The Return Of Vietnam
That’s what Peter Wehner, deputy assistant to President Bush, sees in Democratic opposition to a surge that appears to be having a salutory effect in its early days:
Many Democrats believe an American defeat in Iraq is etched in granite. They would not be the first to lose heart and will in war. Yet it is one thing to give up on a cause; it is quite another to advocate legislation (17 different proposals in all, according to Senator Mitch McConnell) that would guarantee failure even before a new strategy is given time to work. This is especially the case when the preliminary trajectory of events is encouraging.
There will continue to be ebbs and flows in this war, as in all wars. But virtually everyone agrees that a loss in Iraq would be catastrophic for American national interests. We are facing among the most sadistic enemies we have ever encountered. There is much we do not understand about them and their worldview — but one thing is clear: they probe for weakness; they interpret retreat as a supreme sign of weakness; and when they find weakness, they strike.
If we retreat from Iraq, Islamic jihadists will not go gently into the good night.
We are now engaged in a pivotal war, which is itself part of an epic struggle. General David H. Petraeus, the top U.S. military commander in Iraq who was confirmed by the Senate without a single vote in opposition, is one of America’s great military minds and one of America’s great military commanders. Why oh why, then, are so many Democrats spending so much of their time and creative energy in an effort to undermine General Petraeus’s new strategy instead of supporting it? Even granting the partisan politics of this city, the effort by Democrats is a remarkably revealing thing to witness. “Come Home, America” and McGovernism are back with a vengeance — and like Round One, in 1972, it will leave a lasting imprint on the minds of Americans, for years to come.
Would it hurt the Democrats to step back until at least late summer and evaluate events then? Yes, it would – with the activist base. I continue to maintain that’s what this is all about. It’s almost always been a mistake in the past, however, for the Democrats to lurch left, and I think it will turn out to be a mistake yet again…
I see what you’re saying, Mark, but let’s be honest. You’re going to have a hard time asking anybody who cares about anything to just “step back until at least late summer.” It’s like saying, “I know you don’t trust me to handle this, and that you think I’ve done nothing but make things worse, but you owe it to me to back off for six or more months.” It just doesn’t make sense.
Would it hurt the Democrats to step back and wait until summer to see if the “surge” is working? Maybe, maybe not, but I do know who it will hurt: The US troops that will be killed or maimed while we wait to see if the plan is working.
Excuse me? Ending a war that serves little purpose other than to encourage anti-Americanism among many people who may have thought otherwise about us before the war and, thus, grow the ranks of the militants who wish us ill, is not lurching left. It is caring more about our country than those who continually ask for more time only to fail until the next time they return to ask for more time. At some point, the brain cell has to click on and realize the obvious, i.e., this was folly from day 1 and we are now over there, ostensibly, for nothing more than trying to contain the chaos that our folly set off in the first place. We’re going to pay for it anyway, why not pay someone whose military isn’t near breaking point, has more credibility at peacekeeping, and engenders less enmity among that population to do the job for us? Continuously allowing “another 6 months” will do nothing but bankrupt us.
let’s wait until the end of the summer to see if a policy that has been failing for 4 years will magically turn itself around? what will that be…another 150 soldiers dead…another 75 billion spent? another 6 months that we don’t devote all our resources to annililating those who really want to kill us (to use kearl roves fear mongering euphanism). i thought the republicans were supposed to be the ceo’s? on what planet is all this justified by any sort of cost/benefit analysis?
There are a few problems with this. First off, like the commenter above said, Wehner is basically saying “trust us, this thing is winnable”.
“Trust us?”
Sorry, but maybe if you pro-war folks had been right about something, anything, in the past 4 years, it would be easier to “trust you”.
Sorry, but maybe if you weren’t still lying about the truth and consequences of this war, it would be easier to “trust you”. I mean, look at this crap:
“— but one thing is clear: they probe for weakness; they interpret retreat as a supreme sign of weakness; and when they find weakness, they strike.”
Ohh, “but one thing is clear”! Well, that sounds authoritative! But you know what, that one thing is actually what we call a BASELESS ASSERTION (which is how we got into this mess to begin with). What’s amazing about this particular statement, though, is that the opposite is actually true. Our presence fuels jihadist activities. Leaving would take the wind out of their sails, and reduce the conflict to the remaining local sunni and shia players. With the US gone, there is nothing to distinguish sunni insurgents from al-quaeda in Iraq, and they become irrelevant. But that’s a reality-based assesment, so until you rejoin reality, it will be tough to understand.
When you pro war folks stop making those baseless assertions, stop arguing about a terribly complex situation using cartoonishly simple thinking, then maybe we can have a talk.
In the meantime, you have to realize you’ve crashed the country’s military car into a ditch, and the Dems are going to be responsible adults and take the keys away. Maybe if you were more responsible, we wouldn’t have lost the war.
Finally, I’ve got to say, you pro-war folks should know better than to let a war drag on 4 years. If there’s no compelling interest behind a war, and it lasts that long, the American people won’t support it. You knew this. We’ve been through this before, we’ll go through it again. Pro-war folks are (and were) well aware of this dynamic. Too bad they didn’t acknowledge that dynamic’s power and steer clear of bad wars to begin with. Because America cannot win bad wars. That’s why we need to be really carefull about the wars we choose, and why this will always be, regardless of what any anti-war folks manage to do, the right-wing’s war and the right-wing’s failure.
“Would it hurt the Democrats to step back until at least late summer and evaluate events then?”
And, of course, in August we will hear, “Would it hurt the Democrats to wait until at least the early winter…”
And, of course, in February (2008) we will hear (again), “Would it hurt the Democrats to step back until at least late summer and evaluate events then?”.
The “surge” is nothing more than George W. Bush RUNNING OUT THE CLOCK, so he can dump his debacle on someone else. And the blindly loyal will, of course, defend him every step of the way. Meanwhile, thousands more will die, and America will spend more than $300 million a day.
But NOTHING is as important as pretecting the ego of George W. Bush, nothing.
Vietnam wasn’t this big of a clusterf**k!!
Well Mark, I guess you must have gotten a link from some lefty blog, given all the new folks who have suddenly showed up to tell you you’re wrong.
Step back until summer, huh? People have been urging to wait just one more Friedman Unit for three years now; it certainly makes one wonder whether it’s being urged in good faith.
Well, the posters a perfectly legitimate question. The Bush administration has been wrong about Iraq since day one. The bipartisan consensus of the ISG was summarily rejected, as was the clear wishes of the electorate. So not only does the administration have a proven record of failure, but its current course of action flies in the face of consensus opinion of both experienced leaders and the electorate at large. So why should anyone have any confidence in what the administration has to say now? And why should more lives be gambled in the belief that the Bush administration suddenly got it right?
The real question is what actions can Congress take to prevent an incompetent Administration from doing more damage. Constitutionally, this has never really been pushed. Uless the President is so “out of it” that the VP can take over ( and in this case, the VP is probably the one pushing the incompetent acts) there’s not a lot Congress can do, other than make noise.
Yes, Dennis, it appears I got a link from both Wonkette and Salon, which explains our newfound commenters. You’re all welcome, of course, and you’re welcome to disagree with me as well…but please answer me one question: do you deny the surge is showing positive effects? If you do, do you have proof in the negative? All the indicators seems to indicate a considerable lull in the violence (punctuated, of course, by terrible suicide bombings that, though less frequent, are every bit as horrific).
Second question to the doubters. Who will protect the Iraq people when the U.S. pulls out? The Sadr loyalists? The Sunni insurgents/terrorists?
I thought part of being liberal was caring for all of humanity, not just U.S. soldiers. Why is a person in Darfur worth the life of a U.S. soldier, but not an Iraqi?…
And the question I’d pose, again, is why “Shut the hell up for six months” should be an acceptable argument from your side.
Step back and give the surge a chance is not the same as shut the hell up…
How, in this context?
For one thing, it’s asking for cooperation, not being belligerent…
When the fundamental positions are as different as they are, and this has been going on for over 4 years now, on what grounds is a plea for cooperation made? There have been no concessions to the other side, so why should the other side be branded as small for not making confessions from their stance?
Do those of you who believe we should leave Iraq as soon as possible also believe that doing so will cause jihadists to put down their arms against the West? Do you agree or disagree with the author’s assertion that our leaving will be trumpeted as a victory and cause for an emboldened enemy?
In other words, what are the expected consequences of our leaving Iraq? Is there only good to come?
Yup. We’ll be sent off as liberators.
Come on, quit being a punk for a moment. I wasn’t attacking you and those that agree with you, I really want to know what you think will happen if we leave. Maybe you just don’t care – which is fine – but do you think leaving is consequence free, to the US at least?
I don’t think that anybody said it would be consequence-free. But I don’t believe that we’re in the business of adjudicating a civil war, and I’m not convinced of all the doomsday scenarios that say the Middle East will explode if we leave. I’ve watched things get steadily worse for 4 years, and it’s especially grating to hear “just a little longer” as a rationale for why…..well, for why we should wait just a little longer.
Fair enough and thanks. I appreciate that you don’t have a “things will be all better” attitude about leaving Iraq, but instead feel that a greater good will come from leaving than staying.
The Bush Administration argued, among other things, that we must have a fight with these folks and it might as well be in Iraq. I agree with the first part but am less convinced now that it must, continue to, be in Iraq. Al Qaeda will claim victory when we leave, it will embolden them. What they can do about it – in terms of inflicting damage – is much less clear. They won’t go away though because it is not our presence in Iraq or the Middle East nor our support of Israel that animates them to hate us. We (the West) could quit the Middle East entirely and move Israel to Nevada and they would still come after us.
We will see if the surge is effective, unless the Democrats suddenly change course on ending the war. Thus the request for “just a little longer” strikes me as moot.
I read an interesting article the other day which, if true, casts things in a whole new light, at least for me:
http://www.ndnation.com/boards/showpost.php?b=backroom;pid=466305;d=this
Interesting article. It may be true that the Geneva Conventions, and many people’s concept of moral responsibility, place the blame for civilian deaths on the non-uniformed combatants that hide their midst, but public opinion is not so swayed by such technicalities when dead women and children show up on the six o’clock news.
I heard Max Boot on the Powerline radio show and he talked about the history of warfare and the frequently repeated mistakes of the powerful. At one point he talked about the Revolutionary War and I couldn’t help but think of the similarities with the war in Iraq. Unfortunately, in the case of Iraq, we are playing the part of the British fighting a style of war that is out of step with the war on the ground. The surge approach is better but only time will tell if it is good enough.
How obvious is it now that Rummy (and his smaller, faster, stealthier, program) should have been dumped a long, long time sooner than it was?
Mark you are right on the mark, the democrats have a vested interest in failure in Iraq because it plays to their far-left base that is pining for the old counter-culture days of Vietnam. Iraq is not Vietnam, in fact light years away from it. We are not at war with the Iraqi Army, we are fighting the terror war in “Iraq”. The major military aims of the initial war were won nearly 4 years ago… and while there is still violence on a daily basis here it is more exagerated for ratings on television then widespread. While there have certainly been casualties on our side, 3200+ and counting brave fighting peope, we lose sight of the fact that this is a small number in comparison to past wars (by far), and that we regularly kill more people for absolutely nothing on a long weekend due to drunk drivers…
We now have a strategic foothold in the center of the greater middle-east. The effects whether th Dem’s want to admit it or not are being seen throughout the region. No longer do the old regimes (with the possible exception of Iran), think we will just sit at the UN making idle threats. Do they honestly think that Syria would be out of Lebanon or backpedaling now about Iraq, or that our crazy buddy Khadafi would have suddenly called the White House and copped to a whole list of bad toys if we weren’t parked in their backyards? We are now the folks with the big stick in the middle east and like it or not, we are influencing all of the region. Kuwait has even allowed women to vote for the first time…imagine the changes that could be affected here if Iraq stabilizes with its huge reserves of natural wealth?