Four years on
posted at 7:30 pm on March 20, 2007 by Bryan
Send to a Friend |
printer-friendly
Jules Crittenden was there on March 20, 2003 and remembers the start of the war in Iraq.
Christopher Hitchens has been the left’s most eloquent advocate of the war in Iraq. On its fourth anniversary, he pushes back against critics one more time.
My own thoughts on the four years of war in Iraq. Saddam is gone and he’s an object lesson to tyrants like him. Given the circumstances in March 2003–a recently successful catastrophic terrorist attack on our own soil; Saddam’s known ties to international terrorists; more than a decade of Saddam playing games with weapons inspectors and defying the US (and the UN); Iraqi anti-air guns shooting at our pilots enforcing the no-fly zones almost daily; Saddam scooping out Oil-For-Food money to build palaces and buy his own safety and who knew what else; and the sanctions regime that was rapidly crumbling at the time–we had to do what we had to do.
We overestimated the Iraqi army’s capability and willingness to rebuff the invasion. We gave the Saddam regime a year to do something with its WMDs, weapons that every intel agency on earth believed he had prior to the invasion. We underestimated the corrosive effects of 35 years of rule by fear, both on the Iraqi military and the Iraqi people. The latter led to the situation we’re now in and trying to correct by building a civil society where there really was none. Our military is good for so much more than shooting people and blowing things up, but it needs help from all across the government that it isn’t getting so far. The administration has been slow to adjust to the humanitarian side of the war, but seems to be catching up. The administration has also been slow to acknowledge that the Iranians and Syrians have made good on their threat to turn Baghdad into Beirut, and that slowness has added to the deterioration of the situation.
Did I think we would still be fighting a hot war in Iraq four years after the invasion, or that we would be on the brink of quitting? No way. I was naive on that point. I thought the Iraqi people would be more grateful and step up to self rule much more quickly than they have. I underestimated the effect that Saddam’s rule had had on average Iraqis, and underestimated how much trouble the Iranians would be willing and able to cause us. I won’t make those mistakes again, and I hope that no American administration will either. But hope isn’t a plan. I suspect that the next administration, regardless of party, will be weaker on the war than the current administration.
I wasn’t naive on the effect that the left’s anti-war stance would have on the war. On my old blog I sounded that alarm often enough. And I’ll say it one more time: If you really want peace and if you really love the freedom to protest and denounce your leaders and your country, ramp down the anti-war rhetoric. Every word from the Cindy Sheehans and Michael Moores of the world is tonic to the terrorists. Each word against the war tells the enemy in Iraq and Iran and Syria and everywhere else that they can beat the United States by outlasting it. That’s a ghost left over from General Giap’s strategy in Vietnam, and it needs exorcising. But the political climate in the country today tells me that we won’t get that exorcism any time soon. The people protesting against the current war are already against the next one, no matter where or how it starts. They don’t want America to fight for anything, no matter how just or necessary the fight may be.
So four years later we’re surging troops into Iraq in a last gasp to win the thing. We’ve made a grinding progress lately, and shouldn’t forget the bank shot win we got in Libya by invading Iraq. Ghaddafi’s weapons programs were much farther along than our intelligence suspected (another black mark against our intel capabilities), and his turn led to rolling up the A.Q. Khan nuclear network. We shouldn’t forget that the world doesn’t work according to our fix-it-now mentality, and that things just take time. Building a country from the mess that Saddam made takes time.
Behind everything is the experiment going on in Iraq: Can democracy work in the Middle East? I’m no longer as sanguine as I once was on that question. Democracy in Turkey has put an Islamist-leaning party in power. Democracy in the Palestinian Authority has put terrorist Hamas in power. Democracy in Pakistan would no doubt bring Islamists into power there. Democracy in Iraq has religious parties sharing power there. Sharia law has been written into the constitutions of Iraq and Afghanistan, our two Islamic democracy laboratories. The trend toward democracy in the Middle East has so far had the opposite effect that we need in order to transform the region. But that’s the trend, and trends aren’t permanent.
It may be that a few years of Islamist misrule will swing Middle Eastern democracy toward more openness and freedom, eventually. It may be that the Islamist reformation leads to a backlash against radicalism and Wahhabism. It may be that terrorists continue killing fellow Muslims and thereby discredit themselves among their fellow Muslims. It may be that Russia wakes up and stops helping Iran develop nuclear weapons. It may be that the West wakes up and defends itself. It may be that the mullahs fall in Tehran and the Islamic revolution is dealt a death blow where it started. Time will tell.
It may also be that the West keeps going down the path to dhimmitude. Ahem. It may be that we give up on Iraq, and a genocide follows our exit. It may be that the Iranians aquire nuclear weapons and use them or hand them off to terrorists who will use them. It may be that Islamic democracy plus our retreat from Iraq creates a permanent layer of Islamist rule and emboldens radicals in Egypt and Jordan, where they currently have little or no power. It may be that we’re on the edge of a very difficult time that we could have avoided if we had more cultural confidence and more awareness of what’s at stake and how to win. Time will tell.
Whatever turns out, the invasion of Iraq wasn’t the beginning of the war and victory or retreat from there won’t end it. That’s one of the few things that we know for sure.
As the war enters its fifth year, here’s a look at how things are on the ground. Not perfect by a long shot, but there’s a confidence in opposing Islamic radicals on camera, knowing that the global reach of YouTube can come back to haunt you. On the other hand, when eating a salad is an act of courage, you don’t live anywhere near Disneyland.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
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
Excellent post, Bryan.
One quibble about your use of the term “democracy.”
Democracy is more than simply holding an election. It requires that there be a rule of law. It requires that governmental institutions respect the rule of law. It requires an independent judiciary. I could go on. Turkey has a pretty good democracy, but there is none in the Palestinian Authority, just an election that was only moderately corrupt and only moderately accompanied by violence and intimidation. Pakistan is hardly a democracy, either — more than the P.A. but less than Turkey.
I agree that establishing democracy is going to be difficult, especially as I’ve defined it. I’m not willing to give up, either, because that would be worse.
Attila (Pillage Idiot) on March 20, 2007 at 7:44 PM
Hm. I’ve read that this war started in the 7th Century.
Iraq is not a war in same way that the invasion of Normandy wasn’t a war. It’s a battle in a far larger war.
Vinnie on March 20, 2007 at 7:50 PM
Like Attila, I loathe to quibble, but referring to every new front opened in this war as a “war” in and of itself trivializes the war overall.
Vinnie on March 20, 2007 at 7:53 PM
Agreed.
This is the “Battle of Iraq” within the larger context of the still undeclared “War Against Islamic Fascism”.
CliffHanger on March 20, 2007 at 8:07 PM
Boy do I wish this was true, but unfortunately Iran is showing us (so far) that Saddam wasn’t as much a lesson as we’d hoped he’d be.
ballz2wallz on March 20, 2007 at 8:19 PM
I’d like to revise and extend my remarks. It’s not Bryan’s fault it’s being called the “war in Iraq.”
As usual, that’s owned by the dinosaur media.
But, as these things go, everyone calls it the “war in Iraq.”
Which is why I loathe quibbling over such insignificant things.
BTW, Xbox, or PS3?
:P
Vinnie on March 20, 2007 at 8:32 PM
Lessons learned? Perhaps, but this has been brewing for many generations and is not just limited to Iraq. The broader picture exposes Islam and it’s flaws. Much like the troubles Ireland has had between Catholics and Protestant for generations, this is embedded in their culture. Sunni and Shia Islam will be at each others throats for generations. Perhaps the enemy within will forget about it’s Jewish neighbors, but that’s just wishful thinking.
Bryans video post shows a side of Islamic life very much like our own, but only within the confines of four walls and a roof, away from the religious
policefanaticsfascist prying eyes.The only thing they have left is their hate.
Kini on March 20, 2007 at 8:48 PM
Money quote.
IrishEi on March 20, 2007 at 8:50 PM
Great post Bryan. Thanks.
Was that “liberty” salad they were eating?
Zorro on March 20, 2007 at 9:08 PM
That video was interesting.
I actually did one of the early Chat the Planet shows. My episode was about “racism & political correctness”. They had a group of American kids discussing being PC with a group of South African kids. I was apparently the only one on the US side that had bothered to do the reading and study the material.
It was interesting because the S. African kids were vehemently opposed to Political Correctness because they felt that it just causes someone to hide their feelings or find alternate words for expressing the same thoughts. They said that if someone believes they are a ‘kaffir’ they’d rather have someone say it rather than pretend to be nice but think it.
Every kid on the American side (except me) was very pro-PC because, according to them, “there are some things that people just shouldn’t say”. Which, I agree with. I believe there are things that people shouldn’t say. However, I don’t believe it is the role of the federal government to dictate what those things are and punish people for saying them. That’s where me and the other kids parted ways.
The most interesting thing that happened during the filming is that one of the U.S. girls was half black and half white. She told a story during the rehearsals about her brother getting beat up for acting black (he has light skin but the right kind of hair for an afro). During the rehearsals the moderators made a huge deal out of her story and told her that she HAD to tell the story on the air. When we were filming, she told the story again, but, this time she included the detail that it was a group of black people that had put her brother in the hospital for ‘acting black’. She hadn’t thought to include it before because it didn’t seem to be that important of a detail. Racism is racism, right? Apparently not. The moderator moved on to the next topic so fast our heads spun. Guess the story only HAD to be told as long as they thought it was a group of white kids beating up a poor half-black kid.
JadeNYU on March 20, 2007 at 9:19 PM
Stick to your guns, Vinnie, for you are correct.
Words DO have meaning.
.
The Machine on March 20, 2007 at 9:56 PM
I underestimated the effect that Saddam’s rule had had on average Iraqis, and underestimated how much trouble the Iranians would be willing and able to cause us. I won’t make those mistakes again, and I hope that no American administration will either. But hope isn’t a plan. I suspect that the next administration, regardless of party, will be weaker on the war than the current administration.
More than anything, the proponents of this war gravely overestimated the capability of the Iraqis for democratic governance.
tommy1 on March 20, 2007 at 9:58 PM
Really? See this is what I think is half wrong with us. The military is designed to break things. We should use it the way it was intended. That means breaking things so that it takes 50 years to rebuild, just like the US did to the South, after all if it was good enough to do to our own citizens, it’s good enough to do to the enemy.
And no, the Marshall Plan didn’t work in Europe. It was when they removed the restrictions on the free market that Europe recovered.
Unfortunately, I am one of the few Americans who believe in the Levin Doctrine that believes that virtual total destruction of the enemy will stop their ability to attack us. He constantly has said he would put to use the US bomber fleet.
A compassionate military is as big of a failure as a Compassionate Conservative.
Tim Burton on March 20, 2007 at 10:04 PM
Attila,
Turkey’s “democracy” has been held together over the years only through multiple military coups. Not much of democracy when the military has to put down Islamists who have won too much popular support with force every two decades or so.
tommy1 on March 20, 2007 at 10:04 PM
I knew we were in for a long war when the Iraqis included Islamic law in their constitution. And you are correct that our anti-war activists have emboldened the enemy. I would go a step farther. If one is guilty of behaviors that embolden an enemy and that enemy then kills more of our troops and innocent civilians because they have been emboldened, then one is guilty of aiding and abetting. These same people say if we weren’t over there, Americans wouldn’t be dying. Obviously, that is untrue. We were attacked by Islamists many years before Iraq. And we were attacked on our home soil. They also fail to see a surrounded Iran. They have short memories also. Berkeley Marxists aided the ‘79 Revolution. Some say we should have gone into Iran rather than Iraq. That would have been impossible, as well as foolhardy. Unfortunately, we do still need SA oil, so we stroke them and protect them until we can wean ourselves from our dependency. That is really the only reason CAIR, MAS, and other groups have been allowed to continue operate, but I think we’ve reached the point where we have to put an end to that part.
This will be a long war - made longer by the creed of cowardice and hatred promulgated by leftist elites and anarchists. Our universities are filled with Chomskyites who are filling the next generation of leaders with anti-American propaganda. I am not hopeful.
Very thoughtful article, Bryan. Kudos!
Connie on March 20, 2007 at 10:09 PM
Bryan, excellent retrospective……..
For those who really want to see Iraq without the filter of the MSM, and also want to help out spread freedom and democracy in Iraq, check out HomeTown Baghdad, and give them a hand in setting up or fine tuning their Blog…….. or just look around the site and say, “Hi”….
Either way, it puts a real face on the people of Iraq that the MSM will NEVER let you see…….. Freedom and Democracy, once you have a taste, you can never go back…..
PinkyBigglesworth on March 20, 2007 at 10:10 PM
Good article Bryan but I take exception to your thought that Hamas is in power,Turkey has put an Islamist-leaning party in power and Afghanistan and Iraq have Sharia law because of democracy.Its like saying we dont have secure borders in America because of democracy.It doesn’t fit.
They are not what I would consider a democracy.Theocracy yes,but not democracy.
As long as the people elect(thru democratic process)leaders who institute islam as the final authority,you will not have a democracy…ever.
spazzmomma on March 20, 2007 at 10:21 PM
Bryan,
If the Long War was going to be short or easy, we would send the Girl Scouts to fight it.
Press on, Men. We’re counting on you to fight it till its won.
Subsunk
Subsunk on March 20, 2007 at 10:29 PM
You were inspired by
stole thisfrom Van der Leun, right?wccawa on March 20, 2007 at 10:44 PM
My son hates the place. Does he want to go back for #3? Hell no. Hooters and New Orleans Nights are far far better places to be. So what does he do? He laces up his boots and cleans is AR. He tells his driver, loader and gunner to get their DU DU together. Just like all those other men and women. OUR sons and daughters. Those boys and girls who wouldn’t get their fannys out of bed to get to 1st period class. Those boys and girls who wouldn’t take out the trash. Those boys and girls turned into men and women and along the way somehow learned something about right and wrong. Men and women who do what is hard because if they know if they don’t who will? When you were yelling at Johnny and Carol at 7am who woulda thunk it? That lazy ass kid gonna protect my life? Yeah right.
Limerick on March 20, 2007 at 11:15 PM
.If you really want peace and if you really love the freedom to protest and denounce your leaders and your country, ramp down the anti-war rhetoric. Every word from the Cindy Sheehans and Michael Moores of the world is tonic to the terrorists.
georgej on March 20, 2007 at 11:17 PM
The American community has been far too absorbed in the trivia of a successful lifestyle. Even as someone in Iraq acknowledges the threat they face for eating a mixed salad a 16 year old in Orange County is pouting over the details of her sweet-16 fete, which luxury car will be her gift, and the social status she will garner.
While our national doors stand agape and we drift in and out of our consumption induced stupor we’re encompassed with mortal enemies. Daily with clear, fixed eyes they rise to their malice, grasping any means to do us terminal harm. “Patriotic” fellow citizens who claim to hold dear our national interests beckon our medieval foes toward us. And a Dragon and a Bear feed and prowl,awaiting the moment of assault.
If we cannot see imminent danger in the naked hostilities of Jihadists who have already struck us, how will we ever see the threats cloaked in leftist propaganda or the global machinations of China and Russia? Who will rouse us? Our leaders have assured us the enemy will hear our voice and soothed us to continue our American Dream.
It is time for the sleeper to awake. It is time for unintimidated leadership. It is time to defend freedom again.
The Ritz on March 20, 2007 at 11:18 PM
God Bless your son!
PinkyBigglesworth on March 20, 2007 at 11:26 PM
Every day Pinky I ask God for just that! Thank you and all the HA supporters!
Limerick on March 20, 2007 at 11:27 PM
Nope. I missed that one entirely until I saw your link, but it’s a nice piece.
Bryan on March 20, 2007 at 11:38 PM
Now for whose sake are we in Iraq anymore?
The Iraqis?
78% oppose our presence, and 51% think it is OK to attack US forces.
So, what’s up with that?
Is it for our own sake? I don’t think so. They won’t follow us home.
So, why are we still there? Even if we think we are helping, a super-duper-ultra majority of Iraqis beg to differ. 78% is a much bigger “super-majority” than would be necessary to override a veto in the US senate.
Are the majority of Iraqis now “terrorists”? Should we kill them all? Who are we trying to save?
The battle for hearts and minds is clearly over.
I love freedom and democracy, I have served in the armed forces, but it’s crazy to fight for people who don’t appreciate it or want it, who would in fact rather kill us and fight against us. It makes no sense. Such people need to help themselves.
The kurds are the only exception. So give them enough weapons to defend themselves, but we need to leave and let Iraq have its civil war in peace.
This is Vietnam all over again.
Gaijin51 on March 20, 2007 at 11:39 PM
Nice assesment Bryan.
csdeven on March 20, 2007 at 11:39 PM
Maybe it is because sticking a gun in the bad guys face is better then sticking it up your ***.
Limerick on March 20, 2007 at 11:41 PM
And Gaijin what the HELL do you know about Nam?
Where the hell were YOU during Operation Frequent Wind and Operation Eagle Pull? And here is your final EXIT QUESTION:
Was the World Trade Center part of your home? Friggin troll.
Limerick on March 20, 2007 at 11:52 PM
In a word (or two) - bullshit.
Anyone who uses the Vietnam comparison is as stupid as those who compare Bush to Hitler. It requires a uniquely self-absorbed ignorance of actual history.
Other than the fact that its unpopular, there is not one valid comparison between Vietnam and Iraq. Not one.
No offense, Sparky.
As for Bryan’s post: while I was reading your excellent summation of the last few years, I had one question - and that Vietnam silliness reinforces the question: can we as a nation EVER fight a war that lasts more than few weeks or months?
From now on, will EVERY conflict that lasts more than a week be compared to Vietnam? (I’d hoped that after Desert Shield/Storm, we were past that).
Are we capable of fighting a protracted war? Is it possible today? If China heads into Taiwan, and we must begin a multi-year campaign (a hopefully ridiculous example), would the left - and some on the right - let us fight it?
I’m not sure any more.
It worries me. Because sooner or later, that war is coming. Guaranteed. Can we fight it? I know our military can - but will we let them?
More importantly, where’s my beer?
Professor Blather on March 20, 2007 at 11:55 PM
Oh. Hell. Yeah.
Professor Blather on March 21, 2007 at 12:03 AM
I know that the city that used to be called Saigon is now called Ho Chi Minh City. So what did American sodiers die for in Vietnam? The Vietnamese should fight their own wars. I would fight invaders in the US, but why save Iraqis from each other if they don’t appreciate it?
What does the world trade center have to do with Iraq?
Gaijin51 on March 21, 2007 at 12:11 AM
Obviously, Japanese racial slur, you ain’t got a clue. I would trust you to fight an invader, if you we in front of me the whole time.
Limerick on March 21, 2007 at 12:15 AM
Here’s a thought: Let the Taiwanese worry about that.
We should only fight for ourselves, not ungrateful foreigners.
Gaijin51 on March 21, 2007 at 12:16 AM
sorta like ungrateful Americans I think.
Limerick on March 21, 2007 at 12:19 AM
Radical Islamists have been attacking us and our interests around the globe for some 28 years. They haven’t grown weary. They signed in for the long haul.
We better sign in for the long haul as well, if we wish to keep Western culture and our freedoms alive.
If we don’t, if we follow the Democrats desire to cut and run, I fear the next attack will make 9/11 seem very minor.
LewWaters on March 21, 2007 at 12:20 AM
For some reason you seem to be taking this very personally. Gaijin is not a racial slur, it is the Japanese word for foreigner. I am an American who lives in Japan. I used to be stationed here, and now I live here. I served honorably and got an honorable discharge.
Gaijin51 on March 21, 2007 at 12:21 AM
I could CARE less about your honorable discharge. Kerry got one too. I wouldn’t let him pick up the dog business in my yard. Suggest you check you history on your name Racial Slur…Gaijin TODAY is defined as foreigner….not in historical Japan….it has a more….shall we say inappropriate meaning to the Japanese.
You come on here with a ABC news poll and a Washington Post article and expect everyone to march on Washington. We did.
It was called GOE.
Oh…one more thing…..the Enola Gay was a beautiful bird.
Limerick on March 21, 2007 at 12:27 AM
It’s ABC News.
Connie on March 21, 2007 at 12:32 AM
Sorry Bryan for feeding the trolls…I will shut up now and drink beer and watch South Park re-runs.
Limerick on March 21, 2007 at 12:38 AM
Is the jihadist threat of today more dangerous than the communist threat of the cold war?
Lets see. The communists had nukes, controlled 2 great power countries, were totalitarian, had an infectious ideology and wanted to take over the world. The jihadists are totalitarian but don’t control any major country and don’t have nukes. Their ideology is based on a specific regional religion.
If anything, “winning” Iraq seems less important now than winning Vietnam seemed at the time. After all, it was the first domino, and if Vietnam fell then all of southeast Asia was going to fall to the communists.
Gaijin51 on March 21, 2007 at 12:46 AM
Two question, how old are you, and do attend public schools?
PinkyBigglesworth on March 21, 2007 at 2:31 AM
I’ll bite (and some on this thread wonder why I blow my stack every once and a while)……..
Yes, because the Islamofacists target innocent civilians in mass, the more the better, in order to gain entrance into “their” Heaven…….. they would have no problem walking a cell across our undefended borders into your childs elementary school, and raping then cutting off the head of your child. Period. No problems at all. The think they are just taking out the trash. Do you get a hint of the point now?
The communists “have” nukes, what makes you think that they just threw them away? IDIOT! 2 Countries, 2 (two) you say? If I can name three, do I discount your arguement? What about 4? How about 5? Let me ask you this, how many “Countries” do we recognize currently on our planet, and if I can come up with more than two that have nukes, and want to play a bigger part in the world, even take it over, what would you say?
There is a bit of difference between Iraq and Viet Nam, oil fields for the world’s economy, and the killing fields when the Democratic Congress withheld funds to support South Viet Nam when the North, with the backing of the Soviet Union and China invaded after we “re-deployed”. Then something happened, people started to fight back. Oh, you forgot that?
Gaijin51, some of my fellow contributors are more elliquent in their responses, I have a tendacy to get pissed… So I will leave it here.
Note to Self (Gaijin51), Please, Never know what the F”"” you am talking about before you make a post……. that will keep us all entertained.
PinkyBigglesworth on March 21, 2007 at 2:51 AM
Great post, Bryan!
.
GT on March 21, 2007 at 5:11 AM
I don’t dispute that they are evil, but if our borders are undefended, maybe our army should be defending them don’t you think? How can they defend our borders if they are in Iraq? I hate them every bit as much as you do, but the issue is what is best for our national security. My position is that Americans would be more secure if we redeployed our troops to defend those undefended borders.
How old are you? Are you capable of making a coherent argument without name-calling? I am referring to two great power communist countries China and the USSR. There were smaller client states as well. Other than that, I don’t see any substantial point that you’ve made other than perhaps nitpicking about my grammar.
I’m not totally sure what you refer to when you say that “something happened.” A lot of things happened. For example, the communists started fighting among themselves. The Vietnamese attacked Cambodia; China attacked Vietnam; China and the Soviets weren’t getting along; Nixon went to China. A lot of people died, yes, but the important thing is that they weren’t Americans anymore.
Gaijin51 on March 21, 2007 at 8:23 AM
Gaijin’s argument boils down to this:
Expel Billy from school because he let the bully take his lunch money. Billy won’t fight back. The bully will. That makes everyone nice and safe. Especially Gaijin.
Limerick on March 21, 2007 at 8:40 AM
Back on topic for a sec…this is not the ‘Battle of Iraq’ because there are lots of individual battles in Iraq that have nothing but location in common. You could, however, legitimately call it the Iraq Campaign as a part of the larger war.
We now return you to your regularly scheduled dumb Vietnam threadjack.
James on March 21, 2007 at 8:54 AM
The anti-war crowd are not as strong as they would like to be. Or at least as convincing as the media would like them. AP has a extended whine masked as news.
BohicaTwentyTwo on March 21, 2007 at 9:06 AM
Aren’t there some constitutional issues what that? I would imagine that the Libertarians would be jumping all over Bush if he did this.
Am I wrong?
.
GT on March 21, 2007 at 9:15 AM
Limerick:
You made the following statements in two separate posts:
(1) What exactly have you done in the service of your country? The term veteran and honorable discharge are not reserved for those who agree with you. If you are going to wax sentimental about only the right cares about the troops and the Democrats don’t you have a funny way of showing it.
(2) What are your credentials regarding the Japanese language? Gaijin simply means foreigner. Either you are a member of Japanese society or an outsider - cut and dried. There is no hidden slur. My credentials are several years living in the country and a couple of years formal courses in the Japanese language.
Bradky on March 21, 2007 at 9:22 AM
If I might answer the Gaijin question; Gaijin used to be used as a slur for anyone that was not of Japanese ethnicity. It was used in a derogatory way to identify “the other”. Much like some racial slurs we now consider inappropriate. The N word comes to mind.
To call someone a foreigner in Japan years ago was to identify someone in a negative manner.
The video: I was amazed to see that the Islamofacists have drilled the ideology all the way down to salad… What a sad reality.
Babs on March 21, 2007 at 10:15 AM
1. the better part of 10 years of service in uniform with the United States Army. Read the posts above and something might give you a clue.
2. None formally. But as a Japanophile myself I can tell you that the origin of the word Gaijin is not ‘foreigner’ it is ‘not to be trusted’. If wrong, well then BradkyK, I offer you up my head.
3. (back to 1)…What a man was doesn’t concern me. What a man is does. A copperhead is a copperhead no matter how much you might want to deny it.
Limerick on March 21, 2007 at 11:51 AM
Hey Limerick, I’ve got a crush on you.
KelliD on March 21, 2007 at 12:17 PM
Back before the Meiji period Japan was a closed country and foreigners were not allowed. It was indeed xenophobic at the time. They may have even thought of foreigners as barbarians. This racism continued through world war II. But that is ancient history, like slavery or Jim Crow is ancient history in the US. To call the word itself a “slur” doesn’t make anymore sense than to say that “caucasion” or “foreigner” is a slur. A very literal translation would be “outside person.” My profession BTW happens to be in Japanese-to-English translation. Of course none of this is relevant to the discussion, Limerick brought it up as some odd way to cast aspersions, although this is simply not true. For some reason he felt it important to mention the Enola Gay, too. I have nothing more to say on this topic because it is a silly attack and a distraction. Hurling insults is not an argument.
Yes, I think you are wrong. Libertarians tend to be isolationists (as were most of our fathers) so they don’t like the current interventionist policy. I consider myself closer to libertarianism.
What could possibly be unconstitutional about the army defending our national borders?
Gaijin51 on March 21, 2007 at 12:22 PM
KelliD….is it my beer drinking or lack of spelling/grammer skills?
Limerick on March 21, 2007 at 12:22 PM
It is called Posse Comitatus Gaijin.
Limerick on March 21, 2007 at 12:24 PM
Limerick, you’ve got some pretty mean skilz. The beer is just a bonus.
KelliD on March 21, 2007 at 12:30 PM
(Thank you for your service now thank Gaijin for his)
(You are wrong - The character for Gai means outside and the character for jin means person. I am interested in Greek architecture but that doesn’t make me an expert. And I don’t want your head)
You are right about everything? WOW That must make for pretty boring conversations. You denigrated his service and compared him to John Kerry in a very negative way. Kind of the same thing as if I were to make a parallel between you and Timothy McVeigh — patently unfair characterization and reason for you to expect an apology from me.
Bradky on March 21, 2007 at 12:59 PM
Apology accepted.
Limerick on March 21, 2007 at 1:05 PM
I’m beginning to worry that your reading comprehension skills are lacking. Cutting and pasting out of context skills are at a B+ level though (Dan Rather would be proud). Did you learn that from Anime?
Bradky on March 21, 2007 at 1:11 PM
Like I said Bradky, a copperhead is a copperhead….no matter who his mama was. Did I compare Gaijin and Kerry in a negative way? Yep. Apologize? Nope. You want to compare me to McVeigh or Bushitler, I ain’t gonna cry about it, I just consider the source. Sorta like you will mine.
Limerick on March 21, 2007 at 1:24 PM
The former French Indochina, brush-stroke calligraphy, tentacle-porn cartoons, the attractiveness of beer guts, school grades for parsing, and the relative merits of deriving western concepts from nihongo vs. kanji are all fascinating topics which sooner or later may each have their own thread here at HotAir, but this one ain’t it.
While I’m all for a good threadjack if it serves a greater purpose, such as poking sophomoric fun at some politicians/other assclowns who really, really deserve it, you guys are making this about yourselves, and that’s no fun for the majority of the Esteemed Assembly.
James on March 21, 2007 at 2:03 PM
Now that deserves my apology. I let the tick make me scratch. I apologize to the Esteemed Assembly.
Limerick on March 21, 2007 at 2:06 PM
Notes on a couple of topics:
I studied Japanese through the Defense Langauge Institute and lived/worked in Osaka for a Japanese manufacturing company for a little over three years, and can attest that “Gaijin” definitely carries a pejorative meaning, albeit not a particularly strong one. The Japanese have harsher terms at their disposal if they want to slur you - they have more than two dozen ways to say “barbarian” when it comes to describing foreigners - although I never heard any of them used.
During my entire stay in Japan none of the natives ever called me a “gaijin,” at least not to my face. When I once referred to myself by that term, my Japanese girlfriend was quick to correct me into saying, “Gaikokujin” - basically, the difference between “outsider” and “foreigner.”
Anyway, hope that sheds some light.
On the Iraq-as-Vietnam topic, there are a few parallels, although as a generality the comparison doesn’t hold up; the main distinctions being that semi-stateless Communists didn’t murder thousands of Americans on our own soil in a single day to begin the conflict, and that there was never any realistic threat of the North Vietnamese or Viet Cong bringing the hostilities to our shores if we failed to prevail on their turf.
Another distinction: Vietnam was an unsuccessful extension of the Cold War “containment” strategy. Iraq is more like the “rollback” strategy that Reagan adopted to win that struggle.
Similarities:
- Both conflicts invoke the “domino theory,” in that if a hostile ideology is allowed to prevail in one country then it’s likely to spread to neighboring countries.
- Both conflicts showcased a technologicaly advanced US military that could quickly dispense with any conventional battlefield opponent, but which struggled to find answers to guerilla-style tactics.
- Both conflicts demonstrate the impatience of the American people with low-level conflicts that can last for several years with few significant mileposts to mark the way toward a clear-cut victory, as well as intended beneficiaries of our intervention who often seem frustratingly slow to take the reins of their own destiny.
- Both conflicts revealed the problems inherent in allowing the enemy to have sanctuary in neighboring states (Laos, Cambodia and North Vietnam in the former, Iran and Syria in the latter).
- Both conflicts gave rise to a leftist domestic opposition that became less and less distinguishable from a fifth column movement as the conflict went on; the enemy in both conflicts relied heavily upon that fifth column to weaken and eventually break American political will to win; and in both conflicts the Democratic party eventually ended up embracing betrayal and defeat as a “solution.”
Bottom line: Iraq isn’t “Vietnam Redux;” but if we aren’t mindful of the lessons of history, we run the risk of falling prey to to both foreign and domestic enemies who would clearly like to to see us repeat it.
Spurius Ligustinus on March 21, 2007 at 2:21 PM
Great post, Spurius.
.
GT on March 21, 2007 at 4:37 PM