Posted on 08/09/2007 10:20:23 AM PDT by Equality 7-2521
“The term “surrender” has become newspeak worthy of an Orwell novel.”
That’s rich coming from Paulistinians, who hang out with truthers, isolationists, and black helicopter watchers.
The favorite quote of isolationists aside, there's no question in my mind that a George Washington elected President in 2008 would fufill all existing obligations to Iraq and others of our allies as a matter of national honor.
If we leave Iraq now, we will be surrendering to Al Qaeda as they will see us as weak AGAIN. Maybe you and Ron Paul have forgotten the fact (see 9/11 Commission Report) that Bin Laden and other jihadists bragged that the Beirut and Somalia retreats inspired them, but I haven't. IMHO, Ron Paul can GTH.
The "surge" is a step in the right direction, but it took place after almost four years of deadlock, no-win war. It looks like Rumsfeld was too wedded to limited warfare, "hearts and minds" strategy that failed in Vietnam 35-40 years ago. The American military is best when it unleashes its overwhelming firepower advantages. Falusha should have been obliterated after the four American contractors were killed and their bodies mutilated. Ditto for the Sunni triangle and the other strongholds of resistance.
The current Administration and its supporters have been too wedded to the idea of keeping Iraq unified when it was an artificially created in the aftermath of World War I. Like Yugoslavia, the country was too fractious to hold together short of a ruthless dictator like Tito or Saddam Hussein. As in Yugoslavia, separate states reflecting ethnic and religious realities should have been created. Had we used our military advantages to our benefit, Iran would be too scared to attempt to take over the Shiite dominated areas of the south.
The lessons of Vietnam and electoral cycles in earlier wars should have been heeded by the present Administration. Had they done so, Iraq would have been pacified years ago through massive firepower and division of that nation into three or four countries. The matter would have been forgotten by most voters by now.
Looks like what happened to the Titanic when the Captain decided to stay the course.
His comments are also the words of Cindy Sheehag.
Pray for W and Our Troops
Agreed. Had Truman allowed MacArthur to complete his mission in Korea, we would not be dealing with a nuclear armed North Korea today led by a megalomaniac dictator.
I assume you're referring to the misquote of Washington used by isolationists, and that you'd agree that Washington would insist on fulfilling our commitments to Iraq, Afghanistan and others.
You make some good points, especially about Rumsfeld. I know he’s somewhat of a hero around here so I hesitate to get into it. I’ll just say that I agree that in the last 4 years some mistakes were made. At the same time, I counter that by saying that it’s easy to second guess combat strategy in hindsight.
I agreed with the invasion, and I agree with the surge, and I believe that we can’t leave that place to fall apart on its own.
I believe that what we are doing over there is truly fighting the terrorists on their own ground, to keep from fighting them here.
Thanks for the ping! Bumping for later.
ravingnutter: Your first mistake was using Wikipedia...
-----------------------
Is that ever true. The Washington quote is one of the most misused by internutters of the isolationist, and other, varieties. Ironically it’s the WIKI version of the quote.
I’ll use The Papers of George Washington since the Address is in their archives for my comments on the theory, other transcripts differ a bit word to word, but legitimate sources include the internutter omission(s)
Rather than
"The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to domestic nations, is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. Europe has a set of primary interests, which to us have none, or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves, by artificial ties, in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities."
The 2 paragraphs blended into one actually read, my bold for the deleted line. I’m sure the omission by internutters is an accident, they’re the most principled of political commentators and would never make a deliberate omission to support their point.
The Great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign Nations is in extending our comercial relations to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop.Europe has a set of primary interests, which to us have none, or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence therefore it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves, by artificial ties, in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations & collisions of her friendships, or enmities.
Of course the context of the speech is important as the wisdom of our mutual defense treaty with France (yes, we were obligated by treaty to defend France) was being questioned.
No matter, the omitted line negates the purpose the altered quote is generally used for, not fulfilling already formed engagements.
Many of you have actually read the Address, but for the benefit of the internet cut and pasters, the next three paragraphs, my bold as to the reiteration of Washington’s point about fulfilling engagements.
Our detached & distant situation invites and enables us to pursue a different course. If we remain one People, under an efficient government, the period is not far off, when we may defy material injury from external annoyance; when we may take such an attitude as will cause the neutrality we may at any time resolve upon to be scrupulously respected; when belligerent nations, under the impossibility of making acquisitions upon us, will not lightly hazard the giving us provocation; when we may choose peace or War, as our interest guided by justice shall Counsel.Why forego the advantages of so peculiar a situation? Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European Ambition, Rivalship, Interest, Humour or Caprice?
'Tis our true policy to steer clear of permanent Alliances, with any portion of the foreign World--So far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it--for let me not be understood as capable of patronising infidility to existing engagements, (I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than to private affairs, that honesty is always the best policy)--I repeat it therefore, Let those engagements. be observed in their genuine sense. But in my opinion, it is unnecessary and would be unwise to extend them.
Personally I suspect a 21st century would recognize that our position isn’t as detached & distant as in the 18th century, and that our ability to defy material injury from external annoyance ended in 1812, as some of us were reminded on 9/11.
But Washington's position on infidelity to existing relationships is clear.
Time to go and correct Wikipedia..
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.
