Victor Davis Hanson: What Do They [the Left] Want in Iraq?

pajamasmedia.com ^ | August 1, 2007 | Victor Davis Hanson

[Tolik]

<...snip...>

... do you think the Democratic Left really wishes us to lose in Iraq? ...

...I think the answers are something like the following. The liberal Democratic leadership believes that Iraq can fail, thereby repudiating the Bush doctrine and the current war on terror, discrediting conservative candidates at large, teaching the American people about the limits of empire and foreign adventurism, restoring humility to foreign policy, ushering in a Democratic renaissance under which higher taxes, more entitlements, and greater government intervention promote egalitarianism and "correct" the past mistakes of the unenlightened electorate—and do so without serious or lasting harm to their nation’s security.

Indeed, in this defeatist view, the take-over of liberal government following flight might well be salutary in showing the world that the US has learned its lessons from Iraq, now elected the right people, and promises never again to commit such mistakes. The cost in blood and treasure was never worth the supposed goal of a constitutional Iraq, and the money would have been better spent on social programs at home that promote the general welfare of poorer Americans.

So in that sense, yes, I believe a great number of liberal politicians, journalists, and academicians think it would not be so bad if the US failed, pulled out of Iraq, repealed the anti-terror legislation that followed 9/11, and accepted their own liberal critique for such failure. As far as the recognition that thousands of Americans have died in Afghanistan and Iraq for the idea of offering an alternative other than jihadism and dictatorship that would enhance the security of the region and of the United States, I think it just doesn’t register against the “higher good” brought on by withdrawal and admission of defeat.

<...snip...>

[Tolik]

It had to be excerpted.

Follow the link for more.

[Tolik]

I think the answer is cynically simple: they want Power back into their hands.

The Left believes that they are so much better in solving the lives challenges that they must have Power no matter what. The goal justifies the means. Not that they really "want" the defeat. Its just on the balance of things its irrelevant comparing to them getting the Power back.

That's why they put themselves into a position of contradicting decades of their criticism of, for example, a "realist" politics of supporting "our SOBs". Now, when the administration tries to promote a freer and more liberal society instead of just installing another dictator, they are against it. Somehow they don't care that their actions are effectively aligning them with forces hostile to human rights, women rights, gay rights, artistical expression and any expression of personal liberty.

A recent response of a majority whip that a report of a success of the surge will be a "problem" is amazing in its honesty. I'd presume that one would be ashamed to admit that narrow partisan interests are higher than national. At least, one would expect more weaseling "wisdom" from a party muckety-muck (a whip is not just a no-name congressman!). But looks like they just don't care. Not that conservatives and republicans are exempt from partisan exaggerations, but it is multitudes smaller. The current Leftist power-grab drive cynicism is on the level of Bolsheviks'.

[Tolik]

    Victor Davis Hanson Ping ! 

       Let me know if you want in or out.

Links:    FR Index of his articles:  http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/keyword?k=victordavishanson
                His website: http://victorhanson.com/
                NRO archive: http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson-archive.asp
                Pajamasmedia:   http://victordavishanson.pajamasmedia.com/

[LibLieSlayer]

“What Do They [the Left] Want in Iraq?”

Defeat. surrender, Bush failure... many dead Americans and Iraqis... and a strategic Victory for their allies al qaeda!!!

LLS

[Steve_Seattle]

We need to understand that today’s Left is not intrinsically opposed to dictatorship, just “right wing” dictatorship. Remember, these are the people who openly said Elian Gonzales was better off being shipped back to Cuba. So fighting for “freedom” and “democracy” does not really resonate with the Left. They want forced equality (that is, mandatory poverty, except for the party elite), free health care, total control of the media, abolition of the right to bear arms, and a de facto abolition of national boundaries. In other words, they want to abolish the Constitution.

[Steve_Seattle]

"A recent response of a majority whip that a report of a success of the surge will be a "problem" is amazing in its honesty."

It's been obvious all along that the Dems view the Iraq war as primarily a political opportunity for them, and that an American defeat will serve their partisan interests. The fate of the Iraqi people does not even figure into their calculations, except insofar as a post-withdrawal bloodbath might be blamed on them and hurt them politically. But they will count on their friends in the media to blame any bloodbath on Bush.

[Billthedrill]

...in this defeatist view, the take-over of liberal government following flight might well be salutary in showing the world that the US has learned its lessons from Iraq, now elected the right people, and promises never again to commit such mistakes.

That's it in a nutshell, demonstrated by the nearly universal tendency on the Left to frame the event as "Bush's War," as if it were a purely domestic political issue. To them everything important about it is. The international aspects consist only of the folly that the world is better off with an Iraq in chaos if the U.S. is properly humbled than with a peaceful and independent Iraq with the U.S. triumphant. To the latter end there is a lock on positive news that is only recently cracking. To the international media no admission of U.S. success will ever be made - that admission would be more damaging than the success itself. It threatens the worldview, the "narrative."

Part of the progressive approch to creating a better world is to exaggerate the shortcomings of the status quo, the underlying theme being "we know it really isn't that bad but let's pretend anyway to motivate people." But in this case it really is that bad, and it isn't the usual demon, the United States, who is to blame. That's quite outside the progressive narrative and such narratives tend to be rather inflexible. The real world is quite another matter.

It's also a matter of laziness and comfort. The Left has its whipping boy who does not fight back, an America that can be simultaneously cursed and depended upon, a comforting shield for the easy chair from which the criticism may flow unabated. The real enemy will take that chair away and enslave its occupants, but it is better to pretend that that enemy doesn't exist than actually to do anything about it, secure in the knowledge that somebody else will and the criticism game may continue indefinitely.

There is a basic paradox there - that the West, and especially the U.S., may simultaneously be subverted and still act as a shield against external enemies. It was a perfectly successful assumption during the Cold War, and it's going to take more convincing than is safe or even possible to convince its adherents that the negatives outweigh the positives, that the threat is real, and that their activities are dangerous.

[stuartcr]

Probably for the killing to stop...

[freekitty]

We should start calling the dimwits “The Defeatist View”.

In other words; it you want to lose everything you have; vote Democrat. No one has ever won anything with a defeatist attitude. The only thing they have done is prolong the misery and pain.

[Austin Willard Wright]

Victor “Pangloss” Hanson is not one to lecture anyone. His ever sunny predictions of the forthcoming triumph of democracy, free markets, and stability in the Middle East is atrocious.

[Austin Willard Wright]

that is “his records of predictions”

[listenhillary]

I would assume that the left is making sure this point is telegraphed to Al-queda that now is not the time for attack.

If Al-Queda will just be patient, the Dems will pay protection money and back down from confrontation. In exchange, the Dems get to remaining in power.

They gamble our future existence as a nation, but heaven forbid an individual be allowed to take risks with their own retirement.

[listenhillary]

Do you HAVE to “p” everywhere you go? We can’t take you anywhere.

[maica]

War Crimes: The Left's Campaign to Destroy Our Military and Lose the War on Terror (Hardcover) by Robert "Buzz" Patterson

Amazon link

Newest book, just out July 26, 2007, by Col. Buzz Patterson who wrote "Dereliction of Duty" about Clinton.

[Austin Willard Wright]

I love you too.

[Chuck Dent]

The international aspects consist only of the folly that the world is better off with an Iraq in chaos if the U.S. is properly humbled than with a peaceful and independent Iraq with the U.S. triumphant.

Have either of you considered that the Dems sincerely believe that we should work to understand "why they hate us"? If the issue is framed as one that fundamentally embraces appeasement, then victory in Iraq does nothing in the WoT, other than to demonstrate that we can subdue a militant insurgency.

It isn't about libs regaining power per se, it's about libs existing in another universe. IOW, they really DO believe their kumbaya ... and they want to exercise this emotion by spreading the love via US foreign & domestic policy.

That's what makes them dangerous. It's easy to counter calculating evil geniuses; it's the naive human shields that are so hard to understand.

[Popocatapetl]

What the left wants is pretty easy to describe:

1) Political power. They believe that when they have political power, things they say are problems now with *cease* being problems, precisely because they are in power, nothing else being done. Iraq will no longer be a problem, nor will “man made global warming”, nor will anything else they talk about today.

2) When they have political power, their primary goal is to keep political power, much more than using it. Its use from that point on is *solely* to keep them in power.

3) As far as actual agenda, they generally believe that movement in the direction of socialism is good. But they are indifferent as to whether socialism, or movement in that direction works, just that it distinguishes them from those who do not want movement in that direction. It is an article of faith, with outsiders recognized by their inability to perform ritual properly.

4) They are group and consensus oriented, in that it diminishes personal authority and responsibility. In many, it approaches a herd instinct, with a conscious attraction to mediocrity, rejecting failure or success in favor of the anonymity of the mob. They are willing to surrender what is good in order to try and avoid what is bad. In a way it is similar to some religions, where all credit is given to the deity in exchange for no punishment from the deity.

5) A strong characteristic of the left is embracing deficiency, or as it is sometimes called “defining deviancy down”. They assume that everyone is equally deficient or corrupt, so are intensely suspicious and hateful towards those who claim to be neither. Instead they see the deviant as needing to be elevated and uplifted, as superior to those without deviation, as they are “inhibited”, and lack the “freedom of license”. Conversely, they have a need to tear down heroes, to soil them and expose any flaws they may have, or imagine flaws if they have none.

[Billthedrill]

An excellent point, actually. What most strains this willing suspension of disbelief on the part of the doctrinaire progressive is the straightforward rejection on the part of the Islamists of every single tenet of progressivism, and the open admission - more of a proclamation, really - that progressives, like everyone else, must submit to Shari'a. (The Communists were always careful to avoid this sort of thing during the Cold War.) I don't see many progressives who really believe they can be talked out of this notion. I do see some who are refusing to face the fact. When their own countries are taken over they tend to become refugees, sadder but wiser.

I used to know an Iranian fellow in precisely that situation. His lament was "They said they would cure the corruption. How could we have known?" I never really replied with the truth that he should have because they told him so well before they took over. Seemed cruel under the circumstances, but it's a fact.

[AZLiberty]

I like this part:

Note in this regard the careful Clintonian triangulation: damn the Patriot Act, renditions, wire-tapping, Iraq, etc. but never to the extent of cutting off funds for such efforts (that just may have succeeded in keeping us safe from another 9/11). She is the proverbial pied piper, whose song of woe helps to lead the other Democratic lemmings to the abyss at which point she steps aside and lets them tumble over.

How will Hillary avoid going over the cliff with them?

[Tolik]

Lenin and Bolsheviks were the only party during the WWI to openly advocate for their country (Russian Empire) to lose the war. They even shamed the fellow revolutionaries in Europe for not being properly internationalist.

So far I did not hear anybody on the American Left openly advocating and calling for the defeat. But I agree that too many of them are comfortable with the idea of humbling the hyperpower. I did see the talks that its not healthy for the world to have a single super/hyper power, and its better to have a multi-polar world.

I don't doubt the sincerity of their belief "that we should work to understand "why they hate us"? I heard the father of the beheaded Nick Berg saying that he see nothing comforting about killing al Zarqawi - his son's murderer, that if asked, he would be against executing him, and in any case its was Bush's fault. So there are sincere apologists. Still, it does not explain how one can consider himself to be pro-women, pro-gay, pro-freedom of expression, pro-human rights and effectively align himself with forces that will subjugate or worse all that dear for him, and be against forces that do fight for his own stated goals. Its indeed a parallel universe.