The NY Times has a standing rule that President Bush must be blamed for every real and imagined misfortune, regardless of the merits for such finger pointing.
Posted on 08/23/2003 2:35:44 PM PDT by Pokey78
In the wake of the bombing of the U.N. office in Baghdad, some "terrorism experts" (By the way, how do you get to be a terrorism expert? Can you get a B.A. in terrorism or do you just have to appear on Fox News?) have argued that the U.S. invasion of Iraq is a failure because all it's doing is attracting terrorists to Iraq and generating more hatred toward America.
I have no doubt that the U.S. presence in Iraq is attracting all sorts of terrorists and Islamists to oppose the U.S. I also have no doubt that politicians and intellectuals in the nearby Arab states are rooting against America in Iraq because they want Arabs and the world to believe that the corrupt autocracies that have so long dominated Arab life, and failed to deliver for their people, are the best anyone can hope for.
But I totally disagree that this is a sign that everything is going wrong in Iraq. The truth is exactly the opposite.
We are attracting all these opponents to Iraq because they understand this war is The Big One. They don't believe their own propaganda. They know this is not a war for oil. They know this is a war over ideas and values and governance. They know this war is about Western powers, helped by the U.N., coming into the heart of their world to promote more decent, open, tolerant, women-friendly, pluralistic governments by starting with Iraq — a country that contains all the main strands of the region: Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds.
You'd think from listening to America's European and Arab critics that we'd upset some bucolic native culture and natural harmony in Iraq, as if the Baath Party were some colorful local tribe out of National Geographic. Alas, our opponents in Iraq, and their fellow travelers, know otherwise. They know they represent various forms of clan and gang rule, and various forms of religious and secular totalitarianism — from Talibanism to Baathism. And they know that they need external enemies to thrive and justify imposing their demented visions.
In short, America's opponents know just what's at stake in the postwar struggle for Iraq, which is why they flock there: beat America's ideas in Iraq and you beat them out of the whole region; lose to America there, lose everywhere.
One of the most interesting conversations I had in Baghdad was with Muhammed A. al-Da'mi, a literature professor at Baghdad University and author of "Arabian Mirrors and Western Soothsayers." He has spent a lifetime studying the interactions between East and West.
"Cultures can't be closed on themselves for long without paying a price," he explained. "But ours has been a vestigial and closed culture for many years now. The West needed us in the past and now we need it. This is the circle of history. Essentially [what you are seeing here] is a cultural collision. . . . I am optimistic insofar as I believe that my country — and I am a pan-Arab nationalist — is going to benefit from this encounter with the more advanced society, and we are going pay at the same time. . . . Your experience in Iraq is going to create two reactions: one is hypersensitivity, led by the Islamists, and the other is welcoming, led by the secularists. [But you have to understand] that what you are doing is a penetration of one culture into another. If you succeed here, Iraq could change the habits and customs of the people in the whole area."
So, the terrorists get it. Iraqi liberals get it. The Bush team talks as if it gets it, but it doesn't act like it. The Bush team tells us, rightly, that this nation-building project is the equivalent of Germany in 1945, and yet, so far, it has approached the postwar in Iraq as if it's Grenada in 1982.
We may fail, but not because we have attracted terrorists who understand what's at stake in Iraq. We may fail because of the utter incompetence with which the Pentagon leadership has handled the postwar. (We don't even have enough translators there, let alone M.P.'s, and the media network we've set up there to talk to Iraqis is so bad we'd be better off buying ads on Al Jazeera.) We may fail because the Bush team thinks it can fight The Big One in the Middle East — while cutting taxes at home, shrinking the U.S. Army, changing the tax code to encourage Americans to buy gas-guzzling cars that make us more dependent on Mideast oil and by gratuitously alienating allies.
We may fail because to win The Big One, we need an American public, and allies, ready to pay any price and bear any burden, but we have a president unable or unwilling to summon either.
So close, but yet so far away.
The NY Times has a standing rule that President Bush must be blamed for every real and imagined misfortune, regardless of the merits for such finger pointing.
Also he need to save face that he has liberal bona fides, although he doesn't really. I see Christopher Hitchens playing the same games all the time -- I just can't tell whether he's trying to fool the reader or trying to fool himself.
He's a lunatic leftist hack. Howling at the socialist moon!
It's pretty standard in the corrupt liberl media. On PBS News a month ago, a UN flunky was interviewed about some situation in Africa and he began his mini-speech with "Of course it's President Bush and the United States' fault...." Naturally, the situation he went on to describe had nothing to do with Bush or the US and had been going on for decades.
I saw Friedman beaten up by Charlie Rose when he failed to add the required Bush bash during his interview. Rose did not care that Friedman had just listed his ten well-thought-out reasons why going to war in Iraq was absolutely necessary -- Bush had to be slammed.
Just like Chappaquidick, when Ted thought he was in the clear. Next thing you know, the old blowhard was doing the backstroke to safety leaving behind a tragedy.
When you're asking rhetorical questions about the left, the above axiom will explain a lot...
Its premise:
But I totally disagree that this is a sign that everything is going wrong in Iraq. The truth is exactly the opposite.
So everything is not going wrong; then it must be going right, right?
Then he says:
In short, America's opponents know just what's at stake in the postwar struggle for Iraq, which is why they flock there: beat America's ideas in Iraq and you beat them out of the whole region; lose to America there, lose everywhere.
I put the two comments together and they add up to: We are winnng the whole war on terrorism right there in Irak where things are going right. But wait, Freidman reverses his field and starts running toward the other team's goal line:
We may fail because of the utter incompetence with which the Pentagon leadership has handled the postwar.
Oh darn, just when I thought things were going right.
What evidence does he cite of our utter incompetence? We did not hire enough translators! But wait, he has more reasons we will fail, all connected to domestic politics except our treatment of allies:
We may fail because the Bush team thinks it can fight The Big One in the Middle East — while cutting taxes at home, shrinking the U.S. Army, changing the tax code to encourage Americans to buy gas-guzzling cars that make us more dependent on Mideast oil and by gratuitously alienating allies.
Now I know why he got the Pulitzer, it would never have occurred to me that SUVs and tax cuts would cost us the war on terrorism. You see, that's why we have the New York Times: To make the obscure, clear.
Why does he go all the way overseas to find the hate-America crowd? Just look around his friends, co-workers, and fellow Democrats.
Why did he bring up cutting taxes and SUVs?
Cutting taxes = money to buy SUVs = the end of the United States. The liberals' E = mc2. Some of them get so close to getting it then they always swerve at the last minute to embrace their religion.
Liberalism is an emotional illness.
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.