America's Conservative Defeatists

Investors Business Daily ^ | May 1, 2007 | IBD

[y6162]

Without political sustenance,how do you plan on fighting? Please advise.

[who_would_fardels_bear]

"Finally, someone got this incredibly over rated guy"

You don't seem to have read the same editorial that I did.

This editorial didn't 'get' Buckley in any way, shape, or form.

There were no facts to speak of in the article except the mentioning of the capture of one terrorist and some useful information that came from that arrest.

Everything else in the article is either his surmising or the surmising of others.

If this were a debate, then I score it for Buckley. Buckley may be wrong, but this sorry idiot that didn't even have the guts to use his own name wouldn't be the one to convince me.

[glennshepard]

We’re obviously not doing well enough in the fight back home - the fight that lost the Vietnam War for us. However, to win this fight we do not need to sacrifice America’s interest in in exacting transformation across the Middle East.

[Austin Willard Wright]

Gee whiz. Where do I begin?

Really?? How so? Please explain. Curious minds want to know.

Well, first, Wolfy, Victor Davis Hanson, Rummy Jonah Goldberg among others predicted that establishing democracy in Iraq would establish such a powerful example that it would lead to a democratic domino effect in the Middle East leading to the fall of Syria, Iran, etc.. It hasn't happened.

Similarly, they predicted that the war would show tht deep down the Iraqis yearned for liberty. Instead, at every opportunity the Iraqis have rejected pro-liberty secularists and voted for Shi'ite funadmentalist candidates, like Maliki, Sadr, and al-Hakim.

Third, Wolfy, among others. predicted that the Iraqi war and reconstruction would "pay for itself" via oil revenue. It hasn't happened.

Fourth, remember the old mantra that "Iraqis are standing up so we can stand down?" The surge is proof enough that that prediction was wrong. It could also be added that the U.S. has now pretty much abandoned the training effort and U.S troops more than ever before are bearing the brunt of the fighting.

[PierreLegrand]

Do you actually read what I write or do you assign a label and assume the rest? That seems to be the default discussion tactic around here.

Who has said to be weak?

Certainly never me.

The world is not binary. If I disagree with your portrayal of the war as being successful that does not automatically make me a liberal. Life would be simple if that were so but sadly life is not simple.

I believe that the war is being lost because we are not fighting it to win. We are fighting to not lose. There is one heck of a big ass difference. Fighting to win would have seen Iran given an ultimatum shortly after the first shaped charge went off killing Marines. Fighting to win would have seen Syia that pissant of a nation told in no uncertain terms that we could snap their bloody necks at will and would not hesitate to do so if one more terrorist crossed their border.

Tell me we are doing well when that sort of thing is happening. All I am seeing right now is Europe sinking under Islamic Rule, the Middle East Aflame, Russia resurgent, China on the move and words instead of action from the only country able to put a stop to most of this. Course it would have been nice if back on 9/20/2001 President Bush had pushed through an increase in Defense Spending to at least 6% of GDP from our historic lows. But alas he did not do so...he kept it down near the bottom of Clintons years.

[PierreLegrand]

So then some of the predictions were wrong. Some of them havent really had time to play out and some of them have worked out. None of that matters though when you consider that Saddam had to go. He was a dangerous lunatic that was working with terrorists and had shown a propensity for using terrorists to attack US Targets. After 9/11 he was destined for the trash heap...doesnt mean there are not others. Doesnt mean that perhaps some others were more important, I doubt this personally, but it does mean that even if we had changed the order of invasion and destructions of various regimes in the ME, his was on that list and very high up.

[P-40]

This site sums the area up pretty well. It is "pre-war" so these people mattered then and the article reflects it.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2807821.stm



Many fled their remote homeland in the marshes of southern Iraq when the central government reasserted its authority across the country after uprisings following the 1991 Gulf War.

In addition, massive government drainage schemes have turned the region from one of the world's most significant wetlands to a wasteland of cracked, salinated earth.

Baroness Emma Nicholson, Chairman of the Amar Foundation, which provides aid to Marsh Arab refugees, believes they are the victims of genocide.

In targeting the Madan, Saddam Hussein "has destroyed the livelihoods and many of the lives of nearly half a million people", she told BBC News Online.

The United Nations Environmental Programme says about 90% of the up to 20,000 square kilometres of marshlands have been lost because of drainage and upstream damming in "one of the world's greatest environmental disasters".

[Wuli]

First, I do not know how it is that you figure "Wolfy, Victor Davis Hanson, Rummy Jonah Goldberg" and unspecified "others" represented "just about EVERYONE" in the Bush administration, in favor of regime change in Iraq (official U.S. foreign policy signed by Clinton in 1998), or how you determined that any of their published ideas on the subject represented U.S. policy, or that any of their ideas represented the only rationales for U.S. policy - assumptions of which all are false.

As to: "Well, first, Wolfy, Victor Davis Hanson, Rummy Jonah Goldberg....[among unknown, and similarly unquoted others] predicted that establishing democracy in Iraq would establish such a powerful example that it would lead to a democratic domino effect in the Middle East leading to the fall of Syria, Iran, etc.. It hasn't happened."

Since you are so familiar with these unquoted "predictions", just how long did said "predictions" state that the example of a democratic Iraq would exist, before that example spurred other democratic change in that area? How long? before one can truthfully say that what was actually offered "hasn't happened", in a fashion that one can never expect it to happen? Or is your memory of what was "predicted" and your belief of what was "predicted" as unreliable as it is believed that most "eye witness" court testimony is?

"Similarly, they [whoever 'they' is] predicted that the war would show tht deep down the Iraqis yearned for liberty. Instead, at every opportunity the Iraqis have rejected pro-liberty secularists and voted for Shi'ite funadmentalist candidates, like Maliki, Sadr, and al-Hakim."

I see; and you don't believe that the successful Iraqi elections for representatives to run a care-taker government and design a Constitution, followed by the arduous but successful democratic process to design and approve that constitution, followed by the successful elections for the Iraqi national government represents any success or desire on the part of the Iraqi people for democratic change and democratic government?? Also strange, when out of ignorance, you label every Shia Iraqi as a "fundamentalist", which only means you do not understand the coalition building process of the Shia in which many different fanctions are represented.

"Fourth, remember the old mantra that "Iraqis are standing up so we can stand down?" The surge is proof enough that that prediction was wrong. It could also be added that the U.S. has now pretty much abandoned the training effort and U.S troops more than ever before are bearing the brunt of the fighting."

The "prediction" was not wrong, but some of the tactics in fulfilling it may have been, which is why General Patreas won the arguments to change those tactics. Your characterization that "the surge" represents abandonment of the "training" of the Iraqi's only identifies more of your ignorance - about the extent to which the surge leaves training programs in place, without eliminating the US component of the training for the tactics employed in the surge, or about the contribution to "training" that the surge itself contains.

As to the oil revenue in Iraq and its use, the U.S. Congress could have included legislation at any time to specify what portion of our efforts constituted a debt on the new government of Iraq, to be obtained from future oil revenue. For a lot of very good reasons, wiser minds prevailed, even wiser than your "Wolfy; just as past history has shown and future history will show.

[Austin Willard Wright]

strange, when out of ignorance, you label every Shia Iraqi as a "fundamentalist",

Wow. Making things up now, eh? I never said anything of the sort. I even named, names to make my point but you still chose to mispresent me. Allawi (once a big hero here) and Chalabi (at least when he isn't lying) are not fundamentalists. Both were summarily rejected at the polls. On the other hand, Maliki, Sadr, and al-Hakim (the only three I named) are self-described fundamentalists who come from fundamentalist pro-Iraniam parties, though Sadr is probably the most nationalist of the three.

The final part of your response about oil revenue entirely misses the point e.g. the anticipated oil production never materialized contra the predictions (actually assumptions) of Wolfy.

I've been on this site for years. I well remember all the glowing orgasmic statements of the Wilsonian Pollyannas back in 2003 who led conservatives down the garden path. If you want to believe that the facts can still be spun to justify their actions then, that's your right. Unfortunately, for you, no matter how you spin it, most Americans sensibily have parted ways with you long ago.

[PierreLegrand]

I've been on this site for years. I well remember all the glowing orgasmic statements of the Wilsonian Pollyannas back in 2003 who led conservatives down the garden path. If you want to believe that the facts can still be spun to justify their actions then, that's your right. Unfortunately, for you, no matter how you spin it, most Americans sensibily have parted ways with you long ago. You don't address the fact that Saddam was a mortal threat to this country. He had to go. Rosy pictures or not we needed to get rid of him.

[Austin Willard Wright]

Saddam was a poor man’s Mussolini who led an incompetant army and posed no threat to us (at least compared to his fundamentalist enemy Bin Laden). People of his ilk are dime a dozen in Africa, for example, yet few here call for nation-building/Wilsonian wars there (and least not since Iraq turned into a mess).

[PierreLegrand]

and posed no threat to us (at least compared to his fundamentalist enemy Bin Laden).

Well he posed no threat except for the Iraqi agent who participated in the WTC93 bombing and escaped back to Iraq...where he now resides. Abdul Rahman Yasin.

He posed no threat to us except for the fact that he threatened us if we intervened in his bid to incorporate Kuwait.

If you use pressure, we will deploy pressure and force. We know that you can harm us although we do not threaten you. But we too can harm you. Everyone can cause harm according to their ability and their size. We cannot come all the way to you in the United States, but individual Arabs may reach you.

He posed no threat...??? Only to the self delusional. I am not delusional.

He posed no threat to the United States and yet planned and attempted to carry out the assasination of a former US President, yea that happens all the time.

He posed no threat yet he planned, funded and replanned and funded two attempts to blow up Radio Free Europe...sure no threat.

He did not have a collaborative relationship with Al Qaeda...except for all the collaborative relationships he did have with Al Qaeda.

Why would Saddam want to use terrorists and what new evidence do we have about those threats? Or these coincidences...Pre War Open Source Intelligence Regarding Saddam’s Threat to the United States

Yea no threat...whatever.

Yup hosted terrorist conventions where any terrorist worth his salt came for instruction and for the prime networking possibilities. Where the great supposedly secular leader was addressed as the great mujahed yea no threat....dig that hole for your head a bit deeper.

[PierreLegrand]

ping

[dforest]

The teachers have forgotten the lessons taught and the students need to impeach them. How Chuck Hagel could score 85% on the conservative scale means that someone deserves an “F”.

[PierreLegrand]

You were saying????

[PierreLegrand]

Did I miss your reply? Did you post your reply in another thread?

[Austin Willard Wright]

You’re really reaching. All of this stuff was not even used as a rationale by Bush and Cheney back in 2003. Of course, we all know the real reason: they hoped to create a democratic chain reaction in the Middle East, which ultimately fell flat.

[Wuli]

"Wow. Making things up now, eh? I never said anything of the sort. I even named, names to make my point but you still chose to mispresent me.

No, you make things up when your identification of Shia fundamentalists includes Maliki. He is Shia and in a general view one could describe him as a conservative in Iraqi terms, but not a fundamentalist in Islamic terms. He preferred more secular Syria for his exile than Iran (which he only initially and briefly escaped to) when he fled Iraq so as not to be executed by Saddam in 1980.

The Shia spiritual leader, Al Hakim, carries so much weight because of his personal and family history in Iraq; particulary with regard to Saddam's role in that history. Yet, even he is not as much of a "fundamentalist" as Sadr; supporting the elections, the democratic transition and the ongoing democratic process. More conservative than Maliki? Yes. Less fundamentalist than Sadr? Yes. The spectrum of Shia positions is hard for our western sensibilities to make; the kinds of distinctions that Iraqis easily make.

"Allawi (once a big hero here)"

"hero", to whom??? Why was Allawi put in the positions he was put in, during the Iraqi transition process? Because he was a "hero" to someone in the administration?? No. He was, and rightly, for the period of time he served, expected to be perceived by both Shia and Sunni as not strongly in either the major Shia or major Sunni political camps,and thus not a threat to either. The transition process benefited from his role, which may have otherwise been more difficult (the transition process) than if a figure with extremely strong Shia or Sunni support had been placed there. For the transition period he served, those considerations were more important than some level of an "Iraqi popular support base" that Alawi never had.

And yes, Chalabi and Alawi never had or gained great popular support, and not simply against fundamentalists like Sadr (whose group got only 30 of 275 seats) or the more moderate conservatives like Maliki. Part of the reason has to with the differences between their exile experience and Al Hakim's. Though both Al Hakim and Chalabi participated in the unbrella Iraqi-Shia exile coalition, that kept its headquarters in Iran while Saddam remained in power, Chalabi had far less of a personal network of support than did Al Hakim, because more of Al Hakim's supporters in Iraqi were among the truly disaffected among the Shia while Chalabi had a greater portion of his contact among those who managed to remain productive in Iraqi, while keeping just out of Saddam's worrisome attention. Briefly, Chalabi could count on the smaller portion of Shia who kept their managerial and professional roles under Saddam, while Al Hakim's support was always much broader. If Chalabi and Alawi were not able to project some greater intelligence and awareness of Iraqi issues to the Iraqi people, it was not because between 2003 and 2006 they lacked either the freedom or opportunity to do.

"though Sadr is probably the most nationalist of the three"

No. Sadr is the most fundamentalist and least "nationalist" among any of the Shia. He is fully funded and operationally coordinated by Iran and his goals mesh entitrely with Iran and have little to do with "nationalist" goals of Iraqis.

If you want to continue to use the mainstream media as your source of facts and information about people and events in Iraq, that's your right. Fortunately, most Freeper's know better.

[PierreLegrand]

Saddam was a poor man’s Mussolini who led an incompetant army and posed no threat to us (at least compared to his fundamentalist enemy Bin Laden). People of his ilk are dime a dozen in Africa, for example, yet few here call for nation-building/Wilsonian wars there (and least not since Iraq turned into a mess).

Then I respond with a point by point destruction of your assertion that Saddam was a poor mans Mussolini and you claim I am really reaching?

Exactly which of those items I referenced was false? Do you not believe that Abdul Rahman Yasin lived in Iraq under Saddams protection? Do you not believe that Saddam attempted to assisinate a Former US President? Or that he didn't have terrorist conventions? Or that he didn't tell our Ambassador what sort of threat he posed to this country?

Regarding the Bush administration I don't work for them. I work for keeping my family as safe as possible. From that perspective I sent the Bush Administration a letter outlining what was wrong with their attempt to tie our invasion of Iraq with WMD's. Don Quixote’s letter to the President, tilting at windmills can be fun

I thought it was foolish of the Bush administration to allow the CIA to dictate how we defined a battle that will in the end be defining moment between good and evil.