Iraq Video Essay: Why liberals should love this war
posted at 8:31 am on July 16, 2007 by Bryan
Share on Facebook | regular view
What will victory look like in Iraq? How will we know if we’re getting closer to victory, or farther from it? Back in January I spent some time with the US Army’s Ist Division, Task Force Dagger at Forward Operating Base Justice in Baghdad, and came away with a small picture of what a peaceful, stable Iraq might look like. More importantly, I saw how we might be getting there. Tragically, what I saw in Al Salam might turn out to be a fleeting glimpse of a stable, peaceful and secure Iraq that will never be.
Among the 200 or so US Army officers and enlisted at Foward Operating Base Justice in western Baghdad is one of the most unique soldiers in the Army. Captain Stacy Bare, the camp’s civil affairs officer, describes himself as “part Wookie.” It’s not hard to see why. At six-foot-eight with a deep bass voice that carries across a courtyard even in a whisper, the 28-year-old South Dakotan could easily don a carpet suit and stand in for Han Solo’s furry sidekick.

The Airborne patch on his shoulder, the body armor across his huge frame and the M-4 rifle across his chest give Bare the visage of the real world version of the “army of one” slogan that the Army thankfully ditched. But Bare’s mission here is complex and subtle. He takes territory from the insurgents and militias a neighborhood at a time, by asking questions and fulfilling promises rather than by applying direct force. In the Al Salam neighborhood a mile or so from FOB Justice, in fact, the use of force in what the military calls “kinetic activity” has become counterproductive according to Bare’s commander, LTC Steve Miska.
Miska: If the enemy is getting us into gunfights in the street, then they’re winning that day because…they’re delaying our ability to focus on the population.
Bare and his fellow soldiers travel to Al Salam in a convoy of four Humvees, with a total of 12 soldiers, two interpreters and two press including myself and Michelle Malkin. The Hummers park and establish a security cordon within seconds, and Bare along with several other troops dismount and head for a small building nearby. Bare sets the helmet and his body armor on the floor upon entering the squat building. His rifle stays with the armor as he takes his place at the long conference table in the center of the room. Setting aside the weapon and body armor is one of many signals that Bare and his troops give to show their Iraqi hosts that they have come for peaceful reasons and that they trust their hosts. Today he’s here to meet with the NAC, or Neighborhood Advisory Council, a group of local citizens who have come together over time to make life in their community better by asking the Americans for help, and by helping the Americans when asked. Similar groups all over Baghdad meet with American troops weekly, but Al Salam’s NAC is one of the most successful to date in turning their neighborhood around.
CPT Bare and a the soldiers with him exchange greetings with the five or six men and a woman who comprise the council. Judging from body language, eye contact and expressions, these Iraqis are glad to meet the familiar young Americans. Iraqi chai tea, apparently to this country what coffee is to ours, is served by a middle-aged woman who smiles at the Americans while she sets the tiny tea glasses before them and the council members around the conference table. It’s an Earl Grey tea, sweetened with a thick layer of sugar at the bottom of the tiny cup, and it’s delicious. The room itself is spare, with just one flourescent strip bulb providing artificial light and several large windows allowing in enough natural light to give the room a darkish but not at all sinister feel. On one wall is a satellite photo of Baghdad, with its bewildering array of neighborhoods marked and numbered. We’re in Number 408, a mile or so northwest of hyperviolent Haifa Street. Though Al Salam and Haifa Street aren’t far apart geographically, they might as well be in separate countries. Masked insurgent gunmen fire on Coalition forces from every imaginable sniper nest on Haifa; in Al Salam, the American Army rides in to a friendly reception. If there are hostile forces in Al Salam, they are nowhere to be seen today and haven’t caused much trouble in a month or so.
The warmth and welcome on display here is a fairly recent development. Only a few months ago, Al Salam was a sketchy and somewhat dangerous area, rife with the sectarian divisions and lack of civil order that plague swaths of Baghdad. Its recovery could point the way for the rest of the city and Iraq itself, as the Iraqi people slowly come out from under 35 years of Saddam Hussein’s monopoly on power and violence and learn to solve local problems with local remedies. As they have no recent history of self governance, it will take them time to learn to think and act for themselves, and CPT Bare is here to show them how.
Once the NAC and the soldiers are seated and the chai is in hand, CPT Bare leads the meeting, though the local analog of a mayor and a sheik are present and seated at the table’s head. Through his terp, Armyspeak for interpreter, Bare first delivers two boxes that represent promises made and promises kept. Local women have decided that they want to learn sewing in order to find work. The boxes contain two brand new Brother sewing machines. Fatima, the council’s lone woman member present, smiles broadly and says “shukra”–”thank you” in Arabic. Local women will learn to sew, find work, and help make their families and their community stronger. And they will remember that the Americans made it possible.
After the sewing machine delivery, the meeting gets down to business. The council updates Bare on their projects and he updates them on the status of various requests they have made to him in previous weekly meetings. Contracts for one project haven’t happened, due to the reluctance of some companies in other districts to operate across sectarian neighborhood boundaries. So CPT Bare, who has been working on several issues with leaders of local elementary schools, suggests dropping those floundering projects in favor of finding contractors to bid on providing meals for a school breakfast and lunch program. Surely a shop in Al Salam can fulfill the contract. The NAC agrees. A little bit of Head Start comes to Baghdad. If only the liberals back home knew what the Army’s finest were up to over here.
Bare: What we’re trying to accomplish at the end of the day…that the people have trust and confidence in that local government.
While that part of the meeting moved along, in the corner of the room with the satellite image on the wall, a local man and Army sergeant converse through another interpreter. The man is pointing to the map and telling the soldier which streets in the area still have security problems, either from insurgents or militia activity. Security issues remain this neighborhood’s major obstacle from achieving the prosperity that nearby Khadimiyah is already enjoying, and it helps both the Americans and the locals to tamp the violence down. The information that the Al Salam community volunteers through this sidebar intelligence briefing will get passed through the US command to the Iraqi army brigade that shares Camp Justice with Bare’s unit. Joint presence patrols and perhaps even sweeps and raids will be used to deal with the problem. The Americans help the Iraqis with their local governance and service issues, and the Iraqis in turn help the Americans find and deal with security threats. And a little bit of Baghdad moves an inch or two toward a new, less dangerous normal.
The truth is, liberals should love the war in Iraq, since it’s being fought to a great extent along notions of soft power over hard power. It’s much less about firepower than it is about the power of basic services to bring about peace. It’s about bringing “good government” and civil liberties and human rights to war torn Baghdad, a city that has seen none of those things in decades, if ever. At least half the war’s most vital action takes place in meetings like this one in Al Salam to discuss works projects, school re-buildings and urban renewal. It’s all part of the complex mission in Iraq, a mission that morphed from the defeat of an entrenched dictatorship to one focused on building a civil society that will survive after the Americans leave. CPT Bare and the rest of the US military are trying to build a nation that Saddam Hussein broke, both by keeping the Iraqi people under his boot heel for 35 years and by leading it into needless wars to establish himself as a latter-day Nebuchadnezzar. In Saddam’s rule by fear, the basic idea of taking care of one’s own community broke down in favor of the daily need to survive by avoiding attracting the Baathist government’s attention. The Americans have to remove the fear that built up over decades, restore hope and help the Iraqis rebuild their lives and nation. Hard power may clear and hold Baghdad’s rough streets, but it will be CPT Bare’s relentless application of soft power that will win the war.
This is how the conflict in Iraq will be won, or lost. There won’t be an Iwo Jima flag raising to signal that the fight has turned in our favor for good. The American people will have to understand and accept that little things like a neighborhood council finding a contract garbage collector, and the re-opening of an elementary school, represent the end state of a community’s recovery and therefore signal battlefield victory. Our leaders in Washington need to teach us that that’s what victory in Iraq looks like. Our press needs to show us that that’s what our troops are doing in between the brief and often bloody firefights, but instead it’s busy picking up where the insurgencies leave off in delegitimizing the US mission and the Iraqi government. Peaceful, secure communities have no interest in the militias and despise the al Qaeda terrorists and insurgents. Beyond the fighting of Haifa Street, the war in Iraq will be won or lost by injecting good government in place of Saddam’s republic of fear. Which is why liberals, if they understood the ground realities of the war in Iraq, should embrace it instead of incessantly demanding retreat and defeat.
But liberals, and an increasing number of moderates and conservatives, don’t understand this war and apparently they never will. Their aversion to the use of American power, their Bush Deranged-blindness, or their weariness over a war for which they have sacrificed precisely nothing at all, or the administration’s own inconsistent defense of the fight, or the media’s campaign of half-truths and whole lies, will have precipitated a defeat that could have been avoided. With the full complement of surge troops in place for just over a month now, and with signs of progress building in Anbar and Diyala, the Beltway is in a frenzy to retreat from Iraq. The tragedy that will unfold will have lots of fathers, from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid refusing to listen to General David Petraeus’ reports, to the Iraqis themselves perhaps awakening too late for their own good, to the Bush administration’s own naive views that led to premature democratization of a country that has proven itself unready for American style self-government, to the unchecked Iranian involvement with insurgents and militias across Iraq. Officers like Stacy Bare and Steve Miska will have risked all and given Iraq its best and perhaps last chance to avoid catastrophe. Tragically, if things continue on their present course, their political leaders, Iraq’s political leaders and people, and the American people themselves, will have failed them.
Note: I wrote most of this piece while Michelle & I were staying at Camp Justice in Baghdad back in January, but for a variety of reasons never published it. CPT Bare has since left the Army, but there are many more like him serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. Sadly, Khadimiyah has taken a turn for the worse since January, as Jaish al-Mahdi forces have become more active in the area, bringing their sectarian violence with them.
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
Comment pages:
Amen, Bingo, Nail-on-the-Head, Etc.
BillINDC on July 16, 2007 at 8:58 AM
With the backslide in Khadimiyah, it’s very easy to understand why hope for these backwards people is hard to maintain.
csdeven on July 16, 2007 at 9:10 AM
These are the stories all of us know are out there, but the MSM never reports (Except for when it backslides of course). Keep this kind of story coming, even if it is just on blogs. There are enough people out there reading them to get them out.
Kowboy on July 16, 2007 at 9:22 AM
Welcome back Bryan!
DCJeff on July 16, 2007 at 9:28 AM
No, no, no, no, no… we must runaway and bring our soldiers home now. Because… because… because the party of losers must win in ‘08 and we must be able to blame the Bush Republicans for that defeat. Otherwise we [the dems] will be exposed for what we are. Power hungry socialists.
Griz on July 16, 2007 at 9:29 AM
Which is why liberals, if they understood the ground realities of the war in Iraq, should embrace it instead of incessantly demanding retreat and defeat.
I am NOT a liberal, so am I allowed to “incessantly demanding retreat and defeat” ???
But liberals, and an increasing number of moderates and conservatives, don’t understand this war and apparently they never will.
I think that an increasing number of moderates and conservatives ARE understanding “this war” better and better.
Their aversion to the use of American power
I have no aversion to the use of American power. I do have an aversion to using it to try to spin gold from straw.
their Bush Deranged-blindness
Better Bush Deranged-blindness than Bush Deranged-Devotion syndrome.
or their weariness over a war for which they have sacrificed precisely nothing at all
Yes, that is part of the problem. Most Americans have sacrificed nothing, including those who sis-boom-bah the war, although the financial bill will come due; address to grand-children. The troops, of course, HAVE sacrificed – Stop-loss, extended tours, short turn-around time, divorce. The normal time between tours in RVN was 3 years.
or the administration’s own inconsistent defense of the fight
How can Bush explain what he dosen’t even understand coherently himself?
or the media’s campaign of half-truths and whole lies, will have precipitated a defeat that could have been avoided.
How will the media precipitated a defeat that could have been avoided? Have they caused the congress to stop the “surge”? No. Have they caused the Sunnis and Shiites to hate each other? No. Have they caused Bush to not understand Islam? No. Have they caused Bush to forget what the original mission was? NO. Have they demoralized the troops? How could they if the troops “believe in the mission”?
With the full complement of surge troops in place for just over a month now, and with signs of progress building in Anbar and Diyala, the Beltway is in a frenzy to retreat from Iraq.
No one is in a frenzy. What the hell are 30,000 more troops going to do? Convert the followers of Mohammad to Christianity? Whack a mole. “We” go here, they go there, and the Iraqi “parliament” goes on vacation because it’s too hot.
The tragedy that will unfold will have lots of fathers, from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid refusing to listen to General David Petraeus’ reports
Even Mr. Clean can not spin gold from straw.
to the Iraqis themselves perhaps awakening too late for their own good
BINGO!!!
to the Bush administration’s own naive views
Delusional would be more like it.
that led to premature democratization of a country that has proven itself unready for American style self-government
They are ready to follow the teachings of Mohammad. That’s about it.
to the unchecked Iranian involvement with insurgents and militias across Iraq
Don’t forget Bush’s friends the Saudis.
MB4 on July 16, 2007 at 9:30 AM
One step forward, two steps back. So heart rending. Perhaps with the new Reaper UAV being deployed, some serious degradation of the Mahdi forces can be achieved. I know it’s not that simple, but until the Iragis see a substantial period of calm can they be expected to dare to hope again. Great essay Bryan. Mega-kudos to you and Michelle for your brave efforts.
captivated_dem on July 16, 2007 at 10:02 AM
One of my biggest disappointments with the administration is their lack of communication skills in explaining to the American people about stories like this and all the civil work that is being done by our troops. They have not countered the relentless drumbeat of the media about car bombs and skirmishes with stories of successes at local, regional, and national levels. There were the initial stories about the elections and the establishmment of the new government. However, people would relate more to stories of local success and the difficulties Iraqis face in their neighborhoods and towns.
The truth is this is a “new” war and the administration is still trying to figure out how to fight it. In the same way, the media has not, or won’t catch on that it is a new war and they are covering it in the same old way e.g. focus on bombings and deaths and not on unconventional victories e.g reclaiming territory through the soft force Bryan wrote about.
Mallard T. Drake on July 16, 2007 at 10:20 AM
But Bryan, liberals believe that you can’t civilize “those people”.
JohnJ on July 16, 2007 at 10:23 AM
Perhaps if we bury our head in the sand, act like terrorism is all Bush’s fault, ignore the terrorist threats and attempts, and simply pretend that Paris Hilton and Britney Spears is more important than the imminent crises emanating from Iran, North Korea, and Russia, we can have peace in the Middle East. We must also ignore the brainwashing of their children via Farfour and his weird “cousin” the Bee. We must ignore the rantings and rhetoric of the leaders there – the promises of massacres of the infidels and the destruction of the State of Israel. And then we can sing “Imagine” and other crappy hippy music. Because, you know, if there’s one thing terrorists understand it’s John Lennon’s incredibly childish views of the world.
Or maybe we should just let Israel nuke the crap out of their neighbors.
P.S. I am so sick of “Bush is friends with the Saudis” excuse. Clinton was friends with them too and the Chinese. Oh, and Yassar Arafat who was worse than all of them put together.
mjk on July 16, 2007 at 10:26 AM
Amen, Bryan. Each person that comes to trust us and the freedom we offer is another person who will come to see the harm that the militias, insurgents and other terrorists do to that desired life. It understandably takes a long time for a population repressed for so long to learn to trust again, but in the end, if we can only stick it out long enough, it has got to win. I still have hope, and that hope would be greater if only the donkeys would stop braying defeat for a few minutes.
flutejpl on July 16, 2007 at 10:59 AM
I’m no liberal, but I’m not sure you can civilize “those People” either. The entire Middle East is so infected with religious brainwashing that they are intellectually crippled when it comes to doing what it takes to run their own show. They all seem to need some sort of strongman boss to slap them around to keep them on task.
saiga on July 16, 2007 at 11:00 AM
I’m working on a post that addresses that question. It’ll be up later in the week.
Bryan on July 16, 2007 at 11:11 AM
At 3 losses a day to maintain stability over the oil-rich region, and keep in Iran’s face, it is hardly an apocalyptic challenge.
Unless the media and political opponents grasping for power get their defeatist spin in.
I have no hope that the Iraqis will be able to do anything but split in three and police themselves in the long run.
Whether they ever feel anything but distrust and contempt for us- as infidels- is something that only several generations will tell.
We stirred up trouble in the area and we now have to sort it out.
Otherwise we look weak and that only encourages the jihadis.
Better IED defusing is mandatory.
And securing the oilfields.
The rest will be up to the Iraqis.
If they want to keep killing themselves over the Sunni/Shi’ite schism is their problem.
Our job is to destroy jihadis.
Not wish that Iraqis will like us.
Respect is more important.
profitsbeard on July 16, 2007 at 11:15 AM
It’s pretty simple, actually. The Coulter Plan: Invade their countries, kill their dictators, and convert them all to Christianity.
Two out of three ain’t bad, but it’ll never get the job done.
logis on July 16, 2007 at 11:26 AM
nah, all they care about is politics. facts and other tidbits just get in the way of what matters to them, politics. If they lose 2008, they lose the courts for 30 years atleast and that is their god. Plus everything else that goes with winning potus power wise.
the problem is moderates and some conservatives that are just not interested in educating themselves about whats going on and know nothing more than what the libs on the news tell them in little soundbites about the war. The war bores them, heads in sand. many religious conservatives don’t think ‘democracy’ or whatever form of it that is workable is possible in a muslim country. and they are starting to buy into some of the wmd lies spouted the last several years.
jp on July 16, 2007 at 11:43 AM
The devotion to Islam and the fact that it requires prayer five times a day insures an individuals preoccupation with a mindset fearful of the retribution from the Almighty Himself. That thought process is reinforced by the Imams and local Clerics judgements and daily sermons. The rulings that come down are not like a fine for a speeding ticket, but rather getting stoned to death in the public square, by your friends and relatives. Islam has never been challenged in such a fashion. This is where the rubber meets the road and this is the part that is going to take generations to overcome. I believe we must stay the course and look for the inherent good in the Iraqi people. Ever hear a former mobster wail ‘every time I try to get out they suck me back in’? Gainful employment and industry are a huge step in providing an alternative to the centuries old way of living. We need to extend some credit, mabey provide some VA mortgages to the vets and bam we’re on the road to recovery.
sonnyspats1 on July 16, 2007 at 11:56 AM
The political pawns that “appear” to be against this war have not cast the trip-wire vote that would catapult us out of Iraq… nor will they ever.
Why do I say that? Because, although they are idiots in pandering for votes to an “illusive” majority that are against this war, they really do understand the catastrophic consequences of a an immediate withdrawal.
It would be FAR worse than Vietnam. With oil prices at over $100.00 a barrel for an extended period of time, just as the beginning, our economy would sink into a worst depression than ever imagined.
Then these “pawns” would be to blame for that. Albeit they can still blame Bush for getting us into Iraq in the place.
Which brings me to this conclusion as to why they will not be the trip-wire vote for getting us out and therefore take the blame for a depressed economy.
When it comes down to that final decisive vote, they will pose their vote to keep sufficient “peacekeeping” troops there, as follows: “After careful considerations…… of all the issues.. we have decided…. Bush will always have the legacy of deceiving the American public about Iraq’s WMD’s and used that lie as an excuse to get us into Iraq…. however WE will not be the blamed for causing our economy to go into a deep dark long depression……
If only Bush would not have lied to us, Saddam would still be in power and keep the ME countries in check… he did not pose a terroristic threat….”
Note: The “pawns” are welcome to use my script.
I am more than happy to help.
Mcguyver on July 16, 2007 at 12:04 PM
A “broken windows” similar to this policy worked quite well in another “blighted area” much nearer to home. Namely, New York City under Rudolph Giuliani. Treating even minor problems as cause for concern, and reacting to them with something other than either condescending “understanding” or pious “but what can we do?” hand-wringing brought New York’s crime rate down faster and more precipitately than the vaunted Sullivan Law ever did. Which is why Giuliani was very popular in NYC- with everyone except the progressive elites’, that is.
From this, it seems to me that our military is pursuing policies in Iraq similar to those Giuliani pursued in the Big Apple. And with similar results.
And similar revulsion on the part of the progressives.
Just as the “intellectuals” don’t want us to succeed in Iraq, they wanted Giuliani to fail in New York. Why? I suspect that it’s just another symptom of their nihilistic hatred of our civilization in general. They need us to fail, so they can have their shot at remaking the world in their own image.
They have pretty much gotten their wish in New York, courtesy of Michael Bloomberg, who (after undoing almost everything Giuliani accomplished)is once more a non-Republican, I understand. I wait with bated breath for his next announcement of a new party affiliation- rather like Andy Warhol, he seems to do this sort of thing when he feels that he is no longer the absolute center of attention- the spoiled-brat/histrionic syndrome in action.
I find myself wondering which of the Democratic nominees will turn out to be the Michael Bloomberg of Iraq.
cheers
eon
eon on July 16, 2007 at 12:18 PM
I talked to a Marine pilot this weekend and basically said the same thing. He contends that we screwed up at the very beginning of the war by dissolving the entire Ba’ath party instead of just the leaders. The lower level operatives were the ones who made Iraq work and were just trying to put food on the table. He said that, given their cultural presuppositions, we can’t expect them to democratize, but neither can we just rule with an iron fist and flatten whole villages when a roadside bomb goes off near by. And we can’t fight by their rules. So I was left wondering, what are we doing there? If we’re waiting for a set of people who want to be slaves to Allah to democratize, we could be waiting a long time.
PRCalDude on July 16, 2007 at 12:25 PM
Thanks for publishing this, Bryan. I do wish you’d done it before because it has a meme that ought to be the focus of those in Washington but is hardly ever first thing on their minds.
There’s two main things I think we have had to overcome in Iraq and they are intertwined. One is the necessity, by perception or actuality, of Iraqis having and holding power in order to survive and, two, breaking the lock on power at the central governmental level. These are what fuels the largest portion of all contention and fighting.
There is/was another that severely hampered our efforts, that of distrust of our motives and the fear of holding power via occupation and control of government. While some of that was taught and reinforced for 30, 40 or 50 years in the context of foreigners and infidels, it can’t be helped that that same fear has been taught and reinforced by their own government actions for the same period. Why would they expect from us anything different than what they expect of their own power hungry and corrupt rulers?
Since the change in strategy vis-a-vis the Anbar Awakening, we are distributing governmental power to where most of it belongs — the localities — and thereby doing as much as we can to empowering individuals. Education, btw, will invest the remaining power needed to free the individual from local government control and will take time. It should be no surprise this has been very successful. Upon hearing of people acquiring the power to govern themselves locally, even some of our toughest foes have been turning to us and willing to cooperate with our efforts.
I do think the Iraqi experiment can be successful but it has to be from the ground up, not the top down. The row to hoe is still a long one but so long as we keep giving local Iraqis control over their own lives so as to not be entirely dependent on the decisions of some centrally empowered minister, a minister that holds most or all of the purse strings, the safety and security of the Iraqis will be almost complete, the police will be able to do their jobs and the military can concentrate on the borders.
Dusty on July 16, 2007 at 1:08 PM
Neoconservatism worked in Asia – the Philippines, South Korea, Taiwan – because there no was complicating factors like religious fanaticism, inshallah-passivism and a rival divinely inspired political system.
aengus on July 16, 2007 at 1:12 PM
Yea. It has already been about 2000 years. Plus, the praying 5 times a day can really get in the way. Imagine being a scientist working on Quantum theory. Having to break your concentration again and again throught the day could really hold you back and effect your success.
saiga on July 16, 2007 at 2:00 PM
Pulling out our troops would result in a unification of Iraq and Iran — the Worst Case Scenario of Middle Eastern contingency plans.
It’s idiotic to imagine that wars should only be fought so “good things” will happen. Only Socialists dictators fight wars to make a gain. Free men fight wars to PREVENT BAD THINGS from happening.
Of course while our troops are there, they’ll try to help out, and mentioning that from time to time helps our cause.
But I think Bush’s biggest mistake is selling the public on the idea that helping Iraqis be happy is the REASON we are there. It’s not. We are there to keep the whole world from going to Hell in a handbasket. And nobody ever said that job has to be fun.
logis on July 16, 2007 at 5:23 PM
aengus on July 16, 2007 at 1:12 PM
I have to disagree with you slightly, on the subject of the Philippines. The Moros of Luzon and Mindoro were and are Muslims, and have fought every government the islands have ever had, on the grounds that having to share the islands with non-Muslims offended their religious sensibilities. In fact, the U.S. involvement in the islands after the Spanish American War of 1898 (The Philippine Insurrection, 1899-1907), was largely what we would now call counter-terrorist warfare versus the Moros.
The difference is, the military was allowed to do its job there without the “well-meaning” interference of “progressive intellectuals”. Unlike Iraq.
And BTW, U.S. forces are once more there, at the request of the Philippine government, to act as advisors in dealing with- the fact that the Moros went to war against the government yet again, shortly after 9/11/2001. And again, it was because it was “the will of Allah”.
cheers
eon
eon on July 16, 2007 at 5:39 PM
Bryan! Dude! I’m from South Dakota! Is this guy a credit to my homestate, or what? Yeehaw! :D
gryphon202 on July 16, 2007 at 7:24 PM
Stacy absolutely is a credit to your home state.
Bryan on July 16, 2007 at 7:31 PM
I was aware there was some sort of Muslim minority but not sure how many.
From Wikipedia: “According to the 2000 Census, 81.04% of all Filipinos are Roman Catholics, 5.06% are adherents of Islam, and 2.82% are Born-again Christians. The remaining 11.08% include the Iglesia ni Cristo (Church of Christ – 2.3%), Philippine Independent Church (2%), Mormon (.5%), as well as those of other religions, such as Buddhism (3%) and Hinduism.”
I get your point but I think that considering they are only 5% of the population the neoconservative transition to democracy was and still is viable. Hopefully this insurgency will be put down for good. Agree with your point regarding so-called progressive intellectuals.
aengus on July 16, 2007 at 8:04 PM
I would like this post to remain on the home page of Hot Air in perpetuity. It’s that important. And not because it’s a plea of reason to liberals, but because it will serve to remind all of us that this is not a war against Iraq.
This is a war FOR Iraq.
RushBaby on July 16, 2007 at 8:32 PM
Ditto to that, RushBaby.
Dusty on July 16, 2007 at 9:03 PM
ENOUGH ALREADY! We don’t need to keep beating the dead horse of the botched beginning of the war. It’s time to deal with what we have now.
It’s just a damn shame that the voices of Stacy Bare and those he worked with, will never be heard over the rantings in Tehran and the blow-hards in Washington DC.
Thanky you for sharing this with us Bryan.
oakpack on July 16, 2007 at 10:01 PM
PRCalDude – “If we’re waiting for a set of people who want to be slaves to Allah to democratize, we could be waiting a long time.”
By my rough calculations, until about 3 days before time itself comes to an end.
MB4 on July 16, 2007 at 10:38 PM
Hey, Brian, check this out.
Gotta love Peter Pace. I’d love to hear your take on it, here or in a standalone post.
This is exactly the right position in my view.
Christoph on July 16, 2007 at 10:39 PM
Bryan, sorry.
Christoph on July 16, 2007 at 10:39 PM
bingo, the public is absolutely clueless about whats going on and how we got there. Thanks to dems/media lying and their own laziness on the subject.
jp on July 16, 2007 at 10:53 PM
In some nations the military is the most trusted institution–more than political parties, the govt bureaucracy, bidness, unions, etc; in some nations, the military is the ONLY trusted institution
It’s a Sad Reality in many countries that as corrupt and inefficient as the military is, all other national institutions are worse
In Iraq the Baathists were hated and feared, but the army itself–once you got away from Saddam’s SS-modeled Reputlican Guard–the army was more competent and as respected as any other part of Iraqi society
In Germany and Japan after WWII, we got away with dismantling the miitary because of an efficient and relatively ‘clean’ police force in both countries–somethihng missing in Iraq. So we dismantled the Iraqi military, and nothing was there to hold the country together
That was the Mother of All Mistakes, and it will take a while to correct it. The defeated Axis powers also did not have the regional and sectarian divisions that Iraq does.
The American military in Iraq has thus needed to be All Things to Nearly Everyone, and despite the ‘Civilian Oversight’ mistakes has done a brilliant and courageous job.
They need more time, and less civilial meddling; I’m beginning to doubt that they will get either
Pulling out now would be like ending WWII just before ‘Strawberry’ found those four Jap carriers, right where Nimitz guessed they’d be
Janos Hunyadi on July 16, 2007 at 10:57 PM
DEBKAfile Exclusive: Pakistani forces backed by US special units are closing in on al Qaeda’s No. 2 Ayman Zawahiri and possibly also Osama bin Laden
July 15, 2007, 10:47 PM (GMT+02:00)
It is from DEBKA which has a mixed bag of calling things.
Take this for whatever you think that it is worth.
MB4 on July 17, 2007 at 1:52 AM
You have to remember that the liberals see the Marxist-Stalinist system as a GOOD thing.
The military; tax collectors; dog catchers; truant officers… the entire infrastructure was a single, centrally-controlled monolithic entity. The pinnacle of organizational efficiency.
To liberals, Saddam’s Iraq was all one big happy family. And the Evil Capitalist Pig-Dogs had to go and break it all up!
logis on July 17, 2007 at 6:55 AM
Yes, liberals should love the war in iraq. Like them, its philosophy is based upon a foolish belief that denies reality. It denies that the real problem is not insurgents, but islam. Like them, the war policy is terribly misguided. It believes you can win “hearts and minds”. Like them, it believes it is better to hand out candy and build infrastructure than kill bad guys. Like them, it champions the rights of the “iraqi” people over the rights of our soldiers to engage them. Just like liberal ideology would dictate, it puts the fault on a few misguided terrorists, not on the arabic culture of cousin marriage, or the religious doctrine of islam. Just as liberal orthodoxy would presume, it purports that all people are basically the same, they all want what we in the West want, and all we need to do is show them some love. Nothing could be further from the truth. This debacle in Iraq is to real war, what Marx is to economics. Of course liberals should be in favor of it.
Indeed, this “war” is being fought with a terribly deranged yet oh so classically typically liberal and wilfully ignorant mind set. Wilfully ignorant about the nature of humanity. Uneducated, unenlightened, and uninterested about knowing the ugly truth.
If I didn’t know better, I’d say it was Jimmy Carter in charge of this war.
That is why we are losing.
jihadwatcher on July 17, 2007 at 7:33 AM
jihadwatcher on July 17, 2007 at 7:33 AM
Outstanding comment!
Out####ing standing!
MB4 on July 17, 2007 at 7:49 AM
History may be repeating.
Fast forward.
Iraq nation building occupation ends with American troop withdrawal:
Faced with an ineffective Iraqi government, continuing hatred between Sunnis and Shiites with no end in sight, fatigue and deteriorating morale among the over used and abused American troops who were placed in between waring infidel hating Muslims, resistance to continue the war on the part of the American people and a rebellion in Congress with a threat to cut off funding, a reluctant President George W. Bush finally agreed to bring American forces home.
The failure of the Iraqi war supporters to admit that President Bush’s Iraqi nation building occupation policies had been ill advised and a profound failure would have a huge impact on their psyches and its impact would be manifest in their desire to involve the American nation and it’s military in yet another war and nation building occupation that they felt could be won this time thus bringing them vindication.
Many Neocon internet web sites and Neocon radio talk shows would support the false idea that President Bush’s Iraqi nation building occupation policies had been going very well and with just a little more time and just a little more surging and just a little more stay the course the Iraqi nation building occupation would have resulted in the building of a successful democratic, rule of law Iraqi nation that would be an ally in the war against terror and serve as a shining example for the rest of the Middle East.
They believed that President Bush’s Iraqi nation building occupation policies had been visionary and brilliant and would have soon succeeded, except for being betrayed at home, the infamous ‘Stab in the Back’ theory.
This ‘Stab in the Back’ theory would become hugely popular among many Neocon internet web sites and Neocon radio talk show hosts who found it impossible to accept the fact that President Bush’s Iraqi nation building occupation policies had been an unmitigated disaster.
During the actually Iraqi nation building occupation fiasco, many Neocons became obsessed with this idea, especially laying blame on what they called “defeatist cut and runners” and “surrender monkeys” in America for undermining the Iraqi nation building occupation effort. To the Neocons, and so many of their followers, the American congress men and women and other Americans who did not support President Bush’s Iraqi nation building occupation policies would become known as the ‘Defeatist Criminals.’
FeralCat on July 17, 2007 at 7:58 AM
I kinda missed the “history” part of that history lesson there, but yes. Liberals do want this war to end in precisely the same way that Vietnam ended: totalitarianism, genocide, and an expanded base of operations for America’s enemies. Complain all you want about the way that
LBJ NixonBush is handling the war, but surrender would again be a giant step backward for America’s interests.Seriously, though. I know it’s painful, but re-read everything the guy wrote there. There is not a single word in there about what would actually, physically, HAPPEN if America pulled its troops out; all he talks about is how incredibly vindicated he would FEEL about it all.
I know we constantly whine about Communism this, or IslamoFascist that; we try to draw lines between what the terrorists do and what their propagandists say… They may use different rationalizations and different methods. But at its heart there is really only one enemy: It’s what Ayn Rand called “subjectivism.”
logis on July 17, 2007 at 10:23 AM
I understand the islam problem and all, but what would you have done? First taking out Saddam and sons is a separate issue from letting them choose to build a democracy.
if Democracy is not possible with majority Islam ruling nation, then what should we have done? We all no its impossible in this day to do the Ann Coulter plan, but I think you can try to create an environment were her plan could prosper with missionaries moving in.
I don’t care if they have democracy or not, I just care about our interest there and a nation that supports terrorism(operationally, financing and harboring wise) is not in our interest. Iran seizing the south of IRaq is not in our interest. The flow of oil out of the region being halted is most definitely not in the worlds interest. Right now we are the barrier between these things happening.
jp on July 17, 2007 at 12:29 PM
I’m pretty sure she wasn’t advocating that the US government do it. If the American government tried to impose its religion (Gaism) upon the Middle East, that would result in a catastrophic mess. But if Christian evangelists and Buddhist priests want to offer their services, that could only be an improvement.
Of course there is one tiny little snag with that plan. The solution may not be easy, but it’s ridiculously simple: brutally excise the part of Islam that says you’re supposed to kill infidels and heretics. We all know that has to happen eventually, no matter what.
And once it does, I suspect we’ll quickly find out that’s the only thing that Islam was ever based on.
logis on July 17, 2007 at 1:26 PM
What made Iraq not descend into sectarian civil war during Saddam’s long reign was the use of brutality to suppress the islamists. It worked. Nobody so much as fired a gun in Iraq without Saddam’s approval. He, as bad as he was, indeed, because he was so bad, is what kept the country stable. Bush, being the rube he is, removed him. Once he did, nature in the arab world took its course. Shia fight sunni, clan fight clan, until the strong man wins.
The only thing the US should do now is find another Saddam and make him a puppet. Fighting in Iraq does nothing to stop muslims from taking up jihad in America, as we continually see. The muslims are already here. We invite them in. They are in our midst by the millions. The mosques are allowed to be built and financed by Saudi money. Hate speech is allowed to rain down with thunderous applause. Bush and his cronies even pay homage to this mosques by sending representatives to cower under hajib. Then there is the money we give to the Saudis for oil, money that is used to train pilots to knock down our buildings. And on and on the corruption goes.
Bush talks about “fighting them there so we don’t have to fight them here”. What a ridiculous meme. The terrorists and their ideological and economic foundation already exist in America and yet Bush does nothing to address this. Instead he spends your tax dollars, hundreds of billions thus far, to build a nation for ungrateful muslims and islamists abroad in order to prop up his geopolitical folly.
The muslims that will attack us, already live here, have student visas, or in many cases, were born here. And the ones that don’t fall into those categories, can come across the Mexican border, a border he refuses to secure. Numerous reports of al qaeda agents coming into the US through latin America bother him not. Slightly cheaper lettuce is more important.
We will be attacked again in a big way. And the perpetrators will not be insurgents in Iraq. They will be muslims, most likely native born, recent immigrants, and most likely from Saudi Arabia as 15 of 19 were on 9/11.
So much for fighting them there so we don’t have to fight them here.
jihadwatcher on July 17, 2007 at 3:25 PM
jihadwatcher on July 17, 2007 at 3:25 PM
Double out####ing standing comment!
MB4 on July 17, 2007 at 4:14 PM
Good point.
Mcguyver on July 17, 2007 at 11:04 PM
way to drink the kool-aid, a majority of the fighting in Iraq is because Al-Qaeda and Iran/Syria are filtering in IED bombers to cause problems. we just caught someone smuggling over 200 suicide vest from Syria into Iraq.
anyway, I guess we should’ve left in power a regime working with and harboring terrorist. A regime connected to the first WTC attack, had terrorist on his govt. payroll including the worlds most notorious before bin laden rose to fame on 9/11.
sometimes there are no good answers, AQ, IRan/Syria and other radicals are proving with their actions we struck them in the right place.
jp on July 18, 2007 at 5:48 PM
What is frequently ignored in the civilizing of “…those People…” or any other is this: a system of government (such as ours, USA) that enjoys peace and liberty is founded on a Judeo-Christian base. The inherent worth of the individual, basic fundamental rights, truth that is absolute, and laws that are ordained by God. Read the first line of the Declaration.
A system that treats half of their own population as property, and treats those who don’t subscribe to their beliefs as non-humans who deserve no protection under law, is incapable of sustaining a free system of government.
oldleprechaun on July 19, 2007 at 10:35 AM
If we did, we would have applied to Saddam the same leeway we give Libya, the same leeway we give Iran, the same leeway we give Saudi Arabia, the same leeway we give Syria, etc.. all nations connected to, supporting, and giving aid to terrorists.
By invading Iraq all we did was remove the plug in the boat that was holding back all the islamists from running amuck in Iraq, islamists that were Saddam’s concern instead of being ours now. Now the boat is sinking.
jihadwatcher on July 19, 2007 at 4:50 PM
Concerning US military action, once Congress approves our military involvement abroad, Congress is Constitutionally obligated to fund the military and leave the Pentagon to solve the problem without political interference.
Historically, our wars have been fought by our military without interference from Congress that approved initiating military action. The role of Congress is not to legislate battles or retreats. Allied victories in WWII came YEARS after allied involvement following Germany’s involvement in Spain and invasion of Polland, and Japan’s imperialistic military invasions overtaking Asia. Once having declared war, Congress and the MSM AP then took no part in determining our military’s plans, strategies or tactics. Despite overwhelming US and internation deaths in battles and bombing raids, Congress and the MSM supported our nation’s united front against the enemy. THAT is the role of Congress and the MSM today, not just yesteryear. By playing devil’s advocate, they not only fail in their Constitutional duties, but by presuming the role of commander in chief as their own, Congress and the MSM perpetually wage war against the Constitution, our military and the American people. Congress is at war with America.
America has given Iraq democracy, whether or not the Iraqis utilize their opportunities for peaceful stability or not. If that is the reason for our involvement in Iraq, then Iraqis belong in Iraq for their freedom, not in the USA. Bush is certainly a most queer creature in his convoluted efforts, disquieting sober and thoughtful minds who realize the implications of his tactics. He wants to import a new Iraqi population into the USA to be awarded refugee status without our ability to discern terrorists within, furthermore, depriving Iraq of the very population needed for their stability.
Looking for consistency in Bush, one is troubled to note his persecution of the “grunts” on ground level left to implement national security. Note well the active federal prosecution to imprison our soldiers and marines in Iraq based on a proven MSM lie–totally fabricated story by a liar journalist; and witness our Southwestern States’ border patrol officers attacked by drug cartels being convicted on scurrilous charges by the drug dealer and prosecuted and judged by Bush’s bossom buddies.
If it stinks like a rat–follow the flies to the source.
It is as though EVERYTHING Bush commits us to is really just an ultimate set-up for disillusionment to destroy our faith in ourselves and our Constitution. I voted for Bush, both times. I’ve given Bush the benefit of the doubt. I defended Bush. But behind the scenes, Bush consistently sabotages and sets up imprisonment of those who actually FACE our enemy in hand to hand combat. I appreciate that our finest are held up to a high standard. But twisting evidence in prosecutional procedures throws whatever point Bush wants to make right back in his own face.
The MSM also hones its skills to infringe Constitutional rights, fabricate stories for their own purposes, and create tempests in teacups for our consumption–as though we don’t see through it all.
All –Congress, Judicial, Executive, and the MSM– lead toward further infringement upon OUR civil liberties, and the demise of our Constitution and our nation. Presented with death, our eyes are opened.
IN GOD WE TRUST
E PLURIBUS UNUM
maverick muse on July 20, 2007 at 4:13 PM
Comment pages: