Mohammed Fadhil, Iraq the Model blogger and my friend, writes a crie de coeur about the impact of abandoning Iraq:
And so, my friends, I will call for fighting this war just as powerfully as the bad guys do – because I must show them that I’m stronger than they are. The people of America need to understand this: the enemies of a stable Iraq are America’s enemies, and they simply do not understand the language of civilization and reason.
They understand only power. It is wileth power they took over their countries and held their peoples hostage. Everything they accomplished was through absolute control over the assets of their nations through murder, torture, repression and intimidation.
Go read the whole thing.
One reason why I initially supported and still support the war is simply because I believe that we are fighting for the decent people like Mohammed and his family. Dentists and doctors, people who simply want to make their country one where their children can grow up with hope and an unblighted future.It’s because of what Geraldine Brooks wrote in Salon in 1998:
Until the Gulf War, I had always been on the pacifist side of the argument in all the conflicts of my lifetime. Vietnam, Panama, the Falklands — I protested them all. And then in 1988, on a searing summer day, I stepped off a plane in Baghdad and began my acquaintance with a regime of such unfathomable cruelty that it changed my views on the use of force.
I learned from Iraqi dissidents about mothers, under interrogation, tortured by the cries of their own starving infants whom they weren’t allowed to breast-feed; about thalium, the slow-acting rat poison Saddam Hussein used on his enemies; about Iraqi government employees whose official job description was “violator of women’s honor” — i.e., prison rapist.
One bright spring day during the Kurdish uprising, I followed Kurds into the security prison they’d just liberated in northern Iraq. It was dim in the underground cells, so my face was only inches from the wall before I was sure what I was looking at. Long, rusty nails had been driven into the plaster. Around them curled small pieces of human flesh. One withered curve of cartilage looked like part of an ear.
I’m home now in my own liberal, pacifist country, Australia. Within a couple of hours of the news of the latest Baghdad bombings, people in Sydney were in the streets, demonstrating against them. Friends were on the phone, upset: “Terrible, isn’t it? And at this time of the year! Whatever happened to peace on earth, goodwill to men?” Local pundits argued on the television, decrying American bully-boy tactics against a small and defanged Arab country. I agreed with almost everything they said: Yes, the slaughter and injury of Iraqi civilians is tragic. And yes, the timing of the bombing is the worst kind of political cynicism. And yes, it is questionable what effect this new onslaught will have on Iraq’s weapons capability. And yet I disagreed with their conclusion: that this bombing is therefore wrong.
…
The West’s great crimes in Iraq are not the latest bombings, but the years of inaction: ignoring the use of poison gas in the theaters of the Iran-Iraq war; ignoring it again in Halabja and other rebellious Iraqi cities; ignoring the vast human and environmental devastation since the Gulf War in the mostly Shiite regions of southern Iraq, where the ancient wetlands of Mesopotamia and the unique culture of the marsh Arabs have been wiped out by a series of dams and diversions designed to starve a minority into submission.
Opponents of the bombing say that dealing with Iraq should be left with the United Nations and its gentle leader, Kofi Annan. But Annan is a peacemaker, and a peacemaker isn’t necessarily what’s required in Iraq, any more than it was in Bosnia. Sarajevans will tell you of the agonies caused by the U.N.’s “evenhanded diplomacy” — the pressures to accept any kind of unjust peace the Serbs happened to offer. The history of the United Nations has shown that the organization is most useful in keeping peace between belligerents who have decided they no longer wish to fight. But recent experience has shown that the organization is both inept at, and degraded by, its insertion into conflicts where one or both parties have no wish for peace.
After I left the Middle East, I spent some time covering the United Nations at its headquarters in New York and in the field in Bosnia and Somalia. During that time, I learned that people who go to work for the United Nations often do so because they believe that war is the greatest evil and that force is never justified. In Somalia, one U.N. staffer broke into sobs in front of me because instead of keeping peace, her job had become the administration of a war.
It is impossible to imagine the bureaucrats of the United Nations accepting the kind of harsh conclusion that may be necessary in the case of Saddam Hussein: that the bombs should continue to fall until he does. Iraqis will die. But they are dying now, by the scores and the hundreds, in horrible pain, in the dark security prisons with the blood on the walls and the excrement on the floor.
I wish I still believed, as I used to, that the United Nations was always the world’s best chance to avert bloodshed. I wish I could join, as I once would have, the placard-waving peace protesters outside the U.S. Consulate here in Sydney.
I wish I’d never seen the piece of ear nailed to the wall.
I have watched as the conventional wisdom has shifted – driven by a relentless cycle of media and pundit pronouncements that the war is immoral and unwinnable – unwinnable most recently of all we are told because we don’t have the determination to win – because our pundit class has been busy telling us for five years that the was immoral and unwinnable, watched as politicians have moved to cover their asses with cynical proposals they know won’t work but they know they can propose because they will never be implemented if the politicians proposing them are elected.
The problems surrounding the war in Iraq – or the war in which Iraq is the leading battlefield – are truly wicked problems. They are not susceptible to computer models, or policy white papers, or answers arrived at in clever debate. Words, models, ideas matter – as tools, as weapons – but they will not solve this.
So I’m lost – like so many others, I make my way with words and numbers and ideas. I don’t have any in my bag of tricks today that will reverse the course our affairs must take.
Sometimes, when I can’t decide on an issue, I make my decision by looking at who stands where, and who I’d like to stand beside.
There’s no issue here. I can only stand beside Mohammed. I can only stand beside the troops who are in Iraq and believe more in the mission they are doing than we who have sent them.
There will be a time for policy and clever ideas and arguments and numbers. We’ll need them. But given a choice about where to stand on the big issue, I really have no choice.
We must keep fighting those criminals and tyrants until they realize that the freedom-loving peoples of the region are not alone. Freedom and living in dignity are the aspirations of all mankind and that’s what unites us; not death and suicide. When freedom-lovers in other countries reach out for us they are working for the future of everyone tyrants and murderers like Ahmedinejad, Nesrallah, Assad and Qaddafi must realize that we are not their possessions to pass on to their sons or henchmen. We belong to the human civilization and that was the day we gave what we gave to our land and other civilizations. They can’t take out our humanity with their ugly crimes and they can’t force us to back off. The world should ask them to leave our land before asking the soldiers of freedom to do so.
Those who choose to stand elsewhere today will find that they will have harder choices to make tomorrow. Sadly, I think that all of us will.
I caught the Chris Dodd “Don’t forget about me because I want to be president, too” interview the other day.
Dodd had just two words to say about Iraq – civil war. Only, Dodd has decided that Iraq has been embroiled in civil war for “centuries”(!?!!) “I swear to God, that’s what the man said.”:http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,270304,00.html Of course, Iraq hasn’t even been a country for one century, but apparently they got started on the civil war hundreds of years ahead of time and were so quiet about it that the Ottoman Turks didn’t even notice.
I’d say that qualifies Dodd as the Democratic Senate’s leading expert on Iraq.
Mohammed and Omar are blogosphere heroes, and those are rare things. I think they will prevail, and a free Iraq will prevail, though it’s sad that this historic triumph has to be so viciously heckled.
Oho the article, even to read it was laziness
Well A.L., I think you have a long row to hoe…
You’re not asking the US to fight a war with traditional enemies in Iraq, you’re asking for us to serve as a police force to promote civil tranquility. That is not, nor will it ever be, possible for many reasons, not the least of which are 1) We have nowhere near enough soldiers there for the job (there are almost 40,000 officers in New York City alone); 2) Soldiers are not trained for “peacekeeping”; 3) Police forces cannot work without the consent of the populace.
I’m confused tcg, are you arguing that we have to abandon Kosovo and Afghanistan too?
Are you implying that the situations in Kosovo and Afghanistan are the same as in Iraq?
No, your three assertions applied to Kosovo and Afghanistan would necessitate the same result.
That’s true only if you consider the situations there to be equivalent, which I do not.
I thought that it was obvious that promoting “civil tranquility”, as I put it, is a very different proposition in Iraq.
Wow. I didn’t realize Mohammed had joined the Iraqi Army.
Good on him and thanks for the tip AL.
Oops, my bad.
On second look it’s obvious he’s talking about the war on tooth decay.
Davebo –
Pass any roadside bombs on your way to work today? Or are you staying home these days because you’re afraid of the death squads?
A.L., It’d sure be nice if it were really that simple. I’d be with you if there were just one or two identifiably evils in the world and if the use of American power (i.e., violence) didn’t have significant negative repercussions and if our presence in iraq really was fullfilling the soaring rhetoric and not actually giving one side in a civil war the time to bulk up…it’d be nice if the rest of the world could just think and behave like us and that whenever they didn’t we could just send troops to make them think and behave like us. I’m just not conviced how “freedom-loving” are most of the members of the Iraqi parliment….or that we are helping the right people and not killing scores of innocents everyday. I’m going to have to stand next to the Pope on this one, and you probably can guess how much I hate doing that.
Nope, I guess I don’t need to worry about taking concrete actions to ensure my country doesn’t devolve into even more chaos eh?
That and I’m not chest thumping about fighting my enemies and showing them I’m stronger.
Rinse and spit.
_I thought that it was obvious that promoting “civil tranquility”, as I put it, is a very different proposition in Iraq._
Except that the three reasons you gave against such a policy had more to do with American capabilities and numbers, not the situation in Iraq (which I agree is different):
_1) We have nowhere near enough soldiers there for the job (there are almost 40,000 officers in New York City alone);_
Except that U.S. troops are not giving out speeding tickets or investigating simple crimes. They are seeking to prevent communal violence while Iraqi troops and police are trained.
_2) Soldiers are not trained or “peacekeeping”;_
That’s the type of nonsense that Bush ’99 would say and probably one of the key reasons this has been more difficult. The only thing that can prevent communal violence is force and the threat of force.
_3) Police forces cannot work without the consent of the populace._
A “poll of Iraqis”:http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/19/AR2007031900421.html from March showed:
bq. _35 percent said U.S. and other coalition forces should “leave now.” Thirty-eight percent said the forces should stay until security is restored; 14 percent said the forces should remain until the Iraqi government is stronger; 11 percent said they should stay until Iraqi forces can operate on their own._
Whose consent do we need?
Davebo, for the first time, a hearty “fuck you”. Mohammed and the men and women like him are living in the middle of this war. They fight on the side of good every day by living their lives. Your fashionable angst isn’t worth considering. You comments here make me wonder if it ever was.
A.L.
I can understand your sentiment AL. But it’s his fucking country! And what’s he doing to help bring it under control?
Beating his chest from his keyboard. Who knows, perhaps in the same situation you’d do the same.
I’d say it’s likely, which is why I could care less what you think about my fashionable angst.
It seems you two are truly kindred spirits.
Davebo, you have no clue what they do – which means you might want to do homework before spouting off. But it’s novel to hear an Iraqi accused of being a chickenhawk. It’s as ignorant and morally vacuous a charge as it’s ever been, but uniquely absurd in this context.
A.L.
_I’m going to have to stand next to the Pope on this one…_
bq. _The many attempts made by the Holy See to avoid the grievous war in Iraq are already known. Today what matters is that the international community help put the Iraqis, freed from an oppressive regime, in a condition to be able to take up their Country’s reins again, consolidate its sovereignty and determine democratically a political and economic system that reflects their aspirations, so that Iraq may once again be a credible partner in the International Community._
“ADDRESS OF HIS HOLINESS POPE JOHN PAUL II”:http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/speeches/2004/january/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_20040112_diplomatic-corps_en.html
I stand with the Pope on this one too.
A.L.
“conventional wisdom has shifted – driven by a relentless cycle of media and pundit pronouncements that the war is immoral and unwinnable ..”
may I ask aloud if this might not be some sort of invention on your part? why not consider the possibility that conventional wisdom has shifted because the reality of the situation has begun to sink in and the american public, rather than being the dupe of the media and pundits (what are you, in your mind, as blogger, may I inquire, if not a member of both) has given the situation due consideration and come to a different conclusion about it than you have. I mean, for goodness sakes, A.L., just because other people don’t agree with you about what you yourself say is a very difficult situation doesn’t mean they are dupes, stupid, lazy or even wrong. It is possible, isn’t it, that you are wrong? I know you don’t (rather conveneinently for yourself) much care for the “meta-argument,” but cannot the possibility be reasonably raised that in your eagerness to not have been wrong at the start you are blind to what has caused others to change their minds?
I’m not accusing him of being a chicken hawk. I’m stating a fact. My family has done a hell of alot more to help stabilize Iraq than Omar and Mohammed banging away at their keyboards and beating their chests.
One paid the ultimate price for folks like these two.
And I think he was right as was all of his fellow soldiers.
Because despite the fact that these kids really want to help the Iraqis, the consistant theme from those who tried and are trying is that they are helpless. And possibly the stupidest people on the planet. You may want to claim that isn’t the prevailing sentiment among our forces who have, you know, actually been there and worked with the Iraqis, but that’s based either on ignorance, or more likely a “need to believe”.
Now I’m sure that among those who talk about us winning the war on terror by shopping at the mall more, Mohammed’s contributions to his country have been magnificent.
But color me unimpressed.
PD,
Forgive me. Clearly, I should have been more specific. I meant the other Pope. The dead one. The infallible one. an example:
“Pope John Paul, in his first public comment on the outbreak of hostilities in Iraq, said on Saturday that the war threatens the whole of humanity, and that weapons could never solve mankind’s problems.
“When war, like the one now in Iraq, threatens the fate of humanity, it is even more urgent for us to proclaim, with a firm and decisive voice, that only peace is the way of building a more just and caring society,” he said.
The Pope, in a speech to employees of Catholic television station Telepace, added: “Violence and weapons can never resolve the problems of man.” ”
http://www.cathnews.com/news/303/124.php
Hey I’ve got an idea!
Perhaps the Iraq the Model brothers can form a Victory PAC. Yepper, that would be some serious concrete action towards resolving the problems faced in Iraq.
_”You’re not asking the US to fight a war with traditional enemies in Iraq, you’re asking for us to serve as a police force to promote civil tranquility.”_
Well, we need to seperate the altruistic arguement from the pragamatic- although they both point to the same conclusion. Mohammed is in one sense making a moral argument that fighting the enemies of justice and liberty is the right thing to do for both nations. But there is a very pragmatic arguement that we _need_ to keep these same bad guys from running Iraq (or portions thereof), and this is a point that needs to be addressed by anyone with an opinion on the matter, because it involves our highest levels of security.
Denying Al Qaeda is in Iraq in force (along with other jihadi organizations that mean us no good) is as stupid as Bush denying there was an insurgency to begin with. Foriegners are extensively in Iraq, and they are punching well above their weight. Their numbers are relatively small, but their impact is immense because unlike the native elements, _everyone_ is their target. They have a simple but devastating objective- to promote civil war. Its much easier to keep pouring gasoline on a raging fire than to try to burn your nieghbors house without damaging your own. Giving up on Iraq hands these people a victory, and they arent likely to hang up their cleats once that is done. They will shortly be visiting Kuwait, Dubai, Saudi Arabia, Jordan- anywhere with US influence in the region, and reaching into Europe whenever they can. Oh, and lets not forget Afghanistan. How can we argue that allowing the enemy to free up resources to fight in fronts of _their_ choosing, and _their_ timing is any kind of good idea? Thats the argument that matters.
Davebo, you are way the hell out of line. Was Thomas Paine a chicken hawk too? Did Thomas Jefferson provide nothing for the Revolution? Was Franklin off hiding in Europe instead of sticking his neck on the line?
God you can be a jackass sometimes.
Mark B.
I agree with you–as always–up to a point. But I think it is important to step back and take a look at HOW and WHY AQ is in Iraq. Not to blame Bush but to examin the possibility that we are doing more harm than good. I fear that your argument will keep us in a vicious cycle of strengthening AQ. I still think it is a legitimate question: do we have any business sending troops to the ME? Does it do us a damn bit of good? Are we dousing flames or fanning them?
I am bothered by the logic of this war. No WMD but now that we are there we must stay because our initial mistake has made it a central front. The longer we stay the more AQ becomes involved. Foreign fighers, whom we must defeat, come to Iraq BECAUSE we are there for them to fight. According to your post, they are increasing, not decreasing. The only possible end is if, someday, jihadists decide to stop coming to Iraq to fight the US presence.
Mark B.
The other backwards logic about this whole thing is the notion that we have fight and win a real war in order not to lose a perception war.
I’m sorry Mark, I was unaware of the brothers participation in writing the new Iraqi constitution.
Seriously? Thomas Paine? I do wonder how effective his writings would have been in stirring the cause for independance in the colonies if he’d written them in Chinese.
ITM is not an outlet for Iraqis, it’s an outlet for war supporters in America. How many Iraqis in Iraq do you think actually read ITM?
But hey, I do have sympathy for the brothers. They must be really embarrassed by their traitorous brother Ali Fadhil.
Don’t seem to hear much from him anymore though.
we have fight and win a real war in order not to lose a perception war
Perception has a lot to do with how often you have to fight for real; being seen as weak is a good way to get attacked. Also, being seen as a poor ally is a good way to find yourself without friends when you need them.
Now, mere perception doesn’t necessarily govern our future in Iraq, but it would be nice to see the anti-war side acknowledge that perception, especially the perceptions of violent enemies, has a way of altering reality.
“but it would be nice to see the anti-war side acknowledge that perception”
It is pretty much widely accepted that anti-war leftists are openly in alliance with Islamists. Both sides have admitted as much.
Conservatives are still to stupid to realize this, and think that leftists ‘just don’t get it’. They do get it, and know exactly what they are doing. It is conservatives who don’t get it.
Davebo, FWIW a lot of us who supported (and support) the Iraq War (and subsequent occupation) are frustrated that Iraqis don’t seem to be willing to build a peaceful Iraq. Especially when compared and contrasted with the Kurdish provinces, where the Kurds have shown that it such a thing might be possible.
But a few points:
The Kurds have been out from under Ba’athist thumbs a lot longer than the rest of Iraq. Some things take time.
So ITM shouldn’t write in English? I suppose Riverbend shouldn’t either, then. (And horrors! Her English is actually grammatically correct and North American colloquial to boot!) Face it, much of the future of Iraq is dependent upon American actions, so someone interested in influencing the future of Iraq just might want to communicate with Americans. (Eh, call me a realist.)
And this one’s for mark (#26): Some of us think that a reputation for standing with those who would be friends with the United States, while kicking the crap out of those who would be the enemies of the United States, will in fact have long term benefits to the security of the United States. So yes, a war for perceptions may be a war worth fighting. Thank you for asking.
_”But I think it is important to step back and take a look at HOW and WHY AQ is in Iraq.”_
Its important to do so- but there is a nasty danger of turning the excersize into a finger pointing exchange that blurs the fundamental crisis at hand.
_”Not to blame Bush but to examin the possibility that we are doing more harm than good. I fear that your argument will keep us in a vicious cycle of strengthening AQ.”_
Its worth debating, but on the other hand we know that leaving isnt going to put the genie back in the bottle if indeed that is the reality. I dont actually think it is- jihadi extremism has been brewing and organizing for decades in the Middle East. _Something_ was going to happen. The status quo was not tenable in either Iraq or the region in general. American troops in the region sounds a lot more like a pretext than anything else- and jihadis have _plenty_ of pretexts.
_”I still think it is a legitimate question: do we have any business sending troops to the ME? Does it do us a damn bit of good? Are we dousing flames or fanning them?”_
Do we have any choice? If Saudi Arabia was overthrown and turned into a Taliban style terrorist state- or if Hussein had died and Iraq burst into a regional civil war between Shiia and Sunni with extremists taking root there- could we have remained on the sidelines? There are interests of the world, thats a fact. Its not fair that its our problem, but it is our problem. Pay me now or pay me later.
_”The longer we stay the more AQ becomes involved. Foreign fighers, whom we must defeat, come to Iraq BECAUSE we are there for them to fight.”_
Yes, they COME to Iraq, they don’t become jihadis. Its an open question whether its better for our interests that they are in Iraq battling American GIs or in Afghanistan or Jordan or Egypt or Paris or Baltimore. These Chechnyans expert marksmen and Syrian bomb makers etc etc werent quietly farming when the battle flag of Iraq was raised. And they wont be quietly farming if we leave tomorrow.
It is important to ask whether our troops create or sustain this movement. I think the answer, certainly now and probably heretofor, is a resounding NO. We give our enemies too little credit by considering this idealogical world war to be a regional grevience. Why not just listen to what they say every single day? You cant placate this level of fascist tyranny.
Payne actually did spend the war in Europe Davebo, he had little to do with the conflict on this side of the Atlantic. And it seems to me that its not the Iraqis that need the gutcheck at the moment- so it seems to me his resources are well placed. What does Iraq need more at the moment, another guy holding a rifle? or a spokesmen to remind wreckless feckless Americans what is at stake?
Rob, I disagree and I’ll give you a concrete example of why I disagree with the proposition that showing strength-as opposed to demonstrating weakness–is a good way of preventing an attack by our enemies:
AQ grew strong in Iraq AFTER we invaded and occupied that country. Now, if ever there was a show of strength, surely it was the US invasion and occupation of Iraq. But rather than deter AQ in any way, this show of strength on our part seemed to greatly embolden them…not to mention actually strengthen there ability to recruit, fund and attack US soldiers and interests.
As far as war vis-a-vis perception- war is perception. If we are chased out of Iraq we will be chased out of the entire Middle East as surely as if we had been routed in a pitched battle. The specifics dont much matter if the results are the same.
Mark B.
I do not believe that all or even most of the non-Iraqis who have been fighting in Iraq over the last 4 years would necessarily have gone into the terrorist business had we not invaded Iraq. There are a few reasons for this belief. One is that the invasion becomes a growing cause, a recruitment tool, without which many may have chose alternate routes, just as many young Americans signed up after 9/11 who probably wouldn’t have otherwise. In addition to adding a motive, there is the matter of opportunity. For a young Saudi, Syrian, Yemeni, Jordanian, etc., it is a hell of a lot easier to get into Iraq and join an existing group (who can smuggle you in) than it would be for them to become a terrorist-at-large.
Think of it this way. There are perhaps 10 to 15K men around the world who are destined to jihad. There are probably 10 for every one of those who are sitting on a fence and might go one way or the other. I believe something like the Iraq war is pushing too many fence sitters off onto the wrong side. This is but one of several criticisms I have of the war and why I think it is more dangerous to continue than to end.
I do believe that islamic jihadism is a terrible threat to the western world and I am firmly opposed to it. However, I think its better to think things through and find the most effective means to combat it. Sometimes kicking ass feels good but it doesn’t further your cause.
Mark B., no, war is not perception. war is killing other people until someone decides the death is not worth the victory. In the case of Iraq, from the US perspective, victory really isn’t possible. It’s a trap. We’ll never kill enough of them to convince them its not worth dying to drive the US out, especially given that they frequently use suicide bombers and they know thet we actually have the same goal as they do: to leave someday.
mark, doesn’t your logic apply to afghanistan. If we leave Iraq, do they go there next?
PD Shaw, I’m not sure I understand your question. What do you think my logic is? What do you think I am proposing? I am saying it was a mistake to invade Iraq because it has created a situation in which terrorism is thriving. Staying in Iraq doesn’t seem to be having the desired effect, in fact, it seems to be having a detrimental effect.
I think that our invasion of Afganastan was not seen by the Islamic public to be the unjustified act of naked agression that our invasion of Iraq is seen to be. And, we seem to have successfully wound DOWN our role there rather than amping it up as we are doing in Iraq.
I just don’t see your analogies, but perhaps I am misunderstanding your question.
mark – do you see what you’re missing here?
“war is not perception. war is killing other people until someone decides the death is not worth the victory.”
Notice anything in that statement?
How – absent perception – do you make a decision?
A.L.
_”Mark B., no, war is not perception. war is killing other people until someone decides the death is not worth the victory.”_
Right! And why is that decision made other than perception?
Why do some wars end quickly and decisively- even wars of complete invasion and destruction like Hitler in France or Mongols rolling over and liquidating entire civilizations, while others languish for decades to the point it becomes unclear why anyone is fighting anymore or why it started? Why did the British send a million men to their doom at the Battle of the Somme _years_ and _millions of lives_ after it became clear that that kind of assault was hopeless to the point of inanity? Why did the British people allow their leaders to do it? Why did the soldiers go? Perception.
From a historical perception- our little squabble in Iraq would constitute at most a minor headache for any major power of the past. The Romans would expect to take more casualties as a matter of course. The idea that 3000 deaths could send us fleeing from a inarguably vital global interest would be utterly foriegn and plain mad to any empire in history.
So no- war isnt about killing. Its about mentally defeating your enemy. The first rule of that is to not allow yourself to be defeated and chased from the battlefield.
Every day we remain in Iraq isnt a victory for Al Qaeda- its a defeat! Im at a loss for how that isnt apparent. Even a suicide bomber wont die for nothing- they want to die for a cause, and not a lost cause if possible. Every time we fly in the face of these tactics we hand the enemy more weapons against us.
Leaving Iraq is without question defeat- staying is better than stalemate, because we chose to stay while the enemy determines to chase us away, at which they fail. And if Iraqs government can be raised to its feet to oppose Al Qaedan extremism and keep them from gaining power- that is total victory no matter how the Iraqis deal with us afterwords.
A.L.
Don’t you think it’s kind of obvious that in that sense EVERYTHING is perception? Don’t you think that what’s missing in the statement that “War is perception” is the rather important distinction that, unlike Advertising or Politics or all of the other activities that involve perception, war involves KILLING PEOPLE and that to claim WAR IS PERCEPTION kind of misses something important about war? Good effing grief.
How, A.L., absent perception, is ANYTHING possible? Jeez, how tautological do you want to get? Sometimes, you can get annoyingly snide but without a lot of justifcation for it.
_Staying in Iraq doesn’t seem to be having the desired effect, in fact, it seems to be having a detrimental effect._
Well, I’m asking if U.S. troops leave Iraq there will still be jihadist fence sitters from across the Middle East that will migrate to Afghanistan. If they do so, do we conclude that our Afghanistan operations are not having the desired effect and we should leave?
Mark, its not a tautilogical argument. Indeed every war theorist of any note since Sun Tzu takes it as a given. I can happily quote chapter and verse of battle lost when in reality they were won but one side didnt realize it.
Lets talk about war at its root. Its not about killing. Killing haphazardly is slaughter, genocide. Even today we feel deeply uneasy about using robots to kill men. We could devastate Iraq with a push of a button and never think twice about them again- but that wouldnt be war.
War is about putting your sides lives stacked against the other sides. What more does one have to offer a cause than their life? SO, in order to convince men to do that, you have to have a pretty darn good reason. Duty, honor, idealogy all work well, while pay not so much. Dead men cant spend their mercenary plunder.
So perception is critical, is the heart of any war, because whether a given instance is worth spending or risking your life on is what seperates warriors from a rout of sheep running for their lives. It takes an enormous amount of imbedded psychology to convince or train men to do this. But that well is not bottomless. Eventually you kill off the most fervent percentage and you reach a line where one side just _wont_ defend itself any further. This is why wars never run to the last man- as your idea of war would indicate. At some tipping point, the war is simply lost and few want to be the last man to die for a lost cause.
The goal of any great captain isn’t to anyhilate the enemy- thats simply unnecessary. Its to convince him he has lost and throwing his life away now serves no greater purpose.
Mark B.,
If war is not about killing and about perception rather than reality, why don’t we just perceive our withdrawal as victory and go on about our merry way.
I’m not really concerned with judging our actions by a Roman measure, btw.
How is everyday we stay in Iraq a defeat for AQ any more than everyday that AQ is in Iraq NOT a defeat for us. What are we winning? Good God, this is ridiculous. I withdraw from this discusion. You may perceive a victory and that I have been mentally defeated but from to my perception this has become just too damned stupid for words.
There is something real at stake besides “honor” here and if we continue to make these mistakes to save face and honor, we are just making it worse and worse and worse every day IN REALITY not in perception. People are dying and more are going to die than necessary becasue we continue to employ a demonstrably ineffective strategy to make a point about who’s right and who’s wrong. This is bloody medieval. It’s not working. It’s not going to work. It was a stupid idea to begin with and it remains a stupid idea. We got ourselves into a situation that by definition cannot be won, but which some of you can’t walk away from cause it will look like defeat…because according to you, if it looks like defeate it IS defeat. Well, I wouldn’t consider it defeat. I consider it a healthy use of reason.
Mark B.
Okay, I said I withdraw but I am back in for one last rant:
“throwing his life away now serves no greater purpose.” These people live to throw their lives away. They are suicide bombers for christ sakes. As far as they are concerned we’re giving them the opportunity to go live with god.
_”If war is not about killing and about perception rather than reality, why don’t we just perceive our withdrawal as victory and go on about our merry way.”_
Because our perceptions are in tension with our enemies. The thing about perception is that it isnt a conscious decision unless we all happen to be high level Buddhist monks, which we arent. Perception by definition isnt simply believing what we want to believe- that is imagination. Perception is our mind digesting what it percieves in the context of experience, emotion, and trauma.
_”I’m not really concerned with judging our actions by a Roman measure, btw.”_
Honestly you dont seem concerned about learning lessons from history at all in this case.
_”How is everyday we stay in Iraq a defeat for AQ any more than everyday that AQ is in Iraq NOT a defeat for us.”_
Because we didnt go to Iraq to evict AQ as they did to evict us. AQ isnt running Iraq, AQ isnt controlling the oil fields.
_”What are we winning? Good God, this is ridiculous.”_
Well, not allowing AQ to (at worst) control a magnificently wealthy oil nation or (at best) turn the critical region into a giant warzone ripe for growing international terrorist is a victory I would say. How is allowing them to do that preferable? Sometimes simply not losing is pretty damned preferable to abject defeat.
_”We got ourselves into a situation that by definition cannot be won, but which some of you can’t walk away from cause it will look like defeat”_
Mark, by your confused definitions of the issue im not sure how any war has ever been won. Your logic is in a vacuum and doesnt take human nature into account. This is games theory, and yes, perception counts. Im sorry if that is unpalitable to you, hell, i dont particularly like it. OF COURSE ITS INSANE, its war. But denying what is paramount in the course of human history is rather crazy too. What was the point of the Western Front in WWI? What logic lies there? NOTHING. HUMAN FAILURE. Let me rework Clausewitz a bit- war is consquence of the failure of politics by any other means. Does that make both sides culpable? Perhaps to a degree, but there is often one side that is radically more of a failure of civilization than another. We know what side that is in this war- the question is whether it is worth it to us to break that sides will to fight us. And as much as you despise historical examples, wars DO end, and NOT by annihylating the enemy the vast majority of the time.
_”These people live to throw their lives away. They are suicide bombers for christ sakes. As far as they are concerned we’re giving them the opportunity to go live with god.”_
Then why is it there are so damn many of them left? Are the inept? Havent found a dynamite vest they like just yet? Why not just stroll down to the Embassy and blow up the gate? Because suicide bombing, as much and more as any act of war, is about making an impression more than the sum of its parts. And how exactly do you judge that?
And one last thing- why do they call it “Terrorism” in the first place? Whats the point? What does ‘terror’ have to do with killing enough people to win the war?
Is blowing up a cafe in Tel Aviv going to change the strategic power of Israel a fraction of a percent? If killing a bunch of people wins you wars, what the hell is Israel thinking? Apparently a world renowned strategist like Sharon just didnt get the fact that wiping out a few hundred thousand Palestinians is the way you win. Or maybe whatever would be left after such a ‘victory’ would make the whole exercise pyrhiaac at best.
Mark, “the question is whether it is worth it to us to break that sides will to fight us” Do you think our continuing to post 140,000 soldiers in Iraq is going to break the will of the world’s islamic jihadists? I don’t. Perhaps that is the difference in our viewpoints. I believe that posting 140,000 soldiers in Iraq is going to have the opposite effect. I believe it already has had the opposite effect. I think it strengthens the will, the numbers, the ability and effectiveness of jihadists.
I would love to break their will. I don’t think being in Iraq will do the trick.
“why is it there are so damn many of them left? Are the inept? ”
No, it’s because, as I have been saying, that they are created. They are not born, they are converted. The longer we stay, the more there will be. This is a trap.
Their goal is for the US to leave. That’s also our goal. Sooner or later we want to leave. I don’t see how we will ever defeat their desire to have us leave.
Libs really don’t support: greater freedoms for individuals, women, unions, civil affairs, and the like. They really don’t.
If they did they would wish the US to stay in Iraq to prevent the slaughter of union workers, women’s rights groups, civil libertarians, and the like. instead they propose to withdraw and allow the slaughter.
Their choices show they don’t really care about these issues, since when it costs lives, money, and sacrifice to protect them they wish to run away. What they really care about is pseudo-Marxist Islamist chic and hating the fundamentals of the west: individualism, freedom to do as you please, patriotism, rational secular humanism, etc.
And of course they are in a hurry to run away in Afghanistan as well. If we can be beaten in Iraq by these tactics (Liberals on the side of Jihad, with the Bush failure as Ralph Peters notes of waging war to please CNN) then we certainly will be beaten in Afghanistan. All jihadis will have to do is repeat the tactics and strategies used in Iraq and Liberals will run away. Already the Dem Party has morphed into insane moonbattery (35% believe GWB knew and allowed 9/11 to take place).
So of course every liberal and reformist element will be slaughtered, as Nancy Pelosis groveling trip to Syria resulted in the imprisonment of Syrian human rights activists. We’ll turn over Iraq and Afghanistan to Al Qaeda and Iran. Which will in our weakness strike at us again with nuclear weapons (Tenet said Saddam if left in place would have had nukes by 2007 and supposedly Iran has tapped into AQ Khan’s network). Losing several US cities with millions of US dead. Because weakness invites aggression.
THEN we will slaughter our way back through the ME with WWII plus casualties. On a massive industrial scale.
Well thanks Liberals. Pseudo-Marxist radical Islamist chic and a rejection of thought for feminized “feeling” saved so many lives. [And yes GWB deserves some of the blame for being PC and multi-culti and “nice.”]
Jim,
100 Iraqis a day are being killed. There are 365 days in a year. We’ve been there for over 4 years. Tell me: what slaughter are we preventing?
Davebo: But hey, I do have sympathy for the brothers.
You should. One of their family members was murdered by terrorists. And they live in the Red Zone.
Chest thumping
I agree with Armed Liberal. Fuck you.
Whenever the Iraq debate returns to the 2002-2003 decision to carry forward OIF, I like to ask dissenters for the better alternative. After all, the alternatives carried consequences, too. Choosing against OIF meant choosing for, at minimum, an unhealthy status quo.
Our choices regarding Iraq boiled down to these basic options:
*A.* Indefinitely carry out the pre-OIF status quo in Iraq – the corrupted, provocative, harmful sanctions-punishment and ‘containment’ mission.
*B.* Somehow end our status quo Iraq mission. (Unilaterally?) negotiate with Saddam to release his regime from containment-punishment, perhaps in view of restoring Iraq as a regional security partner.
*C.* Give Saddam a final chance to comply with UN/US conditions (really, a 2nd final chance after President Clinton’s “final chance” to Saddam with Op Desert Fox). If the final enforcement step was triggered, move ahead with regime change and nation-building. Thereby, end the indefinite containment-punishment Iraq mission, remove Saddam’s regime and (attempt to) manage the post-war transition in Iraq.
Post-9/11, we were forced to re-examine the state of our affairs in the Middle East, where our Iraq mission was center-stage, and we took choice C. I can criticize as much as anyone our failings and upsetting revelations since the decision for OIF was made, but if making the decision for OIF was a mistake, then what was the better choice?
The consequences of Choice C are in evidence today. Choices A and B, in many ways, would have been the easier choices to make, but even in hindsight, were they more responsible choices?
Eric – I suppose it is a good question but it is also theoretical. The experienced answer today is none of the above, but hindsight is always 20/20.
Back to my original one liner to A.L. … the monumental effort expended so far, and to stay the course indefinitely, is perhaps too much. Worthiness is not being questioned here, if by ‘worthy’ we want to discuss what could be the best hoped outcomes from the array of possibilities.
However, given the limitations of humans – we only have so many hours in a day – the question I have (which is really the same one I asked last week about why we should care about the PM of Israel) is this: what is the return we are getting for our investment? That is, why should I care about Iraq?
What most people here want to argue is that cost of *withdrawl* is too much (i.e., it would encourage Islamic extremists by showing that the US doesn’t have the stomach to fight long term). I don’t know how to counter that argument quantitatively – there is no way I can give anyone a figure of an increased probability of another terrorist attack in the US should the US demonstrate its inability to fight for extended periods of time (decades?)
In the meantime, those in the US wanting a timed withdraw can point to monthly cost figures, including average monthly Iraqi deaths.
So… A.L. et. al., if you want to argue the case for the US maintaining the current course for an extended period of time, it seems to me you need to come up with some harder answers. By that I mean generalities lose to hard numbers when trying to convince large numbers of people. When trying to convince others to commit bodies and money to a fight vague answers don’t go far. I guess this is what FDR faced pre-WWII.
Since 1979 the radical Islamists have been shouting what every Friday afternoon in Iranian mosques? And they shout it in other mosques around the Arab world. Fact. “Death to America” It does not distinguish, it does not discriminate. It does not single out the conservatives from the liberals.
Davebo and the other doubters here:
Have you read OBL’s own words?
Have you read the words of al Zawaahri?
Have you read the words of al Masri?
If you have not and you come here to debate that about which you know nothing then you are worse than fools, you are lazy fools and perhaps deserving of your fate.
I guarantee that the gents at ITM have read these guys, they have heard the sermons from the immams, they have lived the nightmares and do not wish to return to that insane sleep.
In part “go here”:http://www.islamistwatch.org/
bq. “Islam wishes to destroy all States and Governments anywhere on the face of the earth which are opposed to the ideology and programme of Islam regardless of the country or the Nation which rules it. The purpose of Islam is to set up a State on the basis of its own ideology and programme, regardless of which Nation assumes the role of the standard bearer of Islam or the rule of which nation is undermined in the process of the establishment of an ideological Islamic State.”–Sayeed Abdul A’la Maududi, Jihad in Islam p9
bq. “Islam does not recognise any difference between the kuffar, they are either zhimmi (under the Islamic state) or mu’ahhed (has covenant with a Muslim), or he is harbi and has no sanctity for his life or wealth. There is no such thing as an ‘innocent’ kafir, innocence is only applicable for the Muslims; do not say ‘innocent’ for the kafir, the most you can say for them is that they are ‘victims’. The Muslim however, is innocent even if he engages to fight and conquer the kafir, because he is fulfilling the shari’ah.”–Al Muhajiroun, (Bakir School), 6-21-2004
When will you wake to the threat? I fear for our nation because we debate nuance as they debate and plan the best way to cause our defeat. And they KNOW, KNOW that patience and persistent effort to cause us discomfort will accelerate that defeat. They know that self serving politicians in DC such as Pelosi, Reid and Co. will do anything to gain temporary political power including selling out the American people because they have observed it in the past.
AL – We often disagree, but I like this piece, it rings true. And I trust the perceptions displayed at ITM.
Davebo and your ilk – FAH! – You disgust me. Bugger off.
The Hobo
_”Do you think our continuing to post 140,000 soldiers in Iraq is going to break the will of the world’s islamic jihadists? I don’t”_
Well thats a bit of a straw man- nobody is claiming all or even most of the worlds jihadis will be broken by success in Iraq. Just as no-one claimed breaking the Axis power over North Africa would break Germany and Italy. Its the front we are fighting over at this time.
The ones invested in Iraq can be broken, and that is a major effort of the jihadi movement, particularly AQ. Why support, much less volunteer to fight or die for a failure of a movement? Like OBL said, when people see a strong horse and a weak horse…
But more importantly, lets reverse the question. What will withdrawing from Iraq do to those self-safe jihadi recruiters and supporters? Victory doesnt tend to diminish a movement i shouldnt think.
AL said “Sometimes, when I can’t decide on an issue, I make my decision by looking at who stands where, and who I’d like to stand beside.”
“There’s no issue here. I can only stand beside Mohammed. I can only stand beside the troops who are in Iraq and believe more in the mission they are doing than we who have sent them.”
Point of clarification: Are you saying that those of us who oppose the surge/continued occupation because we think we need to begin immediately to get our troops out of the civil war crossfire are NOT standing beside the troops? Or are we just standing beside a different subset of troops? In which case, the question becomes “what do most of the troops want?”
Go look at some recent Military Times or Army Times polls if you want to know the answer to that one. I’ll warn you upfront that it might not provide quite the simple picture that you want.
Our perception management sucks, while theirs has been wildly successful in convincing millions of my countrymen that the war is lost. They can’t beat us militarily, any more than could the North Vietnamese. But they don’t have to. They only have to mind-fuck enough of us to make it impossible for the rest of us to continue the mission.
The easily mind-fucked are useful idiots/.
InJapan:
“Eric – I suppose it is a good question but it is also theoretical. The experienced answer today is *none of the above*, but hindsight is always 20/20.”
That answer, or a variant thereof, is the usual answer I get. It avoids the question.
The question matters, even today. The first common reason given for the low tolerance and endurance for OIF is that the mission is unjustified, a “war of choice”, Bush’s war, a neocon/PNAC plot, etc.. I agree that it is a war of choice but when judging our appropriate level of tolerance and endurance as a society regarding the Iraq mission, it’s very important to understand the alternatives in order to understand the choice we made. As a global actor, we are not a nation of personal whim. The choices we made before OIF, the choice we made for OIF, and the choices we’ve made since, and will make, shaped and will shape our path as a world leader. Implications and consequences abound, for ourselves and for the world.
For example, I spent most of my Army time serving in our defense of South Korea. I’m also a 1.5 generation American of Taiwanese descent. How will our choices in Iraq affect our other global security commitments when, like Iraq, the anti-war case can be made they don’t directly affect the security of our homeland? Korea was Truman’s “war of choice” at a time when American global leadership was still a new and very uncomfortable notion. In 1950, most Americans doubted Korea had anything to do with US security, and I don’t imagine that’s fundamentally changed. I still recall a conversation I had with a Korean troop in our KATUSA snack bar where he confided in me the Korean fear that if/when nK attacks and the war gets ugly with a lot of dead GIs, the US will abandon the ROK like we abandoned Vietnam.
_OT: for the commentator who talked about GIs he knows who’ve come away from Iraq thinking that Iraqis were too “stupid” for a modern, effective society to take root, keep in mind that similarly disparaging stuff was said about Koreans, and “orientals” in general, encountered by Americans in the 1st half of the last century. I’m not making a racist accusation, rather the point that a change of conditions over time makes a difference._
“None of the above” is more valid when it recasts the set of choices altogether to a different question: are we, or should we be, a world leader or just a higher-profile member? My base assumption is that the US is a world leader with global responsibilities that extend beyond a direct defense of our physical homeland, and when we make international leadership decisions, we have to work through the consequences. Leadership has its privileges, but more so, it is burden and sacrifice. Leadership is personally costly, as any good leader can tell you – and I don’t disagree that our commitment to Iraq is costing us in a way not shared by our competitors. “None of the above” makes more sense if it signifies an end to the global role and responsibilities we’ve assumed since WW2, although I would argue that still points to choice B. I could even sign on to an end to American leadership, if I could be confident that we as a society made that decision firmly and soberly, at least more soberly than we’ve been as an often-reluctant world leader.
Certainly, to find different choices other than the ones I named, we can trace back our history with Iraq over years, even decades, and find other sets of choices we could have made that, perhaps, would not have led us to OIF. The 1st President Bush should be blamed for Iraq far more than his son, but that’s a hindsight view. Post 9/11, was “none of the above” vis-a-vis Iraq a realistic option? In that context, what does “none of the above” even mean? As stated, it’s a negation or rejection, not a choice. Keep in mind, even if we can add “none of the above” as a choice D, doing so already assumes a radical change in course of action from a status quo that, at minimum, made us complicit with Saddam for 12-plus years of Iraqi suffering while lacking a valid notion for a long-term solution to the Saddam dilemma.
I’ve heard said that war is a result of failure. I think that can fairly apply to us and Iraq, both in the past and present. However, as a democratic nation (currently) saddled with world leadership, it’s important for us to understand that the failures in Iraq which led us to OIF were inherited by President Bush, not of his creation. Our weaknesses that have been highlighted over the course of OIF were also inherited. The questions about us raised during OIF that we’re debating now are fundamental to our nation. The answers should be considered with great care, and not only according to short-term costs and present disquiet. There’s a fork in the road in front of us, and an era is at stake.
I can understand the anger over soldiers dying in Iraq in a controversial, uncertain, difficult mission. But I wonder how many of these soldiers would still be alive today if the 1st President Bush had made different decisions 17 years ago. How many of our soldiers’ lives will we save 17 years from now if we can rectify the Iraq situation today? Or, conversely, how many future soldiers will lose their lives if we fail again?
When we can understand the hard choices we faced regarding Iraq entering OIF, as a world leader with global responsibilities dealing with a paradigm-shift post-9/11, we can better understand the hard choices we face today … and tomorrow and after that.
Grant us the strength to choose the harder right instead of the easier wrong.
I wonder for every Mohammed “Iraq the Model” Fadhil, how many “Raed’s in the Middle” exist?
Sure this war is nice for Iraq and all, and maybe deep down inside they appreciate what we have done to oust their evil dictator and reducing violence in their streets, helping out the economy, making it a stable and predictable place, and the all the charts show a wonderful glide path on the way to being the next Dubai.
And if the Neocons get their “surge upon surge for a decade” wish of staying in Iraq and maybe stabilizing while not breaking the full spectrum US military, we all know deep down inside, the Iraqi government will be wonderful and sing kumbaya. And the middle east will calm down because they know the US is in charge.
Or maybe they would bite the hand that fed them.
Who knows?
I like this blog because there are many deep thinkers who have a 20 year or more attention span and can think in big picture terms. I believe the subject of peak oil has been brought up alot.
I’m just curious what these deep thinkers think of when production will go down, hits extreme diminishing returns, (or maybe has) and the all eggs in one basket economies of the middle east realize they have a problem (and the rest of the world) and the thin veneer of the middle east civilization is exposed?
I think Iraq will be a walk in the park, no?
Jack, attitudes like that are exactly what will eventually produce a true all-out war of civilizations.
Thanks for the insight. I hope the snark tastes good when we’re trading nukes instead of trying to build (admittedly problematic) democracies.
Great post.
If it is largely about perceptions (and I think it is), the best strategy is to quietly and gradually withdraw — leaving a viable and non-hostile, improving Iraqi state — even if imperfect by western standards. The conditions in Iraq point to that being possible, with indigenous populations mostly against the insurgents — even in Anbar, now. We should turnover areas with great fanfare and express confidence in Iraq’s ability to continue to work things out.
Now would be a great time to declare victory in Anbar, for example, and remove it from the list of our responsibilities, expressing great confidence in the ability of the central gov’t and the now friendly tribes to continue on the road of restoring order. Same with Kurdistan.
The only thing the insurgents have going for them is wobbly US politicians, who can’t resist the temptation of declaring Iraq a failure for political gain. We are our own worst enemy. It is precisely the (grantedly at some level rational) sentiment that honor is not worth bleeding for that incentivizes insurgents and terrorists to make us, and Iraqis, bleed.
Set a timetable if you like. Just don’t publish it. Iraq has the tools it needs to pull through with allied support, even if that doesn’t include troops anymore. The troops that remain should stay as effective and visible as possible so long as they remain — as force multipliers for Iraqi forces. One province or area after another should be handed over with much fanfare and with the reminder that US and allied forces remain committed to help and will be used in other, tactically important areas, esp. Baghdad. Then, some should be redeployed to such areas, but some should quit Iraq.
When it becomes known that only 120,000 instead of 150,000 are there, we merely say that the Iraq forces have stood up sufficiently to merit a reduction in forces — it may still be rocky, but the Iraqis are handling things sufficiently.
The main problem is the 2008 election, which probably won’t allow for a quiet withdrawal, since a declaration of victory would be perceived as a “defeat” for Democrats, if believed. So they will work against US interests by saying it is a Bush face-saving ploy. Which wouldn’t be entirely false, of course, but it’s too bad they cannot also recognize it as an important American objective as well and not play political football US national security.
WE HAVE TO STAY BECAUSE WE CAN’T LEAVE.
Think about that. Has there ever been a clearer, more succinct or more cogent recipe for disaster.
We are in trouble. Our expeditionary force has been tied down for five years and there not only is no end is sight there appears to be no policy to deal with it. Our presence in Iraq has created and nourished an ever worsening situation. Emboldened and strengthened our enemies in the area. Alienated our allies in the region and throughout the world.
Yet we are being told we can’t strategically withdraw. WE HAVE TO STAY BECAUSE WE CAN’T LEAVE.
Sheer insanity.
Many liberals are under the misguided belief that we can use a containment policy in Iraq, just as we did before the war, and that this will solve our problems. I find it really ironic the shift we’ve seen in the Democratic Party. Shortly after 9/11 there were two arguments among them: There were those who agreed with Bush that we needed to go after al Qaeda in Afghanistan, and that we needed to take out Saddam Hussein in Iraq because of his buildup of WMD (we believed). There were also those who said, “We must address the root causes of terrorism”. They implied a diplomatic course instead of violence. Bush agreed with most of these concerns, including addressing the root causes of terrorism, but he disagreed with how to resolve the situation. From a 2003 speech he gave to the National Endowment for Democracy:
Sixty years of Western nations excusing and accommodating the lack of freedom in the Middle East did nothing to make us safe — because in the long run, stability cannot be purchased at the expense of liberty. As long as the Middle East remains a place where freedom does not flourish, it will remain a place of stagnation, resentment, and violence ready for export. And with the spread of weapons that can bring catastrophic harm to our country and to our friends, it would be reckless to accept the status quo.
Therefore, the United States has adopted a new policy, a forward strategy of freedom in the Middle East. This strategy requires the same persistence and energy and idealism we have shown before. And it will yield the same results. As in Europe, as in Asia, as in every region of the world, the advance of freedom leads to peace.
A short way of saying it is: We are not truly free until they are free.
I understand that what Bush says has little currency these days, but I think he has a point. Al Qaeda didn’t just arise out of a vacuum. It seems to me that what the Democrats want is to abandon their long record of standing for human rights. They’ve taken the side of realpolitik pragmatism and said, “These people are not ready for freedom. They deserve to live under a despot.” Lest we forget despots terrorize, maim, and kill their political enemies as a matter of official policy. Are the Democrats prepared to defend the establishment of a regime that does this in Iraq?
Indeed Bush did want to address the root causes of terrorism. It’s just that the Democrats don’t want to do what’s necessary to really do that. I still remember Sen. Patty Murray suggesting that if we wanted to win loyalty away from al Qaeda we should do what Osama bin Laden had done before: build roads and schools in the poor regions of the world…that is if those governments would let us. Gee, was it that simple all along? Not really. We’ve seen the results with our rebuilding efforts in Afghanistan, with the Taliban coming in and blowing up schools with the children inside.
At bottom the Democrats would rather see the Arabs roast in their own juices and hope that another fanatical bunch doesn’t arise and come after us like al Qaeda has.
It’s interesting. Democrats used to stand strongly for the preservation of the Jewish state of Israel as well. Anyone who criticized Israel was at risk for being branded an anti-Semite by them. Now, you don’t hear it at all. Numerous supporters of the Democrats have made anti-Semitic statements, though not so loudly–a blog here or there, and they don’t hear a peep from the Democrats.
It appears that for them principles are worth so little. When the going gets rough they abandon them. It makes one wonder if the principles they used to stand for so strongly were really that strongly held, or if it was just politically expedient for them to appear to hold them dear.