Well it's the morning after the election, and we all have a kool-aid hangover now. Evidently, the whole country has been drinking it.
Posted on 11/04/2006 5:15:55 AM PST by shrinkermd
November 3, 2006 -- SO, we are told, all is lost in Iraq. My colleague Ralph Peters has thrown in the towel, declared the war a failure, and has laid the blame at the feet of the Iraqis for refusing to save themselves from anarchy and tribalism.
My friend David Brooks says this was all written into Iraq's DNA - that the amalgamation of Sunnis, Shia and Kurds into a nation by the British in 1920 has ensured there can and will never be anything remotely resembling a civil society there.
If Peters and Brooks are right, then the common attack on the Bush administration for doing such an incompetent job of post-Saddam management - a criticism in which both men indulge heartily - is beside the point in historical terms...
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
I ditto your post.
3 years in - we're 3 years in. when we were gaining our own independence, we hadn't even moved from Articles of Confederation to the Constitution in that time.
i pray we are not so instant gratification these days that we leave the battlefield, and set ourselves back in the War on Terror. if you look at how the insurgents are emboldened and fed by the infidel's actions, look at what the Israelis' pull back from Lebanon, from Gaza, has led to - heightened insurgency. it's a cruel fact but it is going to take a long time to wear them down. but i believe our very survival is at stake.
Agreed.
People have forgotten TPOTUS said that this was going to be a "long" difficult war.
We have become the now generation. We want everything now, no waiting, no loge fights for others freedoms, we are spoiled.
If we withdraw from Iraq too soon we will regret it for several decades and, we will be doing the fighting here on our own soil.
The party of appeasement can-not win this war with words. It is a war you can only win with killing the enemy.
This enemy has a stronger will than the American people are willing to give and, they know this very well.
But since he apparently didn't have any of major consequence, the whole effort has gone for naught.
the new york times has pointed out that hussein DID have nuclear plans on the table, if not finished yet! how soon we forget!
Do you really think that if XVIII c Americans consisted of Arabic clans with Shia and Sunni beliefs and medieval customs, the Red Coats could impose on them the XX century Western style democracy? Curious minds want to know.
I have been saying since 9/11 that this is a WORLDWIDE GUERILLA WAR. It took the Brits 25 years to put down guerilla wars in Kenya and Malaysia, but THEY WON. The real battle for us Freepers is to combat the treasonous slime right here in America.
These are the fundaments for any successful war. People cannot expect to change the Middle East, eradicate WMD, regimes and Terrorists within a couple of years. It takes time. Decades. The Cold War lasted 5 decades. The war against Germany's struggle to become a superpower lasted 3 decades (1914-45). The war between Islam and the rest of the world started some 1300 years ago... People need to be patient, resolute and loyal.And the treasonous media needs to be taught a hard lesson.
HUMINT: I enjoyed this article and I think solidwood's additional context adds real value to the discussion. I'd like to point out several additional things that I think we, the United States needs to have in order to competently facilitate democracy in Iraq - before we run out of blood and treasure.
We have a long road ahead of us, there is no doubt about that. We have control over some of the conditions on this road but not all of the conditions. Right now, I tend to think we are making the effort harder on ourselves than we have to be. Some believe that is a reason to quit. I believe the American role in the movement for peace and democracy around the world is not negotiable. Quiting that effort would mark the end of our great nation.
And much good it did to them, few years later they were broke and their empire fell apart.
The British Empire didn't break because of Guerrilleros in Kenya or Malaysia.
After World War 2, Britains time as an Empire was up.
Indias Independence and the loss of their Mandates in the Middle East due to the new political and economic realities, wich came with the war, it was only a matter of time for the Empire to crumble. The USA took Britains former role as a superpower.
Could you explain when the "time as an Empire [is] up"? How can we recognize when America's "time as an Empire [will be] up"?
I know the history of France rather well and it is interesting to compare it to some of the things we see in Iraq. Like those who see Iraq in three parts, so also did Julius Caesar say "Omnia Gallia in tres partes divisa est." Nobody mentions those three groups anymore. Much later Hugh Capet founded the French monarchy on the Ile de Cite. He was a lot like Hamid Karsai, derisively called the mayor of Kabul by some. Hundreds of years later a successor, Louis XVI claimed to be the sun king. When we study the history of France no one ever demands to know why Hugh Capet didn't get that job done in three years. What about the insurgency? Shouldn't that be done by now? Who says? The French Revolution lasted 150 years, breaking out again and again ever 15 years or so until they finally paved the streets of Paris with asphalt to prevent barricade building with paving stones.
last night Geraldo finally said we should be prepared to stay in Iraq for 50 years like Korea, if the Iraqis want us to. I agree. Our contribution to creating stable prosperous democracies is Germany, Japan, and South Korea are achievements to be proud of and they have become allies and trading partners that benefit us. Why would we redeploy our troops from an arena where they are needed and send them somewhere where their is nothing for them to do? that sounds like the thinking of a bureaucrat or labor union leader to me.
Just remember, even as late as 1793, Washington wondered if America could win the Revolutionary War.
Correction--1783. I fat-fingered my keyboard there.
Wait a minute. So for Britain the "money and resources" were deciding factor, but America does not have such limitations? The mere will is enough?
Yes, but Kenya did not fall to the Mau Maus nor is Malaysia a communist country. It is possible to defeat guerillas, but patience is required.
I did not know that Karzai is such a talented leader and that his descendants will be great rulers. Wow! Looks like Americans made a good choice.
It is a matter of controversy. Some claim (including British who put him in prison) that Jomo Kenyatta was connected with Mau Mau. Either way he included Mau Mau in his national unity government.
We're at an early crossroad in our new titan struggle with totalitarian terror. We can turn our backs from Iraq and maybe have a few years where we are left alone. But soon after, they'll attack our allies in the Middle East, especially Israel, the Europeans, and eventually us in the US. The anger and desire to create a caliphate is not going to go away just because we quit in Iraq.
Failure is not an option in the world today where globalization allows terrorist to travel to our shores as fast as the plane takes them. And they will pursue us, unlike the North Vietnamese.
Never say "never". The decline of Great Britain started when they got convinced about their invincibility. Same with Imperial Spain - the FIRST global superpower.
But if it simply refuses to use it's power (i.e. a isolationist Democrat government), puts itself under organizations and treaties like the UN, the International Court etc., the effect will be a demise of it's supreme position
There are other options than trying to rule the whole world or submitting to the international organizations.
Jefferson said:"Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations – entangling alliances with none."
Sadly, the success of terror and subversion depends on the strength of the enemy's will being superior to that of the target population. We will see, in Iraq, and in the West, whether the population can recruit the will to persevere. So far, Iraq is holding on. We, on the other hand, are losing the war of will at home-- as of right now at least, and largely because our leadership does not grasp the essence of the problem.
Who pays this so called 'empire' imperial tribute?
Why are you worried about a collapse of 'The American Empire' when there is no empire to collapse?
.
JOHN KERRY =
Pictures of a vietnamese Re-Education Camp
http://www.Freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1308949/posts
.
I kind of think until we look at the whole middle east as the jihad that it will be a long fight. Iraq is just one place in fighting the Global jihad. Maybe we can win a little at a time. Maybe Iraq is a start.
Whatever percentage of the population, however miniscule, was made up of these "villains" two facts are apparent: 1) there were a sufficient number of "villains" to utterly disrupt society, prevent the delivery of essential social services such as water all electricity and oil, prevent the ordinary governance of the country, instigate waves of ethnic cleansing, and bring the country to the verge of sectarian and civil war. 2) there are insufficient numbers of Iraqis who are committed to democracy who possess a level of commitment so that they deprive the "villains" of the cover they need to operate successfully. In short, too many Iraqis condoned the villains.
Now the situation has moved beyond all of this. The situation is rapidly deteriorating not getting better as the vote count cited by Podhoretz would seem to suggest. The reality on the ground now is that whole sections of the Sunni triangle are simply no go areas for American forces and most of Baghdad is similarly out of bounds. Meanwhile, a secular civil war is proceeding under the radar in which whole neighborhoods are being ethnically cleansed. Baghdad is beginning to resemble Beirut just before the Civil War.
The real levers of power are not in the hands of the elected government but in the traditional hands of the muftis. In fact, the democratically elected government is quite ostentatiously turning against us because they believe the muftis will prevail. Under that circumstance, we can have elections with 100% turnout and American interests will not be advanced 1 centimeter.
So Podhoretz has committed a fallacy, there is no straight-line equivalency between elections and democracy; elections are a necessary but insufficient condition for democracy. There must be a tradition of a civil society and a general respect for the rule of law together with a widely held understanding that the rights of the minority are to be protected. Evidently, none of these associated principles are in sufficient supply in Iraq.
If this were not so the solution to our terrible dilemma in Iraq would be easy: simply conduct another election with an even higher turnout and, presto, problem solved because we now have a democracy. It seems that we are fond of historical allusions on this thread so I remind us of our own early history in which we had a successful bid for democracy but we did not have nearly the widespread electoral participation cited by Podhoretz. First, we tossed out the Tories. Second, we denied the franchise to anyone who was not adult, male, white, free, and (usually) a freeholder. Yet, despite these deficiencies, we managed to make ourselves a pretty damn good democracy because we had the British tradition within us which really means a tradition for the rule of law.
Podhoretz leaves us with two questions: first, are we going to get the villains? The answer is, very unlikely, because if they are to be got at all it must be done by the Iraqis themselves and they show precious little disposition to do so. In fact, the contagion of the villains is spreading into all sectors of Iraqi society. I need merely to cite the perfidy of the Iraqi police whom we ourselves have trained up in order to end the debate right there. Second, he asked, "are we going to consign the Iraqis to a dreadful fate and suffer a geopolitical reversal of catastrophic proportions at the same time?" My answer is, yes unless we can go to some plan B which can reverse this accelerating spiral.
In a perfect world I would concern myself about the "dreadful fate" in store for the Iraqis but we are not in a perfect world and it is the business of our leaders to avoid both "dreadful fate" and "geopolitical reversal of catastrophic proportions" for the United States of America. I do not see how these goals can possibly be accomplished for both countries.
We need a plan B. which understands realities on the ground in Iraq and ruthlessly manipulates those realities so that we can emerge from this mess without a catastrophic geopolitical reversal. I suspect that means that we will withdraw our boots from the ground there (domestic opinion will demand that after this election) and barter our air power, intelligence, bribes, and control of the oil fields in exchange for an absence of terrorism directed against us. That means that we will combine with one faction against the other, probably the Sunnis who have no oil money and are the minority in need of all our protection the most and who, after all, will be the enemy of our enemy, the Shi'ites. We will guarantee the Kurds with our air power and a supply of arms, their territorial integrity and whatever oil fields they can seize in the north. We will combine with the Sunnis to prevent the Shia from taking well-deserved revenge against the Sunnis and, more important to our interests, prevent them from combining with the Iranians. At the end of the day, Saddam-like strongmen will emerge who know that they will survive in this 21st century jungle where the Jurassic predator is an American drone only so long as they refrain from terror and the building of WMD's.
If we can salvage even this much from the cauldron of Iraq we will have snatched a respectable ending from the jaws of defeat.
Boy have you drunk the kool-aid!
I just watched a documentary on the History Channel about Iwo Jima. Almost seven thousand marines were killed there in less than two months of fighting. Many more would die on Okinawa. No one likes to see dead American soldiers, but we have to see this through. The future of the U.S., in my opinion, literally depends on this. If we quit now, we might as well split our country up and be done with it.
what you said. In spades.
I Was Also Wondering November 4th, 2006[EXCERPT] Exhausted from covering J-Lo, T.O., Foley-o, and other uh-ohs, will the media ever find time for minor matters? Such as that 8,000 Iraqi soldiers and police – volunteers all – have died in just two years, with 16,000 more wounded. That Iraqi recruits still sign up to defend their country despite threats to their families. That Baghdad has as many people as Dallas, Houston, Austin, San Antonio, and Fort Worth combined in area smaller than Fort Worth. That more Americans are murdered in New York and LA than US troops die in Iraq in a year, 43 times as many commit suicide, 21 times as many die in drunk-driving crashes. That less than ½ of 1% of American troops serving in Iraq have been killed and 97% haven’t been injured at all. That American troops by the thousands volunteer to re-enlist and return to Iraq, while tens of thousands new recruits sign up year after year. That Iraq went from tyranny to new constitution seven times faster than America did. That Iraq’s prime minister has been in office less than six months (will network ratings and newspaper circulation turn around that quick?).
While some Iraqis may listen to their imam there is more to the story. Iraq will succeed!
I am convinced that Iraq will succeed. But we need patience and commitment.
Was USSR empire? No one paid them tribute, either.
IMHO, in this age the word empire in meaningless, and used only as a term of abuse.
The Ruinous Powers approve of this message.
Well it's the morning after the election, and we all have a kool-aid hangover now. Evidently, the whole country has been drinking it.
Yeah...I work nights and another conservative works with me. I actually brought green kool-aid with me and told him that if our party lost I would dring a toast with him. (We live in Virginia, where the mighty Allen had just struck out!) Well 7 AM came around and I came up to him in a crowd..."Come on man...we have to drink it!"
"You mean there is no hope...!"
"Looks like we lost it ...we need to drink it!
"Well, okay but Hillary is never going to get my
guns...!"
"She's not going to get mine, either!"
With that, the both of us drank the "toast of the damned" with green artic blast Kool-Aid in front of a group of other doctors and fellow nurses...!
"We'll get back at them in two years...!"
"Keep your wallet well hidden, in the mean time!"
Most folks laughed when they grasped the meaning of what I was doing, though there was one doctor who gave us one of those frowns mixed with a sneer(the kind of sneer that many women blame Bush for having)...ahh, I thought, a Webb voter!
It would've been better if you had simply come out and said, "boy, I don't like the result one damn bit but the people agree with you and maybe I was little cavalier in dismissing you with my remark about "Kool aid".
I had gone to work with the sense that our party had lost big and since I work with a bunch Dem's, I was simply acknowledging the situation with a bit of humor and irony. I don't plan to suffer from "post electile dysfunction" ....I'll enjoy watching the fireworks between the blue dog Dems and the extreme Libs for the next 2 years!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.