Mark Steyn has a way with words, and I really like his descriptions of how Democrats play at national security like a shell game.
That's always a good question to put to the left: where do you draw the line? In America, the Democrats have turned national security into a shell game: whichever war you're fighting is never the right one. Whenever they're mocked as soft on jihad, they say, oh no, that's not true, we think Iraq is a distraction from Afghanistan. They demand 200,000 troops in the Hindu Kush to go cave to cave to find Osama's remains. So they're not soft on the war. It's just that the pea isn't under the Iraq cup, it's under the Afghanistan cup. You get the distinct feeling, though, that if you took them at their word and said OK, 200,000 troops go in next Thursday, you'd suddenly discover that the pea was no longer under the Afghanistan cup but under the Sudanese one. That's certainly how it felt in the fall of 2001, when the Democrats were insisting, a week in, that it was an almighty quagmire and the Taliban could never be toppled. As a practical matter, no matter how frantically the left scramble the thimbles, whether you look under the Iraqi or Afghan or Sudanese one, you somehow never find the shrivelled pea of The Military Intervention We're Willing To Support.
Democrat and Republican politicians are all power-hungry, but at least the Republican route to power involves American victory and defeat for our enemies.
"Staying the course" when the course isn't working very well is not a good strategy that is at all related to "American victory" and "defeat for our enemies".
Unfortunately, I can't argue with Mark on that point. Bush's "staying the course" strategy looks more like stubbornly staying in a burning building. He needs a Plan B badly before we lose this thing completely.
It seems that our democratization campaign in Iraq will be scuttled soon. We have to wrap this shit up in Iraq so that our forces will be free to give the Iranians a thorough curb stomping before they go nuclear too.
If Iraq really is a debacle -- which I do not concede despite the hype -- we should ask ourselves why? Perhaps because our civilization is so emasculated that we no longer have what it takes to actually win because we're too concerned with making people like us?
It's a debacle because there's an idiot at the helm (George W. Bush) making all the big decisions.. and because that idiot is led by other idiots, including Rumsfeld and a lot of other stupid neo-cons whose dreams of us being welcomed in Iraq as liberators and that there'd only be a few dead-enders to clean up after Saddam's regime fell, etc. were, as it turns out, fool's errands right from the start.
Tell me.. is it a good thing that our President, at the start of the activities in Iraq some 3-4 years ago, didn't know the difference between Shiias and Sunnis; the largest division among the people of the country he was about to invade and occupy? Couple GWB's idiocy and indifference to knowledge with his stubborn-ness about changing strategies and you're well on your way to the debacle that is Iraq.
Well this comment:
Is based on a comment by Former Ambassador to Croatia Peter Galbraith, unfortunatly with a mere 1.2 minuts on the internet you might just stumbled across these:
UN Speech, September 2002:
Cincinnati, October 2002:
Of course he probably just forgot that when the War in Iraq started with all those bright flashes and all.and one more thing in order to accept that as a full truth ones BDS whould have to of advanced to such a point to assume that anyone, let alone a man whose father was CIA Director, Vice President, and President–would not at least be aware of something so basic. The Sunni-Shia split has been on the public radar screen since the Iran Hostage Crisis, which kicked off November 4, 1979 (thank you Jimmy Carter).
Oh yes.. because Bush writes his own speeches or would be able to talk extemporaneously on those issues.
tP: A father-son relationship does not reliably necessitate an osmosis of knowledge between them, particularly in the case of Dubya and his father.
The fact that the Sunni-Shiia split has been on the public radar screen for a long time also does not mean that Dubya paid attention to it.. or, especially, cared enough about it to seek knowledge on it.
Geez, how am I going to say this without sounding like Mark? *sigh*
It's finally starting to dawn on conservatives (with Harriet Miers, Michael Brown, etc.) that the Bush administration isn't running a meritocracy. Rumsfeld is apparently an incompetent, megalomaniacal McNamara-wannabe afterall. (check out the first comment)
Instead of firing him, Bush refused to accept his resignation twice.
If Bush doesn't get serious about getting this war right within the next couple months, I'm not going to be too distressed when, assuming the Dems win, he's impeached for criminal negligence.
P.S. No, I'm not becoming a Bush-hating liberal, folks. I promise that I'll oppose Mark here, sometime.
I guess thats one man's opinion, from Wikipedia:
You may want to note he was named CEO of the year prior to NutraSweet being approved by the FDA (which in the comment was given as the only reson he turned th company around).As far as getting serious, yes he needs to...but he's to busy pussyfooting around the politics, sensitivities, and idiot lawyers.
Mark et al: I guess a large part of the reason that I don't see Iraq as a debacle is that I think it's been the plan from the beginning to kill as many terrorists there as possible. Despite my belief that we should have come down hard and smashed the country to bits, it seems like dragging things on is giving us the chance to attract and eliminate a bunch of bad guys. It isn't necessarily ideal in my mind, but it's certainly not all bad.
I don't know. I'm just starting to worry that our troops have been dying in vain for the past couple years due to poor political leadership.
MW: The problem with that "plan" is that it's counter-productive. We want to kill lots of terrorists: fine. We want to kill them far away from American soil: fine. We want to create a democracy in the same place we're doing this terrorist killing and "flypaper" stuff: not fine. What must the Iraqi people be thinking about our using Iraq as a piece of terrorist flypaper? I may not know a lot about the Iraqi people, but I *highly* doubt they're saying anything resembling: "Oh, good.. the Americans are making it attractive for more terrorists to come to Iraq so they can kill them.". The negative opinion Iraqi people have of America, exacerbated by our using of their country as terrorist flypaper, in turn breeds more terrorism and anti-Americanism. So while we're killing terrorists, we aren't making the overall situation any better.. for the Iraqi people or ourselves.
The "American Might" is an outdated method of fighting a battle. There is not a country in the world that can meet us on the battlefield in the conventional sense. The world knows that. What the world also knows is that we are weak and will capitulate to the pressure of the UN and every weak minded liberal that thinks one innocent life is too high a price.
Our strategy in Iraq will never succeed because we are afraid to pull the trigger. If the enemy is shooting at us from a hospital or mosque then you drop a smartbomb on the structure and level the place. You don't drop leaflets and give advance warning to let the enemy know where you are bombing next.
Until we are truly able to stomach the fight then we are wasting resources and lives. Until we are ready to fight a battle without listening to the detractors, the U.S. will continue to be mocked and tormented by our enemies.
I don't give a damn about the difference between Shias and Sunnis. I know that the only thing they understand is overwhelming force and that neither of them fully trust the U.S. to defend them or be there for them.
With the way we currently fight battles we would still be fighting Japan to end WW2 at this rate. Carpet bomb EVERY SINGLE known stronghold, kill every single person if you have to but fight the war with the same ferocity as the enemy. We are serving no purpose trying to surgically fight this battle.
Innocent people die in war. Get over it.
Eric said: "I don't give a damn about the difference between Shias and Sunnis."
Yeah, well, maybe the leader of the free world (our President) should. If he did, he may have understood that the risk of sectarian violence and civil war would've been very high after the removal of Saddam.. and that there would've been more to do after the march to Baghdad than clean up a few "dead-enders".
He may have also realized that a plan for post-Saddam Iraq was required.. and that any such plan would require a lot more troops than we currently have over there.
Mark,
I think that you are missing the point. What good are more troops going to do if they do not have the permission or ability to fight. We need to get past the fact that certain targets are "off limits" long before we need to send in more troops. We have the technology to pinpoint where the "bad guys" are but not the fortitude to blow up the mosque that they are shooting from.
Israel lost the respect of every enemy after trying to fight a surgical war recently and succumbing to liberal media pressure and bias. What did we hear during the entire Lebanon conflict? Staged media stories about the innapropriate use of force. We have our backs against the wall for certain in Iraq. I believe very strongly that the only way to end this mess is to respond to every incursion with overwhelming force until every enemy position is destroyed.
Once again, the difference between Shias and Sunnis is irrelevent right now. More troops are a waste of time and resources.
Understanding that our enemy is winning because they are willing to win at any cost is much more relevant. How far are you willing to go to win this battle? The "Religion of Peace" will cut the head off an innocent person on camera to fulfill their mission. We, in turn, make rules and laws to pacify that same enemy in the false hope that if we're just a little more understanding they will begin to play nice.
We are a nation with our head in the sand hoping that this problem will go away, screaming and fighting with each other on how to make that happen. We trash our President outright and the dissent strengthens our enemies resolve.
We will fight this battle until we stop fighting from a surgical/defensive battle and go on a true offensive position. United and with the resolve to win at any cost.
Eric: Make no mistake about it.. the idiocy of our President and many of the people surrounding him are to blame for a large part of the situation here. The President keeps saying, like a broken record, that we need to "stay the course". Nearly everyone else keeps telling him that we need a change in strategy. When we have a change in strategy, instead of repeating the same mistakes, then the conversation will get away from "Bush/Rumsfeld screwed up".
Mark: It sounds to me like Eric is also advocating a change in strategy... but I'm surprised that you're agreeing with him.
So far, it looks like Mark is one of the best liberal posters that I've run into. You're lucky that you have him instead of the one that hangs around Indian Chris's site, or even worse, the ones I see at Annika's Journal and Cathy Seipp's.
reagan80: Indeed!
MW: I've been advocating a change in strategy long before Eric's comments in this story.
Mark,
I believe that we both agree that a change in strategy is prudent but moving back to the original article is where, I believe, we part ways.
Make no mistake about it, from the outset, this President and administration has been ineffective at times and made some poor decisions relating to this war. Has there ever been a perfect war with no mistakes made? War is a process of strategy and mastering your enemy. As I said prior, the enemy knows not to fight us on a conventional front. We made history in how quickly we advanced through their country.
The problem that I have now is that the liberal mindset (not you personally but the collective school of thought) has been to demand anything but "what the President says". Our "Idiot in Office" who was somehow smart enough to get elected twice is being undermined daily by the liberal agenda. Do you honestly believe that we would be better off without eavesdropping, Gitmo and the ability to extract information from our enemies? Do you believe that we are safer in a country where we value feelings over racial profiling? If I am to listen to the liberal point of view then I would have to believe the elimination of these practices would make me safer.
The liberal mentality of this war on terror has become "whatever it takes to undermine our President even if that means aiding the enemy." This will be to the detriment of our country without a doubt. Our enemy uses it against us daily. CNN puts video from the enemy of our soldiers being shot and then defends the action. We are being played as weak fools and the reality is we are just that.
Eric said: "Has there ever been a perfect war with no mistakes made?"
I suppose not, but that doesn't excuse those mistakes.
Our "Idiot in Office" doesn't have to be particularly smart to get elected twice, nor did he master the concepts of eavesdropping, Gitmo, or the extraction of information from our enemies.
I believe we'd be safer with a President that understood the complexities of the situations he faced, instead of playing with the world as if it were simple and distillable into clear-cut decisions based on simple premises.
I'll undermine the President until he stops making stupid decisions. I highly doubt right-wingers would do no less were there a Democrat or liberal in the Oval.
Mark,
So in an attempt to understand your response correctly, are you justifying the intentional sabatoge of our actions to fight this war?
Does Bush need to be a master of eavesdropping, Gitmo or the extraction of information to then make it okay?
Because another party "might" do something if a Democrat were in office justifies your comment that you will "continue to undermine the President"?
I have read your comments for several years on this blog and respect your points on certain issues. You have consistently come across with reasoned arguments that are typically well thought out. Do you "really" believe that this is an appropriate response? If what you are expressing is correct, then as I read it, you would accept defeat (or even facilitate that defeat) at the hand of our enemy to justify your point that you think our President is an idiot.
Eric,
Consider the following:
- "Undermining the President", as it appliies to me, is simply criticism of his refusal to change strategies, his indifference to important nuances, and his general idiocy on the issues he faces.
- Criticizing the President in the hope (uunlikely though it may be) that he changes strategies is not an indication that I would "accept defeat" or "facilitate defeat".
- Election to office, even the Presidency,, does not make someone less of an idiot.
- Someone who tells us to "put food on youur families", that the US Congress was right to renew the "terrorist act", and that "one of the hardest parts of my job is to connect Iraq to the war on terror." is perhaps not playing with a full deck of cards and, perhaps, is not someone to be entrusted with handling matters of war and peace.