITARY benefits. And indeed, had the surge been twice as large as it was, it would have had even more dramatic military benefits, which of course would likewise have brought us no closer to a political solution in Iraq.
And I don’t think nation building is exactly what Obama has in mind in Afghanistan, though I could be wrong about that. I do think he wants to see economic development and the emergence of more monied interests there, simply because they will be forces within Afghanistan that have something to lose, and when you have something to lose, you aren’t so quick to go to war or tolerate whack jobs who aim to take over your country.
vanderleun Says: “The Afghanistan Meme is just that. A two-step way of bugging out. It is his last fish tossed to the trained seals of the true Obama believers.
Afghanistan is just getting out of Iraq the long way.”
I’ll take the long way. It sure beats no way.
Actually, vegasguy, part of the job we are paying him for includes chairing the Foreign Relations Committee’s Subcommittee on Europe, which handles NATO and therefore the NATO presence in Afghanistan. He hasn’t done that job, and I see no evidence that he has done anything to improve his understanding of these regions. Had he read posts and listened to podcasts from Fausta and the Sanity Squad, he would be better informed about the internal dynamics of Pakistan and their bearing on Afghanistan. He doesn’t seem to get much more than soundbites from his 300 advisors.
His condescension toward Petraeus makes me furious: “Their job is JUST to get the job done here…” That man’s academic credentials put Obama’s to shame, and they are backed up by life experience and real world accomplishment. In contrast we have a partial removal of asbestos from a housing project, a bunch of “present” votes, and a big house for Michelle. He treats Petaeus and the rest of the military as if they were feeble-minded cleaning ladies, kept on only because he feels sorry for them although they leave streaks on the windows.
Obama has very serious character flaws. I hope someone finds a way to reveal them to tthe public before it’s to late.
I don’t know anyone who doubted that the surge would have some MILITARY benefits.
–sd
sd — That’s what Obama’s talking point onw, but not what he said last year:
“I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there. In fact, I think it will do the reverse.”
–Barack Obama, January 10, 2007
“Finally, in 2006-2007, we started to see that, even after an election, George Bush continued to want to pursue a course that didn’t withdraw troops from Iraq but actually doubled them and initiated a surge and at that stage I said very clearly, not only have we not seen improvements, but we’re actually worsening, potentially, a situation there.”
–Barack Obama, November 11, 2007 [two months after Gen. Petraus testified that the surge was working]
It’s hard to tell whether Obama is an ignorant fool or calculating bastard.
Combine choice number one with choice number two and you are getting there.
Well, the long term future of sectarian violence is still unclear. Sure, while we’re still sitting there in our tanks and attack helicopters, everyone is on their best behavior. But delaying the final, inevitable bloodletting that is going to take place in Iraq may well result in its being somewhat worse than it would otherwise have been. Only time will tell.
sd — Only time will tell can be the answer to anything. In the short term, however, you and Obama got your claims dead wrong.
OBH 11-22-06 “Given the deteriorating situation it is clear at this point that we cannot through putting in more troops or maintaining the presence that we have expect that somehow the situation will improve.”
OBH Today — “There might have been improvement without our military”.
He has put all his chips on the surge failing, and it has been a spectacular success. Ask Katie C., today finally she reported the overwhelmingly positive numbers.
sd, you people have been forecasting doom and gloom since day one. It was already supposed to have been worse by now. Remember? You guys were calling this an un-winnable civil war prior to the surge. You guys were the ones predicting the failure of the surge before it even started, and now that neither of those things have come to pass, all you have left is; “..inevitable bloodletting that is going to take place in Iraq may well result in its being somewhat worse than it would otherwise have been.”
First of all, thanks for supporting your country as we were making this Herculean humanitarian effort, you freaking louse. Your continued dire predictions of doom and gloom were very helpful as brave people died to secure what we have now. Thanks for being a filthy partisan sycophant for continuing to predict bloody failure while barely concealing the fact that you sound as if you relish the proposal.
vanderleun is right. If the party approved narrative disapproved of our efforts in Afghanistan, (no different than what we’re hoping to do in Iraq) Obama would claim it a distraction from fighting the war on global warming.
You people are just that transparent.
“My job is to think about the national security interests as a whole and to weigh and balance risks in Afghanistan and Iraq,” Obama said. “Their job is just to get the job done here, and I completely understand that.”
If the they referred to here is Petraeus, it’s a doubly stupid comment.
Gen. Petraeus, was recently appointed to head Centcom, which oversees an area that includes BOTH Iraq and Afghanistan. So, Gen. Petraeus job actually is all about looking at the bigger picture in the region.
What hubris to not even get up to speed on things military that are so important right now and will continue to be if (God forbid) Obama gets elected to POTUS.
sd,
You need to expand your horizons, venture out beyond the boundaries of your own mind, which apparently you believe to have ALL the answers. (uhhh, something like Obama???)
Today, neo cited the Fadhil brothers from a particularly good blog: Iraq the Model. There are thousands of them out there, though. Try reading beyond the barriers of your mindset, and sooner or later, you might come across something that actually sounds sensible. At the very least, it’s a real change from Demo talking points and glib but empty remarks that are designed to keep your mind just where the Dems want it. Swallowing whole what they feed you, and doing whatever they can to prevent you from T-H-I-N-K-I-N-G.
(In major elections, both parties can be guilty of this but this year the Dems are insulting their own members with the wish-washiness of their changing messages. But then, Obama’s lemmings have been unusually compliant, and willing to follow him off the cliff, should he decide that he wants to go there)
Not to worry. The war in Iraq is basically over and will be over before the Messiah takes office. His only official duty in Iraq will to be the surrender of the victory. His white flag with the new ‘Messiah’ logo is now in production. Within days all moonbats will possess one.
By the way, is it illegal to shoot a moonbat since they are neither human nor animal? They aren’t in my game (hunting) rules and regulations and that usually means the no limit season is open year round. I wonder if Hanoi John still has them thar licenses a person could rent.
Obama has just denied that the extreme violence our military has brought upon the Baathist remnants, the al Qaeda forces, and the Iranian proxies inside Iraq had anything to do with the reduction in enemy activity and violence.
This is a stunningly shallow understanding of the situation. He actually thinks that the enemy went kumbaya and decided to work together. Just absurd. It also means he has utterly no grasp of the strategic objectives of Iran. He does not understand the concept of Islamic jihad. And he has no grasp of how deeply the Baathist thugs had set their talons into Iraqi society, organizationally and psychologically.
Am I missing something?
High ranking officers in our military tend to come in three flavors. They are administrators, politicians, and operators. Sometimes you will find two of the characteristics in one General or Admiral. IMO, Genral Petraeus combines all three. He is a warrior, an intellectual, a statesman, and much, much more. Would that either one of our candidates for President had his qualifications.
For Senator Obama to offhandedly dismiss Petraeus’ advice is a measure of his arrogance and lack of understanding of his own lack of qualifications.
If people thought Iraq was a tough sled, Afghanistan is just in the first innings. They have no infrastructure, no resources (except poppies), competing ethnic groups, a 6th century religion, geographic isolation, and they have been at war more or less non-stop for most of their history. That is not much of a basis on which to build a even a semi-modern nation.
The NATO force there is not working out because too many European nations will not allow their soldiers to fight. As long as there is a hideout for the wahhabis in Waziristan, it will be a long war of attrition even if we “surge” there. When it gets too painful, BHO will probably declare victory and cut out. As vanderleun says, it’s just the long way home from Iraq.
If it gets really bad, it may become like the inner city of Washington, Chicago, St. Louis, or LA.
I’d feel a lot better about Obama if he’d at least been able to mediate peace between Chicago gangs, but apparently he didn’t do that either. To think he could give Petraeus a few tips is ludicrous. At least Petraeus knows how many states are in U.S. (Cheap shot – couldn’t resist.)
As far as I can tell, Obama’s job as “community organizer” was basically to shake down local government for cash to run pointless programs.
What does it say that maybe 50% of our population thinks Obonga may be qualified for the job? What in the hell has happened to our country that this Marxist, Ivy-educated lawyer has seduced so many people? Especially those who do not have any strong identification with the Left. People who are slightly Left-of-Center perhaps still have some ability to think independently of their party and their organizations, and should be able to see that this man is not qualified. Hell, in the early to mid-Nineties I was roughly there on the spectrum, having been Far Left not a decade earlier, and I would have seen that he is not qualified. I would not have voted for him. I voted for Bill Clinton, and was not about to vote for Ralph Nader – and I think Obonga is to the Left of Ralph Nader. Hell, Bill Richardson is far more qualified for the job.
I am deeply worried about the damage the next four years will bring. I feel confident that in 2012 the nation will reject the Left root and branch, and the Democrat Party will be in the wilderness for perhaps decades. And that’s not good for the country to have the other party in such a messed up state. Who and what will bring the Democrats back to sanity? Certainly as long as George Soros and his ilk are still alive that is not going to happen, as he will never tire of trying to bring the United States into line with Euro-socialism.
Barack Obama is an intellectual pygmy compared to Gen. Petraeus. Not fit to carry the general’s jockstrap.
You know, I easily see Gen Petraeus relegated to the ash-bin of short-term history almost as soon as Barack the Obama assumes power.
Here’s a fascinating article by a columnist in the London Times Online:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/david_aaronovitch/article4374704.ece
“Soon, We Will Hate Obama Too.” He argues that what makes the US indispensable also makes us hated. And has some interesting things to say about the European and specifically the British attitudes about us (complicated).
harry writes “You guys were calling this an un-winnable civil war prior to the surge. You guys were the ones predicting the failure of the surge before it even started…”
I’m not sure there’s any such thing as an unwinnable civil war. In most civil wars, one side or the other wins. I see no reason to think that this one will be any different. As for the surge, I never predicted the failure of the surge as a military operation. Ditto for “shock and awe” and virtually every other major military campaign of this conflict.
“What does it say that maybe 50% of our population thinks Obonga may be qualified for the job?”
The problem, I think, is that so many “highly qualified” people have been elected and then sucked.
“First of all, thanks for supporting your country as we were making this Herculean humanitarian effort, you freaking louse. Your continued dire predictions of doom and gloom were very helpful as brave people died to secure what we have now.”
The different religious factions within Iraq have hated each other for centuries and will no doubt continue to do so. How my ackowledgment of this constitutes a failure to support our troops escapes me. Our troops did not cause the Sunni to hate the Shia, or vice versa. The only reason these groups aren’t killing each other right now is because our troops are there, stopping them. So, if you think our troops will be to blame if these factions go at each other after our eventual departure, I don’t know what to say except that you’re sadly mistaken. Our troops have done exactly what they were asked to do. If Sunni and Shia groups slaughter each other down the road, that will in no way, shape or form be the fault of the US soldier from Peoria just rotating out of his third tour in Iraq.
“The only reason these groups aren’t killing each other right now is because our troops are there, stopping them.”
Because there is no way that they might actually put together a coalition government that functionally maintains a society based on rule of law that is impartial to tribal ties! That’s just impossible! Never mind that Iraq has at times in it’s history had the most integrated society in the Arab world.
Well, we know what you think of the little brown people.
“The only reason these groups aren’t killing each other right now is because our troops are there, stopping them.”
Right.. because there has been nothing but continious non-stop killing since 622 AD.
“”What does it say that maybe 50% of our population thinks Obonga may be qualified for the job?
FredHjr””
It says that there is no limit in sight to the pathogen that has infected the liberal mind. Their foreign policy seems downright weird because they’re dancing around the issue to get back to the ONLY subject they’re interested in. The Holy grail of American domestic policy and its wealth redistribution.
“Because there is no way that they might actually put together a coalition government that functionally maintains a society based on rule of law that is impartial to tribal ties! That’s just impossible!”
No, it’s possible. It’s possible that this might happen everywhere in the world by tomorrow morning. It’s bloody improbable, though.
“The only reason these groups aren’t killing each other right now is because our troops are there, stopping them.”
By all means, lets continue to pump out meaningless “Save Darfur” bumperstickers.
“Right.. because there has been nothing but continious non-stop killing since 622 AD.”
Well, if you DON’T think they would go at each other, why do you suppose we have so many troops over there whose aim is the keep them from fighting?
“sd Says:
July 22nd, 2008 at 6:51 pm
Well, the long term future of sectarian violence is still unclear. Sure, while we’re still sitting there in our tanks and attack helicopters, everyone is on their best behavior. ”
You haven’t been paying attention.
More important than the tanks and helicopters is the Marine corporal leading a squad stationed in the neighborhoods and shopping areas in COPS that turned the situation around.
“I’m sure Petraeus would be the first to admit that he’s no expert on the big POLITICAL picture. ”
Why, no, he wouldn’t, because he IS an expert in the BIG political picture.
Try to keep up, ‘mkay?
“You haven’t been paying attention.
More important than the tanks and helicopters is the Marine corporal leading a squad stationed in the neighborhoods and shopping areas in COPS that turned the situation around.”
You’re right. Armor and air power have played a minor role in our military operations in Iraq.
Sometimes the guys making the plans have a convenient situation:
If it goes one way, great. If it goes the other way, that’s a different benefit.
So, if Iraq can become a functioning democracy, great.
If they can’t…well, I’ve been telling you those Islamics can’t work in the modern world and we had better be very, very careful letting them at the important stuff, like weapons and oil, and the franchise in this country.
See what happened in Iraq after all our sacrifice? Took that gift and crapped on it.
In the WOT, either is a win. The latter, if it happens which I devoutly hope it won’t, will help to educate some of our cultural relativists.
“See what happened in Iraq after all our sacrifice? Took that gift and crapped on it.”
Well, you certainly had plenty of people warning you *in advance* that your “sacrifice” was unwanted and would probably not be interpreted as such. You’re like the aged aunt who gives her teenage nephew an age-inappropriate Christmas gift every year.
Combined arms warfare including armor and airpower took down the Republican Guard. Armor and airpower remain important against military and paramilitary action, including the people who sneak out at night to plant bombs.
But individual officers and soldiers win the Civil Affairs battle. And intel capabilities including fingerprint and iris scans on the one hand and UAVs on the other are keeping the enemy from putting the people into place to regroup. Policemen serving in the National Guard are teaching the Army (and Marines) and the Iraqi National Police how to spot people who don’t fit into a scene. Etc.
(There. Strawman gone. Let’s see no more of it.)
As Douglas points out, Petraeus is the new head of Central Command, so it is absolutely part of his job to think about the allocation of forces between Iraq and Afghanistan.
Remember, Obama has no executive experience, and probably has no real comprehension for how large organizations need to work. He probably views senior executives, like Petraeus, as mere flunkies whose job is to execute the strategies thought out by Himself.
sd.
And if things go as you wish, the perceived menace of marching Islam will be increased.
As I say, win-win.
“Armor and airpower remain important against military and paramilitary action…But individual officers and soldiers win the Civil Affairs battle.”
So, you’re arguing that we need BOTH large scale armaments AND soldiers on the ground. That’s a provocative and completely novel hypothesis, but I’ll be damned if it doesn’t have the ring of plausibility about it.
“Remember, Obama has no executive experience, and probably has no real comprehension for how large organizations need to work.”
If so, then he’ll have plenty in common with many of our nation’s most well-seasoned executives.
Fred, to your point, when that numbskull JFK Jr. made his N mile flight to an N+1 mile distant destination, many commenters on an AOL chatroom blubbed about how we’d “lost a great leader” who “would have made a great President.”
Huh? A glamorous pretty boy, you bet. A rich nitwit, but of course. But a leader? That was scary.
This doesn’t make sense. How can “well-seasoned executives” lack executive experience?
In an article in the Washington Post (12/09/07) Robert Maranto (Professor, Villanova University) calls it an “ideological isolation from reality.” Even in the face of failed policies, liberals are incapable of recognizing policy failure. The mindset is something like “the policy is sound, it was the surrounding circumstances and distractions which prohibited its success.”
Obama, once again, evinces this Marxist trait with his comments about Afghanistan, Iraq and the surge. Link – see paragraph 13: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/07/AR2007120701618_pf.html
T,
I’m a former Marxist – and let me emphasize FORMER – for the fact that, as you alluded to, socialism is a failure. Anyone with half a brain cannot refute the evidence of history. I only went down that path intellectually (I wasn’t the activist kind of Leftist) because I was hoping to find – epistemologically, ethically, and scientifically – a “third way” socialism that could combine the best of socialist emphases on social justice with the best of capitalism. I found it could not be done. Human nature is just not that way, and I can talk about insights about this from neuroscience and genetics that support the conservative argument that you cannot change human nature.
Utopian thought is deader than a doornail.
Evil has an organic basis, because there are profound cosmological dimensions to it that take root in the created order.
To all those on neo’s forums who are committed Leftists or soft-socialists: you haven’t gone deeply enough into the theory that informs your policy prescriptions and ideology. You are never going to perfect human beings or the social order. The best we can do is to combine both voluntary charity with fiscal policy that does not kill capital formation, work, and ingenuity.
Obonga is an intellectual light weight. I would clean his clock in a debate about Marxism/socialism. He’s a lawyer, not an intellectual. There are gaping lacunae in his intellectual formation, experience, and maturation process. If a man his age has not experienced disillusion with socialism, I have very serious questions about the quality of his mind and the rigidity of his intellect (not a good thing).
your “sacrifice” was unwanted and would probably not be interpreted as such.
SD – Will you please poke your head up out of your rut and read something beyond your usual anti-war fare?
The majority of Iraqis have said from 2003 on that the invasion of their country to topple Hussein has been worth even in the face of the hardships since. See http://engram-backtalk.blogspot.com/2006/09/no-nonsense-overview-of-public-opinion.html.
This result has been consistent. Sufficiently so, that the Pew poll no longer asks the question anymore.
Your link to a Sept, 2006 blog entry is not working, at least at the moment. I did browse about the front page of the blog though. Thanks for pointing me toward such an authoritative source of information. At first I was going to make fun of you/it, but then I realized that, since this a gen-u-wine website on the world wide internet, everything it says must be true. Thanks again for setting me straight.
“sd” sounds very like a troll we thought we had dismissed a long time ago.
Spanky, is that you?
FredHjr,
I couldn’t agree with you more about the failure of socialism. As George Will said during his appearance on the Colbert Report, “You can’t build something straight out of the crooked timber that is human nature.”
However there are still many, many people (read “academic intelligentsia”) who believe that the imposition of a utopian order is the future of human culture.
It seems that the impetus for socialism/utopianism comes from the lower economic classes (because they can only improve their status) and those who have “made it” because it permits them to exercise power and call the shots while maintaining their power and prestige. George Soros is one egregious examples of this; having made his fortune in capital markets he espouses socialism in government for everyone else. Michelle Obama might be another when she exhorts black women not to enter corporate America because it’s just too hard; this would sound more sincere coming from someone not making a six-figure income. Somehow they both seem emblematic of “I’ve got mine, now to Hell with you.”
“As George Will said during his appearance on the Colbert Report, ‘You can’t build something straight out of the crooked timber that is human nature.'”
But George Will can build one hell of a strawman.
FredHjr
We don’t know nearly enough to draw any kind of line between the persistence of evil in the world and “neuroscience”; we have virtually no idea how neurological process produce what we call “thought”. In fact, the English word for thought refers to an extremely narrow and culturally conditioned view of the way the human brain works.
Leftists (or conservative reformers, such as myself) have never promised paradise or a vanquishing of evil. That falls well outside our pay grade. We do say that humanity as a species can progress. Exhibit A: Senator Obama, on a platform running for president instead of an auction block. We can’t get rid of evil, but we can reduce its power. We can’t get rid of men like Hitler, but we can make sure their murders number in the tens or hundreds, not the millions. We can’t completely kill the impulse to dominate others, but we can see slavery and “white” supremacy to their deserved grave.
In this case, I believe that Senator Obama has better skills and a history better suits him to lead the next round of conservative reforms. These reforms must include a more equitable tax structure and an end to the promotion of an unequal winner take all society. They will (as conservative reforms do) act to preserve the best of the American people and state from the dead end of bankruptcy that nearly thirty years of piling up debt in accordance with a decidedly non-traditional “conservative” Republican policy begun by Ronald Reagan.
On the more immediate issue, the case for the success of the “surge” depends on ignore a lot of contradictory evidence, Many of the people who do this both demand that anyone who argued against the “surge” must now admit their error, while denouncing those who point out the factors that strongly militate against Iraq’s success as “gleeful”, as though only our emotions kept a quarter of the Iraqi population on the run from their homes.
In any case, if you want any of us to take you all seriously as a commentator on current issues, I recommend that you refrain from deliberately misspelling Senator Obama’s name.
Mr. Spragge,
I deliberately misspell Sen. Obama’s name because he deserves it. And I do not care if you dismiss my thoughts as not serious.
I studied Marxism precisely to see if it could be legitimately mated with Christian theology to inform ethics. Marxism makes claims that are not realistic and not compatible with the Christian worldview. All Leftist thought is in some way utopian. All of it, since its project is the perfection of society or at least the attempt at it. Please take a battery of survey courses in the history of philosophy and find out for yourself. Aristotle does refrain from this kind of project. Plato does not, and so he succumbs to totalitarian thinking.
Malformations in the architecture of the brain have been investigated. Some sociopaths end up that way because of an organic defect, not because they were traumatized and abused as children. Very subtle connections which enable empathy and moral thinking are just missing in these people. We are not responsible for the organic defects that lead to horrific behavior. If one believes in the existence of evil – and I clearly do – then logically one has to acknowledge the reality of a power opposite that of the Creator God. A lot of suffering and evil in this dimension may in fact be very cosmic and reflect some of the Evil One’s victories. I have seen people who indeed appear to be human, but inwardly they are monstrously evil and simply have to be agents of the Evil One. There is nothing human about them, save the wrapping.
Michael Novak was a critic of Liberation Theology who, while at the time I disagreed with him, I took seriously. At the time, I thought his criticisms of Marxism relied on too gloomy a view of human nature, but I have since seen the error of my ways. He was part of a panoply of conservative thinkers I never dismissed, unlike the more activist and less cerebral Leftists I knew. Also, the more deeply I investigated Marxist thought the more I became convinced that it was a kind of theology. Socialism does not take into account our essential, sinful nature.
I criticize SENATOR OBAMA because I know he is a Marxist and looks out at the world through those lenses. The Left regards the United States as an imperialist actor, and that our prosecution of a war against Islamic jihad and its state sponsors is illegitimate. He will never, ever concede that Iraq was an emerging danger to this country and a destabilizing influence in the region. He will not now acknowledge the critical role we have played in stabilizing Iraq. And now he will not acknowledge the theological basis for Iran’s nuclear weapons project.
I simply cannot take SENATOR OBAMA seriously as a thinker, a “leader” or an implementor of policy.
In the twisted mind of a Leftist, the greatest crime is inequality.
Because Conservatives believe in Liberty and not equality of outcomes there is the basic conflict…
The Collectivism of the Left, which is the high of moral goodness.. and the selfish individualism of the Right, which to the Left, is evil incarnate.
Thus to the Left, the right is not only wrong.. it is evil and immoral. And thus evil is worthy to hate.
Because they recongize that Islam is also against indivudualism, in thier Marxist POV, the Left view the Muslims as a kindred spirit. The Muslims are merely revolutionaries trying to reclaim their culture from the evil imperialism of the West.
And so the Left finds common cause with the Muslim’s Jihad against those who refuse to submit.
What the Left doesn’t realize is that the Muslims do not distingiush between liberty-loving Non-Mulsims and Fascist collectivist Non-Muslims. They have a mandate from Allah to conquer all.
This was the mistake that Leftists in Iran made when they joined with the mullahs in revoltuion against the Shah. The Left thought they were friends with the religious parties.
After the Shah’s govt was torn down and the Mullahs got the reigns of power, the Mullahs annihilated the secular Persian leftists who helped them.
The Muslims will do the same to our Left.
But our Left is too stupid to know this because they too are on a holy Jihad agianst individualism, and the Christianity that gave birth to notions of individual dignity and freedom of conscience.
And just as the Left has absolutely no reservations about violating any of their so-called principles, they are equally willing to give the Muslims a pass for the Muslims flagrant opposition to everything the Left *claims* to stand for.
Let’s see… armed with a “battery of survey courses”, you have determined that Senator Obama does not deserve the support and trust which, at present, at least half of all Americans with an opinion have given him. And your bill of particulars against Obama includes… arrogance. Well, they can’t say irony has died quite yet, obviously.
We can only make the grossest kind of guesses about the influence of “malformations” in the human brain on ethical or unethical behaviour. The idea that G-d made all people holy, which implies G-d made all people equal, predates Karl Marx by a few thousand years. See the Prophets, the Psalms, the Magnificat, the Sermon on the Mount, Praxis Apostolion, and the Epistle of James. These ideas have animated reformers from Thomas Jefferson to William Wilberforce and Abraham Lincoln, not to mention George Fox and Menno Simons. I believe human society can achieve a higher level of ethics, an expression closer to the Sermon on the Mount, the Magnificat, and the Torah. Yes evil exists, but we live in hope of overcoming it, not accommodating our goals to its presence. We achieved this with the end of slavery; we achieved it with the end of (overt) colonialism and “white” supremacy. We can hope to do the same with war; and even if we fail, we shall not go unrewarded.
By the way, what really “evil” people have you met personally?
But Senator Obama has a less ambitious goal than that; he simply wants to resist the Islamic Jihad more intelligently and effectively. As for your accusations, I don’t expect anyone to “concede” that an impoverished country with no effective weapons programs and under effective UN sanction can pose an “emerging danger” to a superpower. Nor do I expect anyone to give your nation’s policies “credit” for “stabilising” Iraq as long as close to a quarter of the Iraqi population remains in internal or external exile.
Unless you accept the manifest and largely undisputed facts about Iraq and about the actual economic state of your country, I see no way you can make good choices.
Vince P.: Amid 300 million Americans, I suspect you could find a handful of people who fit your description. But if you propose expand this notion to fit, say, Senator Obama or his million of supporters, then I find your argument goes far beyond the risible.
– Balancing the budget — hard nosed, traditional conservative
– Acknowledging the realities in Iraq, including the sixth of the population in flight through the Middle East, and the over one million more displaced in the country — recognizing reality
– Setting effective military priorities — effective leadership.
In any case, a vague rant on the mental and moral flaws of the left won’t change the hard facts: about a quarter of the population of the country you have undertaken to “liberate” (Iraq) has fled; your outstanding debt held by your rivals has reached dangerous levels, you have not had a positive balance of trade since shortly after the Carter Administration, and the sacrifices in this war have fallen atrociously hard on one part of the population while missing everyone else.
Rest assured, anyone who wanted to eliminate the United States as an obstacle to the global jihad or transnational progressivism could simply urge you to stay the course.
John Spragee: piss off. You’re not an American, I dont give a crap what you have to say. You’re a nutcase.. I’m not going to infect my brain with your nonsense.
Why do I suspect that if Vince P. thought he had an argument, he’d post it? Why do I suspect that if your country had truly stabilised Iraq, instead of putting around a quarter of its population to flight, I’d now have a forest of links to read, all along the lines of how happy, secure, and satisfied all the Iraqis felt in their own homes? Why do I suspect that if George Bush had not produced a Niagara of red ink, Vince P. would have something to say about actual economic policy, rather than a petulant misspelling of my name? Why do I believe that if a hurricane and an oil spill hadn’t blindsided the McCain campaign’s oil rig photo op, Vince P. might have linked to the advance publicity. Why do I suspect the obsession of Senator Obama shown on this blog has something to do with the way your Republican Party has hemorrhaged support over the last few years?
What is more trite then a sanctimonious Leftist being passive aggressive by posing as questions his mocking assertions.
Notice how he states nothing on behalf of himself.. just a constant barrage of criticism.
Like I said,, piss off.. your kind is completely unproductive to bother with
The funny thing is.. if I was in the Iranian govt he’d be trying to come over to my place to lick my ass.
VinceP, I agree with everything you’ve written above. And still in no way do I refuse to understand what the classic Christian texts and the social teachings of my Church impart. It’s just that I no longer believe in “from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.”
Vince P.:
OK, fine. I’ll phrase it your way. In Iraq, you’ve taken a brutally misgoverned nation and, after an (estimated) half million excess deaths, including the deaths of 4000 of America’s finest young people, you have reached a state of what you call “stability” by putting a quarter of the population to flight, while fighting among armed militias attached to the political parties flares up from time to time.
Do you have an actual argument that five million refugees don’t matter? That five million dispossessed people looking for homes, and half a million excess deaths won’t affect the “stability” of Iraq? Keep in mind that at its height, the murder rate in the United States reached ten per hundred thousand, and in some areas, that led to a social crisis. Imagine what a death rate ten times that would do: in five years, one death for every two hundred people. The total Nazi blitz inflicted a fifth that rate of civilian casualties in Britain. And you claim that Senator Obama should just admit the “surge” has made Iraq stable? In your place, I’d wait to bet the mortgage on Iraqi stability until I found out what happens when those five million refugees try to get their homes and their lives back.
Or let’s take a look at the mundane matter of the Niagara of red ink the Bush Administration has created. Got any arguments about the ethics of saddling your kids with a few trillion dollars in debt?
John:
Kind of with Vince here. You’re not American.
WE DON’T CARE WHAT YOU THINK.
If you still mattered, your country (whichever part of the previous Empire you reside in) would be reviled as ours is. And how did the Raj work out for you guys, anyway? South Africa? Palestine? Gallipoli? Dunkerque?
I really wish the Communist Party apparatchiks would come up with a new argument.
First, if all of the “excess deaths” were the enemy, I’d cheer. Some people need killing.
Second, most of the “excess deaths” who were not in fact the enemy were killed by the enemy.
Lumping all “excess deaths” together is beyond stupid – it’s liberal stupid. It’s no different from lumping together deaths of concentration camp victims and SS members in a calculation of the “excess deaths” in Europe in WWII.
And our war dead, while each is a personal tragedy, by historical standards the totals are remarkably low. As posted previously, France had 300,000 men killed in the first four months of WWI.
So please don’t post such stupid crap henceforth, OK? It’s embarrassing even to read it.
John Spragge:
An American Motto To Live With:
“Frankly, my dear, I don’t give a damm.”
How true…
Vince, Stumbley, Good ol’ Charlie: I don’t care what you think, either. I intend to post the facts as I ascertain them, when, where, and as I choose. If you haven’t the wherewithal to refute what I write, or the intellectual discipline to ignore it, then in the immortal words of Tommy Lee Jones, I don’t care.
Occam: Try to grasp that your personal opinions have no bearing on the outcome of this issue. I don’t ask for your sympathy for the Iraqis who have died; I ask you to assess, rationally, the effect those deaths may have on the prospects for a stable and friendly Iraqi democracy.
John, I think that many of those deaths were absolutely indispensable to a stable and friendly Iraqi democracy. Saddam’s leaps to mind in this connection, along with those of Uday, Qusay, and all like-minded hairballs.
And if Iraqis correctly attribute the civilian deaths – e.g., those arising from car bombing markets – to the terrorists, who perpetrated them, then those deaths in a different way also favorably affect the the prospects for a stable and friendly Iraqi democracy.
Evidence that Iraqis attribute terrorist-caused civilians deaths to…say it with me…the terorists is to be found from the increasing cooperation we are experiencing from Iraqis (e.g., the Sunni Awakening).
So I turn your request around, and ask you to assess, rationally, the effect that those deaths may have on the prospects for a stable and friendly Iraqi democracy. How did the “excess deaths” in Europe affect the the prospects for a stable and friendly German democracy? Pretty favorably, I’d say.
“the intellectual discipline to ignore it”
Okay, after this, you’ve got your wish. Tool.
Remind me, who attacked whom in 1939 and 1941? And who attacked whom in 2003? Who promised the Iraqis freedom and a better life, then allowed looters to run off with their patrimony and saddled them with clueless interns, chosen for ideological soundness, as managers of the “coalition provisional authority”? Who promised freedom and instead delivered a fresh batch of torturers to Saddam’s most notorious prison? Who failed to maintain security and delayed elections for almost a year?
A German or a Japanese contemplating the death and ruin around them would have to admit their pre-war governments had left the allies no choice but to wage war. How would you answer an Iraqi who told you that, aside from regime officials and people killed combat against the coalition forces, each of these deaths represents at best the tragic outcome of negligence and incompetence, and at worst a betrayal?
Mr. Spragge,
Just curious. If you were a Christian or a Jew living in the mid to late 7th century in Syro-Palaestina, Egypt, or anywhere in North Africa, and the armies of Allah are fanning out of Arabia, bearing down on you and your fellows. Would you advocate armed resistance to the jihadis or would you submit and pay the jizya, consigning yourself and your people to the status of dhimmi?
Remind me, who spent six years wishing to Jesus they had attacked whom in the mid-1930s, when they could have lanced a certain boil before millions of lives – and their nation’s greatness – were irretrievably lost?
Who came within an RCH of losing national sovereignty, and spent two years hoping desperately that some warmongering cowboys would pull their (chest)nuts out of the fire, all because some idiot took at face value a piece of paper a psychopath signed saying he wouldn’t attack them? Hmm?
The trouble with Europeans is they have no appreciation of history (!). Sure, they know the order in which kings reigned, but they fail to take away the salient lesson: not every problem can be hugged out. And trusting one’s security to the pronouncement of lunatics probably isn’t such a good idea.
One of the many things that escapes non-Americans is a crucial point of psychology: we have no one to fall back on. Realistically, all you lot confine yourselves to holding our coat. You can be as silly and childish and imprudent as you like, strike as many poses as you wish, but deep down – admit it – you’re thinking, “In the worst case, the Americans will sort us out – again.”
We don’t have that luxury. There’s no one behind us. But if you guys keep it up, you may learn the feeling of being on your own. Isolationism runs deep in the American psyche (“the Europeans are bloodthirsty a-holes who’ve fought amongst themselves since Roman times, let’s just leave them to it. We don’t need them anyway.”)
And to prove that Europeans are in fact nitwits, they love Obama, who would hang them out to dry in a nanosecond. Do you think Obama would send the Marines if Europe were attacked?
Think again. Think about sternly worded letters, blue ribbon panels writing reports, earnest speeches of condolence – but no action. Because that’s what you’d get from him.
Also think: you’re in range of the newest Iranian missles, and of the nuclear weapons they’re not developing.
Puts a little different complexion on things, doesn’t it?
Occam,
You forgot to mention that Obama (ooops, I meant Obonga!) and his arms’ adviser Joe Cirincione advocate scrapping the missile defense program. The Europeons should think on that one. Chew on that, E.U.
True, Fred.
There is a real case to be made for cutting the Europeans loose, particularly for me, as the father of two young boys.
They’ve already had strikes one and two. If they get another one right down the middle of the plate and whiff, we should just let them go down the tubes. There comes a point when a people isn’t worth saving, and for me, the Europeans are close to that point. If they can’t muster enough manhood to save themselves, they deserve whatever happens to them.
Our future lies in Asia anyway. Europe is done. We need to refocus national priorities to the up and comers – i.e., Asia, and leave Europe to its fate.
FredHjr:
What I would have done if I had lived in the area of Islamic expansion during the initial caliphates would logically depend on such things as my position in society, my actual religion, and the specific area I lived in. Most of the people in the areas initially absorbed by dar al Islam lived under despotic regimes, subservient to distant imperial capitals. By the standards of the first millennium, Islamic civilization offered a relatively liberal and cultured social order.
Occam:
You persist in missing the point. For the record, I don’t accept the counterfactual your reference to “lancing” a boil suggests, and in particular I reject the notion that what you call “national greatness” (for, presumably, Britain) would have existed today if Britain and France had confronted Hitler before 1939.
But none of your speculation has any personal relevance for me or for any of the people of Iraq. Nor does it have any relevance to the question at issue: the relevance of the Iraqi death toll on the likelihood of a democratic and friendly Iraq. The Bush Administration chose to make war on Saddam’s regime; they promised the Iraqi people freedom and a better life. The difference between the promises the Bush Administration made and the outcome, an excess death rate of one in fifty Iraqis, as well as one in five in exile, might just make a difference in the stability of an Iraqi state, a viable civil society, and the possibility (finally) of a strong friendship between the United States and Iraq.
Instead of posturing as though your country had the ability to pick winners and losers indefinitely, with no sacrifice, no effort, no thought, you might face the reality: that the policies your next president and congress chooses will materially affect your standing in the world. Right now, your have a national debt of more than nine trillion dollars. If Senator McCain gets to implement his tax and fiscal policies, your national debt may well balloon to over twelve trillion dollars. Over ten years, the tax cuts alone proposed by John McCain have the potential to nearly double your debt.
If so much of this debt did not belong to people from outside the United States, at a time when you have to import a critical proportion of your fossil fuels, this would not matter so much. If John McCain had an effective plan to reduce your consumption of imported fuel, then your fiscal and trade deficits would matter much less. If other policies had not combined to produce a fragility in your economy, you would have much less to worry about. But as it stands, a cavalier dismissal of the role of tax and financial policies in your national life has the potential to constrain and eventually eliminate your ability to project power.
Right.. because there has been nothing but continious non-stop killing since 622 AD
Go re-read your history well before putting misinformed comment and biased personal views here
Obviously you missed the fact that that line was sarcastic.
That line was mocking the person I responded to.
Go re-read.
“By the standards of the first millennium, Islamic civilization offered a relatively liberal and cultured social order.” John Spragge
You need to read a work of scholarship by Bat Ye’or: “The Decline of Eastern Christianity Under Islam: From Jihad to Dhimmitude.” And as for being under the rule of the Caesar at Constantinople or the Vandal kingdom in North Africa, by the standards of Sharia Law the former were much less oppressive. As with most Europeans, Canadians, and Leftist Americans, their historical depth in this matter is quite shallow.
Everyone should inspect the strictures of the Dhimma. They should know that the jizya took roughly half of all people earned. In this the relatively modern Sicilian Mafia is quite enlightened, since that protection racket, while threatening violence (as did the Muslim potentates), took much less cash on the barrel and pretty much left people alone after that.
Islam is the most vicious protection racket ever concocted in the history of humanity. But don’t take my word for it. Go check out the testimony of former Muslims and of Christians and Jews who fled Muslim lands and now live in the West.
This is the Pact of Umar.. this was the first codified agreement that the Muslims made with Christians whereby the Christians made a number of promises to adhere to certain restrictions:
We heard from ‘Abd al-Rahman ibn Ghanam [died 78/697] as follows: When Umar ibn al-Khattab, may God be pleased with him, accorded a peace to the Christians of Syria, we wrote to him as follows:
In the name of God, the Merciful and Compassionate. This is a letter to the servant of God Umar [ibn al-Khattab], Commander of the Faithful, from the Christians of such-and-such a city. When you came against us, we asked you for safe-conduct (aman) for ourselves, our descendants, our property, and the people of our community, and we undertook the following obligations toward you:
We shall not build, in our cities or in their neighborhood, new monasteries, Churches, convents, or monks’ cells, nor shall we repair, by day or by night, such of them as fall in ruins or are situated in the quarters of the Muslims.
We shall keep our gates wide open for passersby and travelers. We shall give board and lodging to all Muslims who pass our way for three days.
We shall not give shelter in our churches or in our dwellings to any spy, nor bide him from the Muslims.
We shall not teach the Qur’an to our children.
We shall not manifest our religion publicly nor convert anyone to it. We shall not prevent any of our kin from entering Islam if they wish it.
We shall show respect toward the Muslims, and we shall rise from our seats when they wish to sit.
We shall not seek to resemble the Muslims by imitating any of their garments, the qalansuwa, the turban, footwear, or the parting of the hair. We shall not speak as they do, nor shall we adopt their kunyas.
We shall not mount on saddles, nor shall we gird swords nor bear any kind of arms nor carry them on our- persons.
We shall not engrave Arabic inscriptions on our seals.
We shall not sell fermented drinks.
We shall clip the fronts of our heads.
We shall always dress in the same way wherever we may be, and we shall bind the zunar round our waists
We shall not display our crosses or our books in the roads or markets of the Muslims. We shall use only clappers in our churches very softly. We shall not raise our voices when following our dead. We shall not show lights on any of the roads of the Muslims or in their markets. We shall not bury our dead near the Muslims.
We shall not take slaves who have beenallotted to Muslims.
We shall not build houses overtopping the houses of the Muslims.
(When I brought the letter to Umar, may God be pleased with him, he added, “We shall not strike a Muslim.”)
We accept these conditions for ourselves and for the people of our community, and in return we receive safe-conduct.
If we in any way violate these undertakings for which we ourselves stand surety, we forfeit our covenant [dhimma], and we become liable to the penalties for contumacy and sedition.
Umar ibn al-Khittab replied: Sign what they ask, but add two clauses and impose them in addition to those which they have undertaken. They are: “They shall not buy anyone made prisoner by the Muslims,” and “Whoever strikes a Muslim with deliberate intent shall forfeit the protection of this pact.”
from Al-Turtushi, Siraj al-Muluk, pp. 229-230.
Well, we certainly know what happens if you don’t do anything in that circumstance, don’t we? And it was, can we agree, not so good? In fact, had Britain and France manned up in 1935, things could hardly have turned out worse than they did, could they? In fact, as Shirer points out in Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, in 1936 German generals discussed removing Hitler, whom they considered a dangerous lunatic who would provoke Allied intervention when he remilitarized the Rhineland, but desisted when he pulled off that and every succeeding bluff. A minor show of force then would have saved tens of millions of lives.
But do you seriously mean to tell me that Britain and France collectively didn’t wish to God that they’d taken matters in hand before 1939? Sheesh.
You did read my earlier post, I trust? Saddam, Uday, and Qusay had to die as a prerequisite to a viable, free, friendly, democratic Iraq. Any disagreement there?
People of like mind with those three worthies also had to die, for the same reason. Any disagreement there? Or do you think we could have established a democratic Germany with Goering and Himmler in charge? They had to go, one way or another.
You persist in ignoring the point: some bad men had to die to pave the way for a better future for Iraq. Those bad men also killed many of innocent Iraqis in an attempt to retain power. Stop mentioning the “excess death rate” — I already destroyed that moronic argument in an earlier posting. The only deaths for which we bear any responsibility are those of innocent civilians who were inadvertently killed.
By your risibly flawed reasoning, we should have left Britain to its fate in WWII. We got involved in a war in which 50 million people died. By your reckoning, we have all those deaths to account for.
Let me tell who has more direct responsibility for Iraqi deaths: Britain, and specifically Winston Churchill. If Britain hadn’t drawn a line on a map that cobbled together Sunni, Shia, and Kurds in one colony, we might not have had the sectarian violence that has ensued.
This is wholly inconsistent with your entire argument. Two paragraphs later you say:
So debts incurred fighting in Iraq will adversely affect
standing in the world, but fighting in WWII had no effect on the standing in the world of Britain and France? Illogical, and inconsistent. In 1900, Britain and France were great powers; now they’re vacation destinations, essentially theme parks.
And while we appreciate your concern regarding American debt (it’s not anti-Americanism, it’s just worrying over our fiscal soundness, right?), please note that absolute levels of debt are irrelevant. The relevant consideration is debt relative to ability to pay, i.e., GDP. (If I ran up a $50 K debt on my credit card, I’d be suicidal; if Bill Gates does it, no problem.)
Let’s look at public debt as a fraction of GDP. The U.S. has a smaller proportion than Japan, Italy, Belgium, Norway, Canada, France, and Germany. (Britain dodges this bullet owing to North Sea oil — for the time being.) Furthermore, the American economy grows more strongly than any in Europe, further enhancing the ability to pay.
Let me see if I understand this correctly. We should not project power, because if we do, we’ll incur debt that will adversely affect our ability to project power? Would this be that “soft power” we always hear about from Europeans?
Occam:
World War II, the Rhineland and Iraq
You can argue that stopping Hitler in the Rhineland would have saved lives; a worthless claim, since you can’t prove it. But your argument depends on it saving lives. The imaginary history has Hitler withdrawing, the Reichswehr generals overthrowing him, and a democratic Germany emerging. If Britian and France had blundered so badly in keeping the Reichswehr out of the Rhineland that they caused a million German deaths, and put a further twelve million Germans to flight, they would not have had much chance of fostering a stable or friendly Germany.
The Bush Administration’s moral argument for invading Iraq depended on two claims: that Saddam’s regime presented a clear danger to the peace, which turned out to be a lie, and that a post-Saddam government could offer the Iraqis peace, freedom, and prosperity. The way they have delivered on that promise hasn’t given the Iraqi people (or anyone else in the Western Asia) much reason to believe in promises of Western style government delivered at gun point.
Superpower status
The superpower status of both Britain and France depended on their colonial empires, which came to an overdue end at the end of World War II. The cost of the war had less to do with it than the loss of empire.
Instrumental killing (aka murder)
We have a word for the killing of people for instrumental ends; we call it murder. The allies went to the trouble of holding trials after World War II, on specific charges, precisely to make this point: they did not execute Goering, Frank, Kaltenbrunner et. al. for “reasons of state” or the “greater good”, but because they had committed murder, and the acquittals at Nuremberg sent as important a message as the convictions.
McCain and Natonal Debt
The OECD disagrees with your source; they put the debt to GDP ratio for the US at 60%, versus 35% for the UK, 22% for Canada, 32% for Poland and 42% for Germany. And while you can argue about the definition of debt, the US debt has very clearly increased rapidly over the period of the Bush Administration. The campaigns of Senator McCain and Senator Obama also clearly differ in the rate at which they would add to the debt.
You have also not addressed the trade deficit the US has run since the Carter Administration, which means people outside the US hold increasing amounts of American debt, both public and private.
I did not mention this problem to argue against the Iraq war; you could have paid for that through taxation if you had chosen to. I mention it because it illustrates the relative degree of responsibility each party has shown in this campaign.
John, by that standard, everything you’ve claimed is worthless. You have no idea what would have happened had we not invaded. None.
More to the point, your pantywaist politicians adopted precisely the strategy you’re advocating now, namely, negotiation. How’d that work out for you?
First, by your standard, you have no @#$%^& idea what would have happened, so you can’t prove anything one way or the other.
Second, even if your silly scenario had come to pass (and at that point the Reichswehr was limited by Versailles to 100,000, so a million casualties would have been tough to generate), better a million dead Germans than 50 million dead worldwide, yes?
That’s ridiculous. They lost their empires because they lost their status as great powers, and the poor bastards they’d colonized knew it.
Case in point: the US is a superpower, and it doesn’t have a colonial empire, and never has. Britain and France were never superpowers — only great powers.
Frankly, I’m beginning to think you’re unhinged. Was every SS or Wehrmacht soldier tried before a dogface shot him? Every U-boat crew tried and convicted before being depth-charged? We were debating combat and combat-related deaths, not judicial executions. We haven’t executed anyone — yet. But God willing, that soon will change.
And if you don’t understand the difference between a judicial execution and murder, then presumably you consider incarceration to be kidnapping as well. The state has powers and prerogatives that are denied to individuals. Context matters. A surgeon cuts people, but that’s not the same as a mugger knifing them. Surely that’s obvious.
Frankly, I don’t care about this issue, but I’m touched by your concern for the American taxpayer. The definitions of debt vary wildly; the OECD figures include intragovernmental debt, which in effect counts debt twice (department A owes X to department B, which owes X to the public). Debt: 2X.
So US debt has increased. No argument there. So what? If you don’t think Obama would run the debt upwards, you’re really are cognitively challenged. He would just do so on his “national civilian corps” (to be funded at the same level as the Department of Defense – !), and other silliness.
But if you guys are in such good financial shape, that’s great. You can now pay for your own defense. Best news I’ve had in years.
Frankly, again, I’d cut you loose. If Europe screws the pooch again, then no more Europe. Simple enough. If you think Obama would lift a finger to save Europe, you are ever so mistaken. (It’s his only policy with which I agree.) He wouldn’t even fight to protect America, so you guys can guess where you stand.
Bear in mind, as pointed earlier, Europe is within range of Iranian missles. Maybe Americans will vacation there again, after a suitable number of half-lives have passed, of course.
Has John Spragee given us any of his background? Where he is from? Etc.
Not American, but apparently a native speaker, so I presume (and obviously have presumed) a Brit.
Occam, you seem not to understand my position at all, so I’ll try to make it sufficiently clear. The United States invaded Iraq. You promised the Iraqi people freedom. Instead, the invasion led to half a million deaths and ten times that many refugees. On average, every Iraqi who knows more than five people knows at least one refugee; every Iraqi with a circle of more than fifty people has lost a friend, acquaintance, or co-worker to a violent death resulting from the 2003 invasion. I do not call this a good start for a democracy, let alone a solid basis for enduring friendship. You cannot call Iraq a democracy as long as American troops keep order there, and when they leave, they will leave behind a traumatized nation and people. I hope, for their sake and the sake of everyone else, that they live through it. But I would hardly call the history of the last five years something for the Republicans to recall with pride.
As for the fiscal meltdown, well, over 10 years, Senator Obama’s proposals would forego less than half the revenue Senator McCain’s would. As for your claim that Senator Obama would spend as much on his civil volunteer programs as he would on the military, do you have a cite for that?
I’ve already debunked this several times, and growing tired of doing so.
THE TOTAL NUMBER OF DEATHS IS IRRELEVANT.
Your argument is equivalent to citing the number of SS members killed, lumping them in with concentration camp victims, and saying that provides a poor basis for German democracy. The situation is exactly equivalent.
Let’s look at the figures for historical precedent.
Nazi Germany had a population of 69 MM in 1939, and suffered 7.2 MM deaths (10.5% of the population; and that’s a count, not a wildass extrapolation, as your figure is).
Of the 7.2 MM deaths, 5.5 MM were of military personnel, while the remaining 1.6 MM deaths were those of civilians.
We invaded and occupied Germany, after inflicting much worse losses (either of military personnel or civilians — you pick), and yet Germany is today a democracy, and (by European standards) friendly to the United States. American troops are in Germany to this day.
Similarly, Japan had a population of 71 MM, and lost 2.7 MM (3.8%. of the population). Of those, 2,1 MM were military personnel, the remaining 0.6 MM were civilians.
We invaded and occupied Japan , after inflicting worse losses on the Japanese than the Iraqis have suffered even on your dubious figure. Furthermore, the United States killed everyone of those people. None were lost to domestic terrorists, unlike Iraq, where the majority of civilian deaths are attributable to car bombs in markets and such. Yet Japan is today a democracy, and friendly to the United States. American troops are in Japan to this day.
Now let’s look at the Korean War. No one knows how many Korean civilians were killed, but the estimates are in the millions. Yet South Korea is a democracy today. Not a perfect one, but then there is no perfect one, and at least they don’t have a monarch. American troops are in Germany to this day.
One further example, which you’ll probably enjoy, because it involves dead Americans. The American Civil War killed over 0.6 MM out of an estimated population of 31 MM (1.9% of the population). The South was occupied by Union forces for years after the Civil War. Yet the U.S. is a democracy.
Iraq has an estimated population of 28 MM. Accepting your 0.5 MM figure (which is disputed, and most of which were killed by terrorists, not us), that constitutes 1.8% of the population of Iraq, or less than a fifth the proportion of the population of Germany that was killed, half the proportion of Japanese killed, and about the same as the proportion of Americans killed in the Civil War.
So you’re wrong on the facts, even accepting your numbers: it’s perfectly possible to have a democracy result from much worse casualty figures than those you proferred for Iraq, even accepting the sophistry of lumping together all “excess deaths” and laying them at our door.
I beg to differ re the Republicans. I think the intervention in Iraq is something that will one day be recalled with pride, and should in fact be cited with pride now. No other nation on earth would actually lift a finger to do what it thought was right, whether or not you agree with that assessment.
Your wish is my command. See 16:45 in his speech at the link. Maybe he was misquoted.
This just in: Analysis: US now winning Iraq war that seemed lost
From the AP. No friends of America there.
Occam’s Beard,
You are arguing with a Canadian Leftist who considers us the imperialistic killers of innocent Iraqi civilians. They NEVER address the issue that the overwhelming majority of civilian deaths in Iraq are caused by the Baathist Fedayeen, the al Qaeda thugs, and the Iranian proxies and al Quds force terrorists.
I know you’ve debunked this, but I just wanted to express my thought that we are wasting bandwidth on this one. The man has no understanding of what really was happening in Iraq pre-OIF or post-invasion. Just a cobbled together pastiche of talking points from various Hard Left and Useful Idiot propaganda mills.
Fred, you’re right. I am wasting bandwidth on this. That particular argument just gets my goat because it’s so incredibly stupid.
I will start my 12 step program of desisting. Wish me luck!
Occam: Try to grasp this: yes, Germany suffered terribly in the war, but the suffering took place in the context of a war. The Germans understood that the leaders they at least tolerated had started the war in question. That led them to accept the suffering and move on. By contrast, the Bush Administration promised freedom and peace through war. They took on themselves the responsibility to provide security and democracy. They made this promise to both the American people and the Iraqi people, and they have up until now failed very badly. Every one of those deaths represents a broken promise. Before you protest that this holds the Bush Administration to an impossible standard: it does, because they undertook to live up to that standard when they chose to use violence to change the Iraqi regime.
That history means the Iraqis do not have the context the Germans did to accept their suffering. A German today can say their parents made a bad mistake, their nation suffered for it, and things worked out for the best. The Iraqis do not have that context to accept their history.
On the AP: an article that awards “victory” to the current policies of the Bush Administration while neglecting to deal with the possible consequences of the refugee crisis in Iraq doesn’t exactly impress me.
On your claim that Senator Obama intends to spend as much on his civil projects as on the military, funding two things equally well does not mean spending as much money in each case. It means spending as much money on each project as required to get the job done. Given the intrinsic expense of military operations, a well funded civilian corps would cost much less than an equivalent military.
FredHjr: Please quote the post in which I called the US an imperialist nation. I think that in the Republican party, you have a self-indulgent, leadership, either uninterested in or incapable of addressing hard questions of war and peace or taking advantage of opportunities that present themselves.
Whatever you say, comrade.
Pingback:glass awards