Ralph Peters: Iraq’s last gasp
posted at 4:19 pm on November 2, 2006 by Allahpundit
A lot of people are e-mailing about this. It’s almost all over, he says. And it’s almost all our fault.
A preview of the next (and last) stage of the debate over the war: how much blame does Bush deserve for how things have turned out? As with most other subjects these days, the responses will track ideology. The right will say “some, but not much,” the centrists will say “most,” and the left will say “every last bit and then some.” A better way to ask the question would be, was Iraq destined to turn out this way or could it have succeeded if Bush had done a better job? To this day I’m not sure what the prevailing opinion among the left is on that subject. I pressed KP, who’s against the war, about it a few weeks ago and she thought it was doomed from the outset — not because Bush is a chimp but because you simply can’t impose liberal democracy by force. “What about Germany?” I asked her. “They were democratic before Hitler,” she said, so we weren’t really imposing it. “What about Japan?” I said. Weren’t they basically a feudal society that moved directly towards militarism when they modernized in the late 19th and early 20th centuries? Didn’t we force them to give women the vote? “Well,” she said, “women are still treated pretty badly in Japanese society.” (Update: See below.)
The debate pretty much ended at that point. Anyway, here’s Peters:
Iraq is failing. No honest observer can conclude otherwise. Even six months ago, there was hope. Now the chances for a democratic, unified Iraq are dwindling fast. The country’s prime minister has thrown in his lot with al-Sadr, our mortal enemy. He has his eye on the future, and he’s betting that we won’t last. The police are less accountable than they were under Saddam. Our extensive investment in Iraqi law enforcement only produced death squads. Government ministers loot the country to strengthen their own factions. Even Iraq’s elections — a worthy experiment — further divided Iraq along confessional and ethnic lines. Iraq still exists on the maps, but in reality it’s gone. Only a military coup — which might come in the next few years — could hold the artificial country together.
This chaos wasn’t inevitable. While in Iraq late last winter, I remained soberly hopeful. Since then, the strength of will of our opponents — their readiness to pay any price and go to any length to win — has eclipsed our own. The valor of our enemies never surpassed that of our troops, but it far exceeded the fair-weather courage of the Bush administration.
Yet, for all our errors, we did give the Iraqis a unique chance to build a rule-of-law democracy. They preferred to indulge in old hatreds, confessional violence, ethnic bigotry and a culture of corruption. It appears that the cynics were right: Arab societies can’t support democracy as we know it. And people get the government they deserve.
For us, Iraq’s impending failure is an embarrassment. For the Iraqis — and other Arabs — it’s a disaster the dimensions of which they do not yet comprehend.
Jalal Talabani wants U.S. troops there for possibly three more years.
Comments are open at the end of Peters’ column in case you feel the urge. The very first one gives you a reliable snapshot of nutroots opinion on the subject. Meanwhile, a distant cousin of the question of who’s to blame is whether anything — anything — good at all has come from the war. Again, answers will track ideology, which explains Haw Haw’s responses during this Sky News interview from earlier today. Note that he denies having ever praised Saddam; Wikiquote, citing his meeting with the dictator in 1994, begs to differ. Galloway has since claimed that when he said, “your courage, your strength, your indefatigability,” he was referring to the Iraqi people collectively, not to Saddam.
No word on what he meant, though, when he allegedly said, “And I want you to know that we are with you, hatta al-nasr, hatta al-nasr, hatta al-Quds.” I.e., “until victory, until victory, until Jerusalem.”
Update: KP’s history might be better than mine. Reader Ito e-mails from Japan:
Have to take exception with this thought though, to wit–” I said. Weren’t they basically a feudal society that moved directly towards militarism when they modernized in the late 19th and early 20th centuries?” That’s a real deficient understanding of Japanese society and especially what happened during the move from feudalism to modernity in the late 19th century and into the 20th century. Japan had a very successful democracy up until about 1931, but with the assassination of Prime Minister Hamaguchi it was all down-hill. But, hey, including America, and especially Europe where was it not going downhill in the 1930′s?… What happened in Japan post-war was less about an imposition of revolutionary thought by America on Japan, and more about the Japanese simply remembering what had been and where things had been headed up until the bullies took over. America was extremely generous and helpful (and unhelpful too– ever read our Constitution, esp. the preamble and Art. 9?) in that post-war period, don’t get me wrong, but it would be a mistake to imagine Japan was dragged into a constitutional democracy.
Update: KP says I’ve misrepresented her. For one thing, while she opposed the war, she’s never called it a “failure” or supported immediate withdrawal. I didn’t think I’d implied that she had, but if anyone got that impression, consider it corrected. For another thing, she says, I made it sound like she didn’t appreciate the difference American victory in WWII had made to Japanese society. I didn’t mean to; all I was suggesting in quoting her was the split in opinion among left and right re: the feasibility of transforming another people’s culture.
Update: Ace fears we’ve placed ourselves on the frog’s back beside the scorpion.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
End game, folks. I think Ralph Peters has opened the door for those of us who supported this war. We were wrong. Democracy cannot be imposed. Let’s not sit around pointing fingers, let’s not act like Bush fooled us. We were wrong.
Now let’s get the troops home as soon as possible, no matter what Christopher Hitchens says about the responsibility we’ve acquired. Some problems aren’t solvable, let’s just stop throwing the lives of our troops away.
And that goes for Afghanistan, too. What’s the point? I’m starting to think that O’Reilly’s “put them on the Mexican border” makes the most sense at this point.
Enrique on November 2, 2006 at 4:37 PM
that’s the difference between me and you, allah. you can read minds.
galloway clearly botched his comments and obviously intended to call for a just and impartial peace.
jummy on November 2, 2006 at 4:40 PM
…and *WHEN* did anyone try to do that, in Iraq or anywhere else?
What we have been trying to do for the last three years in Iraq, and longer in Afganistan, is beat the killers, bombers and freaks back enough so that democracy could develop. *THIS IS AN IMPORTANT DISTINCTION!*
Nobody has imposed anything, either in the conspiratorial world of “real-politik”, a foul ditch that some folks swim in, where every other fish is out to eat not them but the littler fish for which they feel responsible; or between Mr. Kerry’s or Mr. Dean’s ears, intellectual “high”-ground if ever that plain of reality existed; or in the world behind the pulpit from which the mullahs and imams preach murder and chaos.
It isn’t Mr. Wilson’s “a world safe for democracy” pipe-dream, either. As the Iranian “cleric” (read: “sturmbannfuerher”) preaching in another thread today proves to me (at least), the management of the Religion of Peace has so far been dead-set against the world being safe, made safe or kept safe. They’re all for muslims blowing up, shooting, beheading, and otherwise scaring the be-Jesus…er, be-Mohammed, I guess…out of everyone to see that they toe the caliphate line.
Anybody want to do an appraisal about the guys who’re doing all of *THAT* ideological imposing?
Maybe, if Mr. Bush hadn’t had to fight now-openly anti-military and anti-national-defense pols on Capitol Hill, anti-Bush partisans in a seditous press, and enablers among our “allies” like the Left in Britain and most of what we will soon only be able to dimly remember as Western Europe, the whole “keep the nation a safe” strategy might’ve succeeded…already. Maybe, had there been fewer Kerrys, Durbins, Sheehans, Galloways, Medea Benjamins, Kos-ites, and other navel-gazing parasites in positions to misrepresent his efforts and our military, old Taha bin-Mohammed the voter in Sadr City or Tikrit or Kurdustan might’ve long since been able to constitute a government, have a police force which wouldn’t itself tolerate terror (let alone participate in it), and simply stand in line without risking dismemberment or kidnapping and dismemberment or getting a magazine full of “Ayatollah’s valentines greetings” upside his head.
If anyone’s had anything imposed on ‘em, the American people and the common Iraqi guy with the 2.4 kids and dog and wife wrapped in a sofa cover have had chaos and defeat imposed on ‘em.
Missteps and mistakes in this war? I’d have to point out that we haven’t hanged enough MoveOn.org-ites. Ramsey Clark and Lynn Stewart are still this side of the sod. We’re quite a free country (for all the blather about “domestic spying” and “compromising the Constitution”), but some people here count on the ennui and inertia of their neighbors to exercise “rights” which they are free to do, but which any sane and non-suicidal citizenry would decry as shameful. “Go ahead and be an ideological pervert, but go stand with the sexual perverts, so’s we can keep track of ya.”
…and this whole “impose democracy” smacks to me of that dreaded Democrat slur: racism. As Mr. Bush has amazingly *had” to point out to the Limousine Left in this country, the Iraqis are as smart as we are, and are just as capable of managing their own affairs — which is all democracy is — if they’re certain that they won’t be rounded up in the night and hacked to death for trying to do so.
The only imposing perpetrated since March of 2003 is the Left imposing defeat on us *AND* on the Iraqi people. In that, they have been doing the work of folks — the ayatollahs of Qom and the mullahs of Riyadh — who’d seek out our Leftist neighbors *FIRST* for a little of that old “Shariah surprise”.
…the irony is delicious….
Puritan1648 on November 2, 2006 at 4:44 PM
It’s interesting we “produced death squads”. I wonder how Saddam killed hundreds of thousands of people without some form of death squad? Personally?
High Desert Wanderer on November 2, 2006 at 4:46 PM
…Alice used a looking glass, but if a door works for you….
Puritan1648 on November 2, 2006 at 4:47 PM
I could not disagree with you more. I reject the premises this idiot peters is putting forth, and I find your completely defeatest attitude disgusting.
This is EXACTLY what our enemies are praying for day and night. And you are all too willing to give it to them, Enrique.
You think things will get better in the world if we were to leave the ME? Go to http://www.memri.com and watch and read some of the translated videos there. They’re not joking or playing around over there. And they have infinte patience and time to let massive breeding and indoctrination and propaganda have its world-wide effect.
Running and hiding is not a viable strategy. If anything, now is exactly the time to take the friggin’ gloves off and exert some real power and influence. We have been much too soft and conciliatory.
I cannot believe that people are actually buying this bullshit.
techno_barbarian on November 2, 2006 at 4:49 PM
Yep, we lost Guam, Phillipines, South East Asia, Burma, Thailand, Mayalsia, Java, Belgium, France, Denmark, Norway, Poland, Holland, Tunisia, Morrocco, Algeria, Chechoslovakia, Greece, Yugoslavia…….we lost….guess we should just go home and feed the chickens…..shucks….it is all over…..no success….damn….what would Gore have done?…..damn….did I ever screw up.
Limerick on November 2, 2006 at 4:49 PM
So I guess the ‘never’ in Never Forget is 1878 days long.
With each voice that flips on Iraq, we are one closer to Osama being exactly right about everything.
a4g on November 2, 2006 at 4:51 PM
Booya! Well said, Puritain1648!
techno_barbarian on November 2, 2006 at 4:54 PM
We can’t have it both ways. With or without the Iraq War, Israel won’t leave the Jihadist target list,and even Osama Bin .. won’t repent. Though a Iraq is disaster, we went into Iraq to look for WMD that turned out to be an action emanating false intelligence. Well, one could make the same argument for Afghanistan. We went to look for Osama Bin Laden. Well, he is Pakistan. Shouldn’t we pull out of Afghanistan? The left argues the need to use of special forces. Remember President Carter failed covet operation. We better at home using the Congress to conduct investigations about how to protect. Let it be known. The reason why we have not been attacked is not due to the fact that our security is tight. It is the result of threat Jihadist faces if they attack. With Bush track record of stumping on anything that implicates the Jihadist, they restrict thier action to contain us for the moment. I lived in a country where th majority are Muslims, the reason why the jihadist refrain from attacking us is respond to all their threats. For every christian killed, we kill a Muslim. They only to defeat them is to keep up with our own threats. They have their goals. Making peace is not an answer. You smile at them and put at your gun.
Ouabam on November 2, 2006 at 4:56 PM
…you know, when I was growing up, my Dad would lecture me on slipping away from work and running way from fights. Life being life, he said, work and fights are relentless and remorseless…they’ll just keep coming. Get used to dodging ‘em and they’ll only conspire, get bigger, and soon there’ll be no place to run *to*.
I’m of the school of thought which advises listening to a villain and taking him at his word. Would’ve worked with Hitler and Mein Kampf. If you’ve read, watched, heard or brushed up against *ANYTHING* that these “hatta al-Quds” bozos have been saying, they’re don’t seem as if they’ll be content until we’ve sold Israel down the river, turned all our wealth over to them, and are each of us chanting the shahadah whether we like it or not…which isn’t that kitchy mock-’50′s cover and dance band from the ’70′s. That’s their track record over the last 1300 years or so. That’s not hyperbole, ’cause that’s what they’re preaching from the pulpits: dhimmitude on the horizon. Take ‘em at their word.
So, if you’re as enthusiastic as you appear to bugger out of ” the responsibility we’ve acquired”, might as well limber up your tongue and repeat after me:
“ašhadu ‘al-lā ilāha illā-llāh, wa ‘ašhadu ‘anna muħammadan rasūlu-llāh”
…mouthful, ain’t it?
Puritan1648 on November 2, 2006 at 4:58 PM
Just a point about the Germany/Japan comparison. Iraqi cities did not look like German or Japanese cities. My grandfather was a B29 pilot, and I remember him saying that he could see the fires burning a 100 miles out and that the time between the first plane and the last plane in the mission was measured in hours.
I bet that liberal democracy would be quite successful in half of Iraq if Stalin occupied the other half of the country.
I suppose the conclusion from that comparison would be that liberal democracy can be imposed by force if sufficient force is used.
rw on November 2, 2006 at 4:59 PM
BlackFive said it best…………THE LONG WAR……….all these chicken littles better get used to the fact that win or loose in Iraq the war will go on. All the Israeli’s could get on a boat for the Arctic…..and the war would go on.
I have a son at war. I have a grandson who is 10. He will be fighting THIS war also. It is not going to end after Iraq falls or Iraq stabilizes. Either way….the war is going to chase us all down. If you aren’t willing to fight it then stay the hell outta the way because their are a lot of us who will.
Limerick on November 2, 2006 at 5:01 PM
IMO, it was destined to end badly. The idea that people with no experience with democracy could jump from a culture of sectarian driven privelege/repression under the rule of a strong man, with the added pressures of neighbors like Iran who clearly have a dog in this fight–well, it just always seemed dreadfully naive.
Were Bush/Rummy incompetent? Well if you go forward with an objective that is simply not attainable, how can you NOT be perceived as incompetent?
The question now is: should Iraq continue down the Shiite/al-Sadr road, what are our options?
I am starting to feel badly for Rummy: here is a man with enormous talent and the best intentions, and a real patriot, and this will, perhaps unfairly, be his legacy.
My big concern now is if the Dems take over the House or both houses, the level of acrimony will increase and Bush will dig in deeper. Looking at this way, it would be best if the Reps hold on–the Baker/Hamilton report can provide some cover for Bush to gracefully change direction.
I don’t know, it too depressing to think about. How’s that for a helpful attitude. Shit.
honora on November 2, 2006 at 5:02 PM
Ya know, the libtards are fond of saying that we’ve squandered the good will and status that America had, you know, before W stole power and f’ked it all up.
I think the world is wary of America, but not for the reasons that the libs think. The rest of the world believes we’re spineless and weak-willed. Wonder where they got that idea?
They got it because those on the left have, very much like the UN they worship and adore, continually conceded every advantage; botched every attempt at diplomacy; proved over and over again just how feckless and weak they are.
I want to post this link again, because I think it’s a perfect illustration of why democrats cannot be trusted with power.
There are reasons why we’re at this particular period in history in the shape we find ourselves in. Read that article and you’ll understand.
techno_barbarian on November 2, 2006 at 5:03 PM
KP still has a lot of lib in her – that is a typical liberal response to American successes (point out that there are still many imperfections in the society we changed). AP, you still have a lot of work to do to bring her over to our side.
Rick on November 2, 2006 at 5:07 PM
There are still a number of us left that hope that about next Wednesday George Bush will grow a pair and tell Don Rumsfeld to take care of the al-Sadr problem. Then maybe he can ask al-Malaki “Can you hear me now?”
bdfaith on November 2, 2006 at 5:08 PM
Well, I now know the solution. Let’s see. Iraq started at 26 million (or so). Now if things are as bad as everone says, we can take away, say, 3 million (Millions have left the country). Another 650,000 dead. 150 showing up every day with holes in their heads (I’m presuming from torture). Heck, at this rate, in just a few more years all Iraqi’s will be dead or gone… we can nuke the place, then invite back all the millions that had previously moved away.
Simple.
dalewalt on November 2, 2006 at 5:08 PM
Allah you really opened up a can of worms on this thread….thanks cause it is just what this argument needed…..fight or flee…choose people, choose!
Limerick on November 2, 2006 at 5:08 PM
Well, she’s mad now because she thinks I misrepresented her. Stay tuned for my update.
Allahpundit on November 2, 2006 at 5:11 PM
uh techno, I think Enrique was being sarcastic. (though I could be wrong).
dalewalt on November 2, 2006 at 5:11 PM
Hey honora. Good to see you.
I’m just not that pessimistic and defeatist. So many people were wrong about this war. Tens of thousands of body bags for our troops, etc. They overestimated the capabilities of the enemy and grossly underestimated our own capabilities.
It’s simply too soon to think about throwing in the towel. We need to stiffen our spines, realize that we’ve chosen a tough job, and spend our time working together to achieve what we’ve set out to do… establish a foothold, no matter how tenuous, in the ME.
I am simply not willing to give up. Our troops damn sure aren’t. And we shouldn’t be either.
techno_barbarian on November 2, 2006 at 5:13 PM
If that turns out to be true, then I will humbly apologize.
techno_barbarian on November 2, 2006 at 5:14 PM
Fight.
Editor on November 2, 2006 at 5:15 PM
From your keyboard to God’s ears.
Faster, please.
techno_barbarian on November 2, 2006 at 5:16 PM
Yeah, I mean only us WASP’s are able to fully appreciate and embrace democracy.
Hmm, kinda sounds like something that took place, oh, say 230 years ago.
I’m not saying that Bush/Rumsfeld/anybody else didn’t make mistakes… I’m sure they did. And yes, pride probably had something to do with it. But the way I see it, there’s two possible alternatives: Muslims are moderate like we’re told by CAIR, they’re not barbaric, so they can embrace democracy, or
they are barbaric, which means our Iraqi policy is destined for failure. So which is it libs? Are Muslims barbaric or not?
dalewalt on November 2, 2006 at 5:17 PM
I saw her make some excellent points this morning on FNC. Would that all libs exhibited the intellectual honesty that KP does.
techno_barbarian on November 2, 2006 at 5:19 PM
As a certified Japanophile I think Ito is right on the money. Australia, Japan, Israel, America…..brothers. Common sense brothers who have the same view of freedom….it is worth every single breath you take.
All of you guys who are waffling about ‘oh gosh did we lose?’ crap have bought right into what the MSM and the left have been telling you…………HAAAAACKKKKKKKKKKKKKK!
Limerick on November 2, 2006 at 5:20 PM
With all due respect to KP, Germany was a democracy for about 5 minutes before Hitler took over, and one with an extremely weak constitution at that. Japan was not a democracy in any real sense of the word either, and now both Germany and Japan are two very strong democracies – and in fact, Japan is the strongest democracy in Asia. So, with all due respect to KP, who puts the “loyal” in “loyal opposition”, her analysis falls a little short.
I think the explanation is simple and relates to the different approach we took back then compared to the one we took in Iraq. In Germany and Japan, both societies were utterly destroyed and (to borrow a phrase from Sam Huntington), culturally traumatized. They were so thoroughly and utterly beaten into submission in a way that causes their whole culture, their whole society, to reevaluate its most fundamental assumptions. Case in point, both societies were highly militaristic before WWII; neither of them show so much of a fraction of that militarism now.
I’m not sure if “imposing” (for the lack of a better word) democracy in Iraq would require an approach that extreme, but I think it’s clear that it would require a much more forceful approach than the one we’ve taken thus far. We have not come anywhere close to unleashing the kind of fury that our military could, and you would have a hard time convincing me that if we let our military do whatever is necessary to win this war, no matter how drastic, that we could not win it in very short order.
Every time we’ve had an opportunity to make a real show of force in Iraq, we’ve declined – and you can see where it’s gotten us.
On threads like this, I’ve cited Machiavelli time and time again, along with people like Sherman and others that didn’t mince words, knew war was nothing but hell and cruelty, and didn’t sugarcoat anything. But those guys knew what it took to truly win a war in a way that would change the society of the defeated, and (in Sherman’s case anyway) demonstrated a willingness to do so.
Since the end of WWII, despite having the most powerful military in the world, we have not achieved a true or lasting victory in any war we’ve fought. We’ve ignored history and ignored the wisdom that was given to us and instead fought wars based on the wishful thinking that we could win with limited engagements and fighting with one hand tied behind our back. Korea, Vietnam, Iraq I, and now Iraq II have all thoroughly exposed the folly of such an approach.
I’m not sure how much blame Bush deserves for this, but he obviously deserves his share, as he is the commander in chief. However, with that in mind, I’m not sure that the electorate in this country would let him do what is necessary to truly win. I imagine there are very few on the left side of the political divide that would agree to such drastic measures, and even on the right there are many who would get squeamish. And while that says something good about their humanity, it doesn’t change the cold hard truth that to win you have to be willing to unleash your military and do whatever is necessary, collateral damange be damned. It may not be what people want to hear, but it’s the truth.
I don’t totally agree with Ralph Peters that we are on our last gasp. But I will say, we can’t win with our current kid gloves approach.
thirteen28 on November 2, 2006 at 5:21 PM
Hello, make-up sex!
Hoodlumman on November 2, 2006 at 5:23 PM
Well this is just efin’ great. Almighty Ralph hath spoken? So the seven months I spent in Iraq are for naught, eh? So the sense that I got from the Iraqi people as being a scrappy bunch is just plain wrong?
I don’t want to reinforce the stereotype of the grizzled old Marine Vet, but… am I surrounded by wussies? The Iraqis have known war their entire lives. I tend to think they’re gonna be alright. Especially with the US backing them. The notion that we should punish them by pulling out now, is offensive to me. I’ve spoken with them directly (in Arabic no less) and they deserve better than what Peters is suggesting.
Kadnine on November 2, 2006 at 5:25 PM
In all honesty, democracy in Iraq is just icing on the cake. The first reason we’re there is to fight terrorists- kill the leaders and demoralize the rest. Unfortunately, the U.S. has gone soft, and doesn’t have the resolve to do what it takes to win. But the basic fact hasn’t changed, that we can fight them there, or fight them here at a later date. Looks like the latter.
Scotsman on November 2, 2006 at 5:30 PM
Kadnine!
Exactly correct.
Thank you and all others who’ve served and are serving so very well indeed!
//Grateful American
techno_barbarian on November 2, 2006 at 5:30 PM
…this brutally encapsulates what our Leftist neighbors hold in store for our Iraqi friends…leave the field to the jihadis, let ‘em kill a few hundred thousand in reprisal, send a bunch out for re-education…that’s the ticket….
…if the Left ever bothered to look beyond the lessons they *want* to draw from Vietnam, and read what actually happened in Indochina after ignominy was imposed by fiat on US forces, maybe — if they’re the humanitarians they claim to be — they’d be able to throttle back their ambitions long enough to give the Iraqis a chance….
…naaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah….
Puritan1648 on November 2, 2006 at 5:34 PM
WIN.
Iblis on November 2, 2006 at 5:34 PM
Here’s my chief frustration with this whole debate: the TRUTH won’t be known for several decades! So why are we so quick to judge with certainty?
Post-World War II Japan was a mess for 20 years; by the 1980s, that mess had transformed itself into a thriving democracy and a dominant economy.
The post-Civil War American South was a disaster during Reconstruction and really through the end of the 19th century; you could even argue that the Civil War after effects continued for at least a century. But today the South is an economically critical part of the country (and a bastion of conservative values, too!)
The point is that people can claim Iraq was a failure all they want (or that it’s a success, for that matter), but the historians will have the only verdict that matters.
If in 2106, Iraq has become a peaceful and moderate democracy … well, there’ll be a lot of Dubya statues around, in D.C. and Baghdad. And no one will remember the anti-Bush liberals of today any more than the remember the rabid Lincoln haters of the 1860s.
If I really want to know whether it was a failure, I’ll ask my grandchildren. They’ll know.
Professor Blather on November 2, 2006 at 5:35 PM
Peters is a little Patton. He’s a blood and guts kinda guy and is totally clueless when it comes to politics. In short re: Maliki and al-Sadr, he’s talking out his ass. Maliki is no more a stooge of Sadr than Sistani is. Sadr’s minions follow him cause he pays their salary and he appears strong. As the government gains strength and security forces increase efficacy Sadr will appear weaker. Farmers with AK’s are nothing against mechanized infantry. We have three more years (Talabani is right on that) and probably somewhere in the neighborhood of 5,000 more dead before we’re done and the only real problem is the sectarian violence. If that can’t be reduced and/or stopped we can’t secure the victory. And that is where we rely on Maliki. He has his own way of dealing with it and we have ours. He gets to try his first, then we try ours.
I can’t believe people on this site are so effected by jihadi and defeatist propaganda. Maybe Osama’s right. Maybe American’s do live in a “microwaveable” reality.
The Apologist on November 2, 2006 at 5:37 PM
Liberals hate hard stuff. Political Maynard G. Krebs (Work!!)
Hening on November 2, 2006 at 5:37 PM
Yes, I understand that.
That doesn’t change the fact that there is no way a pluralistic liberal democracy will emerge in Iraq or Afghanistan. It won’t happen, no matter how much we want it to be true, no matter how much we want to prove our enemies wrong.
No. I think that the world is doomed to a horrible Muslim future, i.e., Mark Steyn’s thesis. Throwing away the lives of Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan cannot prevent it.
We can’t win. Wanting to win isn’t enough. We might have been able to win if:
a. The media wanted us to win. After all, they’re responsible for creating the reality of our world. If they reported on only good news and no bad news, we would have a chance. But they won’t, and as long as good news goes unreported, it didn’t happen. If a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it, it doesn’t make a sound.
b. All Americans were united behind the cause. As long as a significant number of Americans believe that Bush lied rather than Bush was wrong, we can’t win.
c. We weren’t concerned about human rights. Frankly, we were absolutely, unapologetically cruel as Sy Hersh thinks we are, we would be able to win. You can’t win a war by being polite.
However, all that combined means that victory isn’t possible. We have to accept it, even if we don’t want to.
And yes, I realize that accepting that means proving Osama right, that we are cowardly and decadent. But that’s what we are. We’re not just talking about the red states here – we’re talking about the whole, great, and diverse USA. Maybe if it was just the red states, we could win. But it’s not and we can’t.
Haven’t you ever just wished that liberals would realize that they’re JUST WRONG about some things?
We were wrong. It’s a bitter pill, but it won’t be any less bitter with 1000 more US casualties. It’s time to give up, to quit, to surrender. Because there is no alternative, there won’t be a happy ending, sometimes the good guys lose.
We lost.
Enrique on November 2, 2006 at 5:38 PM
And can someone please take that “655,000″ crap out behind the woodshed and kill it.
This is the 21st century. If that’s true – show me a list of 655,000 names. Iraq was a modern country, not some jungle village. There is NO reason somebody can’t provide a concrete list of specific names of civilian casualties.
And that list doesn’t have 655,000 people on it. I’ll eat my monitor if it’s close to 10% of that.
/rant off
Sorry. I just can’t believe someone takes one of those crappy “extrapolation” experiments and then repeats it globally like its gospel truth.
Professor Blather on November 2, 2006 at 5:40 PM
Dude, she must have really been mad.
Rick on November 2, 2006 at 5:43 PM
If I had a dollar for every historical example of someone saying that … and being very wrong … I’d be very rich.
In the spring of 1863, that was a very common sentiment. Some suggest it was a majority viewpoint in the North.
It was wrong. Thank God Lincoln didn’t listen.
In 1940, that same sentiment – almost word for word – was being echoed in the British press. Churchill was under enormous pressure to seek peace with Hitler. Which was exactly Hitler’s intention: his plan since he’d written Mein Kampf was to fight a one-front war, to subdue Britain and then take the Russians.
Churchill almost caved to the sentiment.
But it was wrong. If he’d listened, the historical ramifications would have been unimaginably bleak.
Wrong. Time and again.
So are you. Dangerously so. Because when our side starts talking like that – things are indeed bleak.
At least do us a favor and try not to say it around our soldiers and Marines.
No offense.
Professor Blather on November 2, 2006 at 5:47 PM
…using that logic, why not have another 1000, or even 10000 casualties? If we’ve lost, what is in store for those who’d live? Slavery…dhimmitude…pretty much the same thing.
Tell me something: other than we’re in the middle of the election season, why all the overheated talk of chaos, gloom and doom in Iraq? Recent guests of Uncle Sam in Iraq, pipe up. What did *YOU* see in Iraq?
All we know from our easy chairs back here in the States, when we stop playing Nintendo long enough to watch the news (or the Daily Show or The View), is what the MSM tells us. Relying on the MSM for geopolitical facts — when the next story may be about Madonna’s new adoption or Brad and Angelina’s newest spat — is like relying on a prostitute for concen and love. They may go through the motions, but does anyone mistake “Oooo, baby, you’re so big” for love?
Why is defeat and chaos the conventional wisdom?
If you’re all bummed out, why not emigrate to Iran or Indonesia or the Sudan. Convert. Get it over with. That way, you can live in a Seventh Century Third World piss-hole with the bugs all worked out. Hanging here, going through the transition period, will just fatigue you, my brother.
…just remember…it’s *MOHAMMED* who’s the prophet and Allah who’s the god…you’ll be tempted to switch ‘em, but don’t. Makes ‘em testy.
Puritan1648 on November 2, 2006 at 5:49 PM
Enrique
In your opinion. And I’m not stuck on the need for Iraqis or any ME democracy to mirror ours. It’s going to be a ME democracy and most likely quite different from what we know.
And there’s that certain defeatist attitude again.
Ummm… horseshit. Speak for yourself. It’s not denial. It’s determination. And it matters in things like battle. And Life.
Good Lord! I’m glad I don’t have to share a foxhole with you, Enrique. Tell you what. You go hide someplace and those of us who give a shit will
save your sorry assdo the hard work required.I. Will. Not. Submit.
techno_barbarian on November 2, 2006 at 5:50 PM
Just remember to never drive with an angry woman.
/end Chris Rock
Benaiah on November 2, 2006 at 5:57 PM
If I misrepresented her in my post above, my apologies. However, I still disagree with her assessment of Japanese democracy prior to WWII. Democratic governments in the U.S., Britain, and even (gasp) France survived the onset of The Great Depression – in other words, they were strong democracies. Countries like Germany and Japan fell rather easily into dictatorship, which is what happpens when a democracy is weak, and thus is really only that little more than in name only.
thirteen28 on November 2, 2006 at 6:01 PM
You know, I think there is some truth in what he says… I think we are losing Iraq.
If our gov’t doesn’t have the politiical balls to send a special forces team in and blow Sadr’s head off, if our gov’t will allow roaving militia carrying automatic weapons to walk the streets at will, well then folks, I think we have lost Iraq. It seems very obvious to me that the PM is in the sack with Sadr and, that the ROE’s that our guys have to play by will not allow them to get the job done.
What I would like to see is our guys shoot on sight anyone out of uniform carrying a weapon. OK, make a few announcements to the civilian population before starting that particular action (or not, you got a weapon, we shoot you. I would say that info would get around pretty quick)… How many times do you think it would take before the death militias AT LEAST stopped walking the streets in the open during broad daylight? I would take Sadr City down brick by brick until the thugs gave our soldier back… I would destroy the damn place! Screw “check points”.
I grow tired of harping back in history however, do you think that when the Allies occupied Germany they allowed armed civilians to walk the streets? Of course not.
I really do think it gets down to the ROE’s. It is not our brave men and women lacking a spine to do what needs to be done. It is, once again, the politicians in D.C. and the chattering classes. Really, the whole thing is a shame.
I do feel down about the situation and the only thing I can do is keep on supporting our troops. Soldiers Angels, Op Gratitude, Adopt A Platoon or a Sniper! Our men and women deserve everything we can do for them…
Babs on November 2, 2006 at 6:02 PM
Just skimming along, saw the trolls are back, and I gotta go…damn.
Be back later to start at the top, hope there’s not too my honorless folk and novelists……seeya.
AP , What’d ya DO??? after all this time, you didnt go a blow it did ya? (Flowers, better get lots of flowers)
shooter on November 2, 2006 at 6:05 PM
Chin up, Babs! The current attempt at demoralization is exactly that. Don’t give in to it. This is what happened with Vietnam. An enemy which could not militarily defeat us, got us, through our idiot MSM, to belive we’d lost. It is a lesson we should not forget. The closer they perceive they are to dispiriting us, the harder they will try and the more they will pour it on.
techno_barbarian on November 2, 2006 at 6:08 PM
…which is being fueled by Iran’s oil money–which makes it the real problem. We need to secure that border just like we need to secure our own southern border. Short of that, here is a little basic math for the leftists: leaving = losing. It is pretty much that simple. We had kicked the North Vietnamese’ asses all the way to the bargaining table–even with Chinese help (remember Operation Rolling Thunder?), and then, in an act of legislative treason (I made that up–I’m so proud of myself), the Democrat Congress undercut the military by yanking the funding to back up the South Vietnamese government until they could handle the situation themselves. God forbid that the Vietnamese even be allowed to try to stave off the commies like the South Koreans got to do. The left insists that all oppressed people of the world must be eradicated to appease their socialist/communist sensibilities.
/rant
urbancenturion on November 2, 2006 at 6:14 PM
ENUF!!!!!!!!#@#@#@#@#@#@#
Fight.
1. The war is NOT lost.
2. If you think it is then shoot yourself.
3. I’ll clean up after you.
This whole friggin thread makes me SICK. You want to know why America is in trouble….it is not because the war is lost…it is because you have been friggin brainwashed into thinking it is………….WAKE THE HELL UP…GET A PAIR (just not mine).
Thank you
I’ll got take another pill now.
Limerick on November 2, 2006 at 6:14 PM
Thanks Techno –
I’m not certain of victory, but I do tire of defeatism, and defeatists like Peters cannot ward off my criticism with the magic words, “… I know some will call it defeatist, but…“
Kadnine on November 2, 2006 at 6:23 PM
Now you’re talking. That’s the kind of approach we need to win.
And if Malliki whatever doesn’t like it, tough.
thirteen28 on November 2, 2006 at 6:26 PM
Well 13, since I wrote that, I do think that is what we have to do. Unfortunately, it seems to me, only in our dreams…
I swear to God, I would go through that slum with a bull horn and tell the people that they have 24 hours to give up Sadr and our kidnapped soldier. I would then turn their little slum into a parking lot…
You don’t want to give up the soldier or Sadr, you go down with them. Brutal, you bet.
Babs on November 2, 2006 at 6:34 PM
War is not civil. War is not kind, forgiving, or dictated by rule. War is about killing those that get in the way of your ideas or beliefs. The US is NOT at war in this sense — it’s like we’re in a “prevent” defense and we’re handcuffed by world perception. If they do not fight a war by rules of the Geneva Conventions, then they shouldn’t apply to the rulebreakers! Let’s take off the gloves and act like this war is at our doorstep instead of on another planet. We need a General Pershing-type who can hit them in the mouth and give 2 shits if some limp-wristed foreign leaders can’t face reality. If anyone has cared to notice, it’s mostly OUR blood that’s being spilled over there — not France’s, Spain’s, or Russia’s. Let’s put America first instead of constantly putting ourselves in the back seat. I’m tired of the surrender monkeys catering to the jihadists — isn’t anyone else???
whtabtbill on November 2, 2006 at 6:38 PM
yes we know that liberals have a “defeatist attitude” when facing a dangerous enemy like Al-Qaeda. i just hope that the Republicans hold both houses & win in 2008 or we’re all screwed for life.
Starblazer on November 2, 2006 at 6:39 PM
… and I will add: Necessary, you bet.
You don’t win by playing nice. I wish a greater percentage of the electorate would think like you. We wouldn’t be involved in this debate if that was the case.
thirteen28 on November 2, 2006 at 6:42 PM
Japan and Germany were relatively homogenous nations that knew how run a country together, democratic or otherwise. Iraq is tribal and not a real nation…and not just in the obvious Sunni-Shiite-Kurd-drunken-Winston-Churchill-borders kind of way, it’s clannish even within the Sunni and Shia tribes.
The Left tends to assume that all that’s wrong with the third world is poverty and Western oppression or the legacy of Western oppression or whatever. They will, for the most part, resist to their deaths the idea that Iraqi democracy was inevitably doomed because of certain inherent characteristics of the country. It must be entirely Bush’s/America’s fault.
The contemporary mainstream Right, however, tends to assume that all that’s wrong with the third world is domestic tyranny, such as dictators or lack of a free market. That’s why there’s been so much criticism of Bush and company’s handling of the war (whether the complaint is incompetence or insufficient wrathfulness) and so little suggestion that “victory”–Iraqi self-government–is not possible.
Self-governing nation-states developed sloooowly over centuries. Tribes broke down into nuclear families, which made the way for non-tribal alliances such as citizenship. This is something that hasn’t happened much in the Arab or Muslim worlds. And nation-states existed long before those nation-states became democratic. Most of the third world never really made it to the nation-state stage; their borders were imposed on them.
Alex K on November 2, 2006 at 6:43 PM
Japan and Germany were relatively homogenous nations that knew how run a country together, democratic or otherwise. Iraq is tribal and not a real nation…and not just in the obvious Sunni-Shiite-Kurd-drunken-Winston-Churchill-borders kind of way, it’s clannish even within the Sunni and Shia tribes.
The Left tends to assume that all that’s wrong with the third world is poverty and Western oppression or the legacy of Western oppression or whatever. They will, for the most part, resist to their deaths the idea that Iraqi democracy was inevitably doomed because of certain inherent characteristics of the country. It must be entirely Bush’s/America’s fault.
The contemporary mainstream Right, however, tends to assume that all that’s wrong with the third world is domestic tyranny, such as dictators or lack of a free market. That’s why there’s been so much criticism of Bush and company’s handling of the war (whether the complaint is incompetence or insufficient wrathfulness) and so little suggestion that “victory”–Iraqi self-government–is not possible.
Self-governing nation-states developed sloooowly over centuries. Tribes broke down into nuclear families, which made the way for non-tribal alliances such as citizenship. This is something that hasn’t happened much in the Arab or Muslim worlds. And nation-states existed long before those nation-states became democratic. Most of the third world never really made it to the nation-state stage; their borders were imposed on them.
Alex K on November 2, 2006 at 6:43 PM
This is what happened with Vietnam. An enemy which could not militarily defeat us, got us, through our idiot MSM, to belive we’d lost.
You know Techno, just two weeks ago I saw film footage of civilians roaming the streets armed with automatic weapons. No way it was P-shopped… I also learned that our guys may not shoot unless shot at (any OIF Vets out there want to dispute that?)
This is when I decided that we were boned…
Babs on November 2, 2006 at 6:43 PM
How many times must it be said and by how many generals in Iraq must it be said by….There is NO MILITARY SOLUTION to Iraq. We need a political solution. Assassinations, destroying Sadr city, offensive ROE’s, shooting militia on sight WILL NOT WORK. Political solutions take longer and are harder to manage, but they bring lasting results. The only time you use force is when Sadr finally decides to step back outside the political process. For now he’s in. We allowed militias to be built for a reason (security needs). That reason is passing now, so militias must go. Their introduction was a political act and now their exit must be a political act.
Jesus, where is the patience people?! “Faster please” is a slogan, not an idea. We have all the time we need to get this done and done right. They can’t kick us out. Only we can do that.
The Apologist on November 2, 2006 at 6:45 PM
There is NO MILITARY SOLUTION to Iraq. We need a political solution.
Gotta disagree. Without security, which to me means no more militias roaming the streets killing our guys and civilians, there can be no political solution.
Riddle me this; if you were in fear of your life from the actions of your bloodthirsty neighbor, how tall would you stand in a political process?
Babs on November 2, 2006 at 6:50 PM
I think we went into this war for the right reasons, but with the wrong goals. I don’t believe ME societies can support ANY type of Democracy. It goes against their wonderful religion of peace (not). These are a primitive people that frankly have chosen not to evolve in today’s modern society. It’s a choice they have made, and we can’t force them to do any differently. The definitions of Democracy and the Muslim religion are pretty much opposites. Having said that, and always the chair side quarterback, what we should be doing in all of the middle east (not just Iraq) is the following. If a regime is brazenly threatening the US or any of it’s allies, or knowingly harboring terrorist that do these things, we bomb them into the stone age (not a far stones throw for most of them). We don’t put troops on the ground in harms way, we don’t help them with their civilians or their infrastructure reconstruction. We just make their lives more miserable than it alread is. This would be, say, punishment for advocating the destruction of western values. After a few countries are leveled, they’ll be so busy rebuilding, they won’t have time to screw with us or our allies. We will have to consistently remind them if they start to “threaten” us again, we’ll destroy what they’ve rebuilt. Someone in this thread made a comment something to the effect that Iraq was a modern society. BS. Buildings and infrastructure do not make a society modern. Take one look at Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. These countries might have wealth and all the things it can buy, but their ideals and morals are still back in the 17th century. Face it folks, humans evolve, and this group of humans (most middle eastern countries) have chosen not to evolve with the rest. And we all know what happens in nature to groups that do no evolve….don’t we?
rayvet on November 2, 2006 at 6:51 PM
None taken. Hey, wait, are you trying to dixiechick me? :)
I’ll admit to being a defeatist, by the way. Also a bit of a nihilist. I lost hope on our Iraq enterprise a few months ago. That doesn’t make me right, of course, but it doesn’t make me wrong either.
A few more quick philosophical/defeatist points:
And where does all life end? Determination is no match for inevitability.
Hey, that’s not bad for off the top of my head. Let me say it again, this time with feeling: Determination is no match for inevitability.
I never was cut out for the service. And I’ll be pleased to hide here in America once we’ve pulled our troops out of the ME and put them on the Mexican border. (Yeah, I know it will never happen, but an isolationist can dream, can’t he?)
Look, in the end we only believe what we want to believe. I believe it’s hopeless. Others believe that it’s not. We can’t both be right.
But I don’t think you can say it’s unreasonable to believe we’ve lost. At one point I believed in good faith that the Iraqis and Afghans would embrace pluralism once the source of their repression was removed. I now believe in good faith that I was a fool to think Islam and liberalism can coexist.
And I may still be a fool of course. What do you think?
Enrique on November 2, 2006 at 6:56 PM
When I was there (2003) you could shoot anyone who you reasonably believed to be a threat. Armed civvies with their weapon slung over the shoulder didn’t count, though you better belive we watched them like hawks!
That may have changed, as the rules of engagement are fluid, depending on circumstances. For example: I was there when the rules changed from, “Let taxis and ambulances pass” to “Shoot any vehicle that doesn’t stop at checkpoints.” Reason? Bad guys started hijacking taxis and ambulances for bombing runs against us. I can’t even begin to tell you how distressing that was. Our enemies have no honor.
None.
Kadnine on November 2, 2006 at 7:02 PM
Armed civvies with their weapon slung over the shoulder didn’t count, though you better belive we watched them like hawks!
You prove my point… How can we possibly bring stability to a population when we allow armed civilians to roam the streets?
Note: You can’t walk around the U.S. slinging an automatic weapon walking through a civilian population. Why would any other place on earth be any different?
Babs on November 2, 2006 at 7:08 PM
Blaming the left, which was completely shut out of any type of power, for questioning the policies of Bush that in hindsight have proven to be failures is ludacris. That’s like me telling you not to touch the hot stove, you touching and burning your hand, and then claiming your burnt hand is my fault.
I’m pretty sure Puritan spends his waking hours hooked to a kool-aid IV.
JaHerer22 on November 2, 2006 at 7:23 PM
Hey JaHerer22,
That’s like me telling you not to touch the hot stove,
Posessive case preceeds a gerand. Look it up pal!
Babs on November 2, 2006 at 7:29 PM
I honestly hope war never comes to our shores because if it does I have a feeling we wont last long…some will welcome their new masters.
EnochCain on November 2, 2006 at 7:30 PM
(Liberals?) Should be careful what you are really asking for by concluding Democracy can not be imposed and this mission in Iraq was doomed to failure from the start. By concluding such you really think you are preventing wars and saving lives? I dont think so. If that conclusion becomes official policy then what we will have is a return to historical type warfare instead of the magnanimus, politically correct smart bomb warfare we have used since 1990. The conclusion that this type of society builing police action warfare doesn’t work means a return to WW2 style carpet bombing, city leveling and free kill zones in any future conflict.
Resolute on November 2, 2006 at 7:31 PM
The problem has been more that, a la Michael Ledeen, the Bush administration has failed to treat this as a regional war. If we withdraw, the winners will be Al Qaeda, Iran, Syria, Hezbollah, and the International Left.
We and the Iraqis will lose. Big time. So will the pro-democracy forces in Lebanon and elsewhere in the region. Israel will be further isolated. And American power will be discredited for a generation.
All too high a price to pay, if you ask me.
SWLiP on November 2, 2006 at 7:35 PM
I’m reminded of the line from Lawrence of Arabia:
So long as the Arabs shall fight tribe against tribe,
so shall they be a little people, a silly people,
greedy, barbarous, and cruel.
SWLiP on November 2, 2006 at 7:37 PM
I’ll admit I always wanted our endeavors in Iraq to succeed. I even allowed myself to overlook obvious mistakes. I can’t stand the thought of my country failing anything it puts it’s mighty effort toward. In the end, seeing Iraq with open eyes, I don’t blame Bush, I don’t blame our troops, I don’t blame our government. I blame Islam. I blame the misuse of this religion to hold down entire populations under crushing, oppressive regimes. Regimes which create the kind of mindset that prevent people from realizing their potential to succeed or self-govern. Yes, people want to be free. But people who are victimized over generations cannot be expected to understand western philosophies in so short a time as the Iraq conflict has lasted under the Bush administration. This, will take time.
thedecider on November 2, 2006 at 7:43 PM
Yeah. How is Iraq different from the U.S.? This is just silly.
if you were in fear of your life from the actions of your bloodthirsty neighbor, how tall would you stand in a political process?
Via your elected representatives. Increased security comes with training the IA and cleaning out the police. Two things we happen to be working on very hard right now.
Kadnine: I spent the last two nights eating dinner at a local bar with a recently returned Army Captain helicopter pilot. He just got back two months ago. He said when he left ROE dictated that you could not pursue fleeing assailants. You could fire back, but couldn’t give chase. I think it was because of ambushes and attempts to draw soldiers away from whatever they were doing before being fired on.
FWIW, he said the IA was still crap in large part and the Iraqi officer core is still very weak. He also said our combat guys were doing other work mostly and what we really needed was Rumsfeld’s re-org in the Army, but that the generals were resisting (Peters is extremely hostile to Rummy’s re-org. Surprise, surprise.). He said what we need most are civil affairs guys and engineers who can turn combat when the need arises. He felt the force deployment was off, but that they were beginning to fix it when he was leaving.
He was of a mind that we should pull back and lob missiles in, but when we got to talking about Steyn’s new book and it’s premises he started to see the bigger picture. We can’t just leave. And Afghanistan was already in the stone age when Al-Qaeda planned 9-11. The answer isn’t the abscence on modernity, but the injection of modernity. It’s messy and violent, but it eventually takes and then it runs on it’s own. Anyway, he was a cool guy and we had a couple of good five hour conversations so I was happy.
The Apologist on November 2, 2006 at 7:45 PM
As much as I hate to say it, I think Peters is right. Scotsman too, and even Enrique has his points. America is too divided and has grown too soft for us to carry on much longer with the current strategy in Iraq. It would be different if a substantial majority of the country shared the sentiments of the posters here, but that is not the case. It is frightening to think that we could probably not sustain a war against Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan or the Soviet Union if it happened today.
Sad but true.
I think the most urgent priority in Iraq right now is minimizing the opportunities for the jihadists to flourish in failed states like Afghanistan under the Taliban. Probably this means independence for the more stable areas and groupings. Give the Kurds their own country (tough luck, Turkey, but you were very little help when it mattered), and do the same with the Shia and Sunni. How they govern themselves and whether they want to kill each other is their own business, as long as they don’t start targeting us.
If that happens, our retribution must be fierce and swift.
Going forward, our leaders must remember that they have, at most, a few weeks or months to respond before much of the country’s outrage and patriotism dissipates, opportunistic political backbiting emerges, and a response cannot be sustained. Under these circumstances, the only effective way to respond to someone who starts to pick a fight with us is with a knockout punch.
cool breeze on November 2, 2006 at 8:22 PM
Hummm…. Via Drudge
NEW YORK TIMES PLANS EXCLUSIVE STORY ON IRAQ AND RESEARCH OF NUKE BOMB… NEWSROOM SOURCE TELLS DRUDGE: ‘IT WILL LEAD THE PAPER ON FRIDAY… IT SHOULD IGNITE NEWS CYCLES’… DEVELOPING…
TheBigOldDog on November 2, 2006 at 8:27 PM
I agree with Limerick. This is The Long War. It will end when the less violent muslims believe it has cost enough of their lives. I think that will take at least another 10 to 15 years.
Zorro on November 2, 2006 at 8:27 PM
HOLY HANDGRENADES, Puritan, you’ve taken the concept of “lack of responsibility” to a new low. This administration gets practically everything it wanted to fight this war, a veritable legal, moral and financial blank check from a rubber-stamp majority in both houses, and it’s still the fault of the left? You honestly believe that? Incredible.
You know what? I have some good news for you, and for America, which bears repeating as often as possible. Now please stand back while I use my megaphone so’s you don’t hurt your ears:
ATTENTION FELLOW AMERICANS!
TERRORISTS CANNOT AND WILL NOT EVER DESTROY AMERICA OR OUR WAY OF LIFE NO MATTER HOW HARD THEY TRY– THEY DON’T HAVE THE NUMBERS OR THE RESOURCES. IT IS A PHYSICAL AND LOGISTICAL IMPOSSIBILITY. THE VERY IDEA IS A PARANOID FANTASY PROMOTED BY THOSE WHO WOULD EXPLOIT YOUR FEAR IN ORDER TO FULFILL THEIR PERSONAL AMBITIONS. THE ONLY PEOPLE WHO CAN DESTROY AMERICA IS US, BY BETRAYING OUR MORAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLES.
Thank you and good night.
Constantine on November 2, 2006 at 9:20 PM
God bless you Constantine.
JaHerer22 on November 2, 2006 at 9:22 PM
9/11 was just another day, eh Constantine?
Spiny Norman on November 2, 2006 at 9:31 PM
Hey, I never said we shouldn’t protect ourselves. But let’s not overdo it, or overstate the threat.
You’re my favorite hedgehog ever!
Constantine on November 2, 2006 at 9:34 PM
C’mon folks can we admit that Iraqi’s can not manage a democracy? The idea that they could is the failure. I’ve been saying this since I started learning about the Middle East. They are not ready, period. Lets make sure we leave Iraq with that message ringing through the Middle East. “Sorry, we thought you could do it. We were wrong. Now we wash your hands of you. If you manage to form some sort of stable govt. We will be happy to trade with you good day.” That is a nice kick in the balls to the Iraqis and jihadists not civilized enough to control themselves. Bush needs to articulate that message loud and clear for the next two years. It will be a double kick in the balls to see a free Kurdistan flourish while a few miles to the South Iraq will be swamped in sectarian violence.
Theworldisnotenough on November 2, 2006 at 9:46 PM
Thedecider:
THANK YOU! Finally someone else who thinks the way i do.
It’s not our fault that Iraq has become (remained?) a shithole. It is the Iraqis fault and their Arab/Muslim cousins.
Why is Arab determination to see Iraq fail seen as a failure on our part. Do you people think that the US has magic powers that takes away the indepenent motivation of other parties?
Iraq is a mess because of Iraqis/Arabs/Muslims. Their entire civilization is one big sewer, how unfortunate for them to have missed the chance we gave them to become something better.
Fuck them.
VinceP1974 on November 2, 2006 at 10:15 PM
Me:
Babs:
Whoa! Hang on a moment, Babs. Some of those armed civilians were female schoolteachers just trying to fend off the baddies at the local girls’ school of nursing! It wasn’t the shotguns we were tying to combat, but the, um, ya know, bad guys with guns.
Like I said, the ROE are fluid.
Kadnine on November 3, 2006 at 12:23 AM
Apologist:
Sounds accurate to me. Unfortunate, but accurate. The “no chase doctrine” is stupid, IMO.
Kadnine on November 3, 2006 at 1:21 AM
You can shoot back a them now? When I was there we couldn’t shoot back if they dropped their weapon.
JasonG on November 3, 2006 at 8:28 AM
…you left this statement incomplete. You forgot to add, “…AND WE’RE BETRAYING IT AS FAST AS WE CAN. (signed) DEMOCRATIC PARTY”.
It is a waste of time talking to you. You don’t appear to have an orginal thought in your head. I intend to keep an eye on you, but conversing with you is distatesful and fairly useless…and as fruitless as trying to reason with a fence post.
…I’ll not lose any more precious time on you. I’ll wait for an honest Leftist to show up.
Puritan1648 on November 3, 2006 at 8:33 AM
Asking tough questions, demanding proof and accountability, and questioning failed policies is one if the most essential functions the press and the opposition party play in a healthy democracy. If you believe the left is traitorous and destructive to America for performing these roles in a time of war you are seriously jaded and I would hate to see what your version of democracy looks like.
Unless of course you believe the left is destroying America by pushing radical agendas like health care reform and gay marriage, then of course you are right. If we let gays get married and give them healthcare they will clearly become an unstoppable force, plundering cities, toppling the government, and sodomizing in the streets.
AND
How do you have the nerve to attack Constantine for not having an original thought in his head when, agree with him or not, he constantly provides reasonable and insightful commentary whereas you do nothing but spew mindless rhetoric and absurdity.
“With great power comes great responsiblity”
The right has had great power for the last six years, I don’t think it’s too much to ask that they claim responsiblilty.
JaHerer22 on November 3, 2006 at 9:16 AM
i.e., liberal bastards.
JackM on November 3, 2006 at 9:20 AM
That’s funny.
JackM on November 3, 2006 at 9:25 AM
Translation: “Don’t blame me for being a traitor.”
JackM on November 3, 2006 at 9:34 AM
Translation: “So let’s allow the terrorists kill as many Americans as they can, it won’t make any difference.”
JackM on November 3, 2006 at 9:37 AM
Jack,
Please let me know how you think a loyal, patriotic American democrat should react to the war in Iraq. What would have been an apropriate reaction before the war started and what is a apropriate reaction now that the war is, um…less than a success?
JaHerer22 on November 3, 2006 at 9:51 AM
Jahere22, from someone who said it better than me:
-Thomas Paine
JackM on November 3, 2006 at 10:00 AM
…then, sunshine, crack a book and see how the Republicans conducted themselves between Dec. 7, 1941 and September 1945.
The actions of the Left in this country go way beyond the benign “duty of the opposition” — notice, not the “loyal opposition” — in this war as in Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, and around the edges in the first Gulf War. Had that gone on long enough, the resistance and sedition we see today would’ve arisen. The Left needs two things: time for the initial rush of outrage to subside, and time to organize treason.
The NYT has been leaking classified documents. Partisan operatives in key sensitive positions have been leaking those documents. The “opposition” has been lapping up this support, profiting by it, and demanding more.
This so-called opposition has been calling for surrender masked as “redeployment”, and has been mouthing the same skewed shibboleths since Mr. Bush gave the go-ahead.
For dissent to be productive, it has to present viable alternatives, not be like that old Monty Python sketch of a guy looking for an argument encountering someone who would only contradict him.
I most certainly do, indeed!
Health care is not a right, nor is it enshrined in the Constitution as something that the federal government has any responsiblity for. Nationalizing it, as in Canada and the UK, would be to nationalize the reach of health and lifestyle advocates. Already we’ve heard many of them using the mallet of lifestyle, diet and “choice” decisions better handled by their soviet-style central planning.
Homosexuals marrying? Pardon the pun, but that’s being shoved down this nation’s throat. Furthermore, the homosexual lobby doesn’t *deserve* to prevail, not because of their despicable “lifestyle” — that’s none of my business, however much they seem to want the nation to unite in celebrating their perversions — but by virtue of the despicable methods they are prepared to use to win.
The Left feels itself empowered, beyond the pale of mere legal and social tradition and beyond the pesky and humdrum business of standing their views up to scrutiny and referrendum, to mutate this nation into a creature cast in their image. That is despicable.
So…you can take your simpering and your agenda and rest assured that they’ve been considered and rejected. The Left is not just in opposition. It has taken up the cause of and is giving direct aid and comfort to the enemies of our troops in the field. Words spoken to support this are sedition, and acts done in support of this are treason.
…but don’t worry. Your searing logic will cow us all into letting your guys slide. Nobody wants to be the bad guy.
Puritan1648 on November 3, 2006 at 10:43 AM
Mine would be one where the rule of law prevails…and sedition is illegal, last I looked.
I have a genetic predisposition to wanting to see villains held to account for their villainy. I don’t care how slick or sincere that they are. I really don’t care what their intentions are. I’m sure that the Oklahoma City bomber, the Unabomber, and all of those guys with dynamite belts cruising through Jerusalem and Baghdad would win prizes for and argue convincingly for the purity of their intentions.
I’m for the rule of law. The lady with the scales can’t see your good intentions. It’s her job to judge by the law.
Puritan1648 on November 3, 2006 at 10:47 AM
…well, maybe KP’ll drop by. Happy to oblige, though….
Puritan1648 on November 3, 2006 at 10:49 AM
…hint, JaHerer22: the Paine quote cuts both ways.
…all I’ve been seeing for the last year from the Kerrys, Murthas, Sheehans and other figures from the “opposition” is that we *shouldn’t* defend this country. I see, since it began, only mock-handwringing about how the war started, accusations of lying and hysterical accusations of malfeasance, heady warnings to all of the intent to found a “theocracy”, all under the guise of “supporting the troops” and “honest dissent”.
Rubbish.
At every turn, efforts at the defense country have been leaked, attempts to thwart them have been made, and everyone who’s advocated the defense of this nation against a demonstrable internationalist tyranny has been held up as a some breed of monster.
The tyranny, the Left believes, doesn’t lie outside our borders, with the imams and mullahs who *state* that they want America to go under. The tyranny exists in the Bush Administration, and the Bush Administration — and, *make no mistake* — and all those who support it are enabling tyranny.
For my part, I think that the Left is enabling a tyranny…and will be the first ones to suffer when that tyranny prevails.
Enjoy.
Puritan1648 on November 3, 2006 at 10:57 AM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »