Joseph Sobran Examines "Quaqmire in the Sun"

Joseph Sobran column ^ | 08-19-03 | Sobran, Joseph

[Theodore R.]

Quagmire in the Sun

August 19, 2003 Sometimes our enemies have a point. Realizing this is part of growing up, and some people never make it.

When the United States conquered Iraq a few months ago, we were told that the Iraqi people were gratefully welcoming the American troops who had liberated them from Saddam Hussein’s tyranny. “We’re hearing from the grateful ones now,” someone remarked. “We’ll hear from the others later.”

We are indeed hearing from the others, as U.S. soldiers and UN personnel are shot and blown up daily. There is precious little sign that the Iraqis are still thankful, if they ever were, for their putative liberation. We can only guess why this is so.

Last week, as you may possibly have heard, the northeastern United States were struck by an enormous power failure. For a few hours, millions of Americans found themselves suddenly without electricity in 90-degree weather. They weren’t happy about it, and there has been much pointing of accusing fingers, but it’s generally agreed that it was an accident.

But just imagine the reaction if it had been the work of a foreign government. And imagine how we’d feel if we were a poor, weak country that couldn’t retaliate, while enemy troops, having cut off our electricity, moved in and occupied us. Imagine that the power outage went on for months, while the temperature rose as high as 125 degrees.

Might some of us have been tempted to strike at those occupation troops? Would we have called Americans who did so terrorists or patriots?

Of course I’m describing what has actually happened in Baghdad, where the general reaction to the news of our power outage was that we were getting a small taste of our own medicine. The New York Times quotes one Iraqi who recalls that after the 1991 Gulf war Saddam Hussein restored electrical power within two months. No doubt millions of Iraqis share his sentiments.

The Bush administration didn’t plan on this: in the early phase of their “liberation,” many Iraqis are already yearning for the good old days of Saddam Hussein. Of course we should bear in mind that many Russians still pine for the good old days of Stalin, so this isn’t a final moral judgment on the war. But it is certainly a reflection on the administration’s pre-war optimism, especially when the practical result so far is a mounting pile of dead Americans.

President Bush showed more sense during the 2000 presidential campaign, when he expressed skepticism of “nation-building.” People without electricity in punishing summer heat aren’t impressed by promises of democracy in the indefinite future. It’s time for Bush to drop the triumphalist rhetoric about the desperate situation he has created in Iraq.

In the spring of this year Bush was sitting on top of the world. He had gotten the war he wanted, won it easily, and could crow about vanquishing Saddam and bringing freedom to the oppressed. Predictions of a “quagmire” were laughed off. Bush was still confident that Saddam’s “weapons of mass destruction” would be found very soon.

Now the Iraqis are fighting back with the only weapons they have left — not the doomsday weapons of Bush’s fantasies, but rifles and explosives that could never threaten us at home, but make ruling Iraq a nightmare.

We can be sure that this administration will never utter the three simple words that no administration has yet learned to pronounce: “We were wrong.” But from now on its chief challenge will be to disengage from Iraq, to withdraw decorously, and to minimize the political cost in 2004.

It won’t be easy. All the urgent reasons trumpeted for the war for so many months now ring hollow. Even Colin Powell’s reputation for sober judgment is in ruins. America’s international image is one of a bully, and an incompetent one at that. Once again it has started something it had no idea how to finish. Instead of being loved and respected, it finds itself hated and despised.

Bush is a stubborn man, and he isn’t inclined to climb down from a position he has insistently taken. He pledged to destroy the Iraqi threat while leaving the Iraqi people better off. But there was no Iraqi threat, and most Iraqis are probably worse off than before. And Bush no longer looks politically invincible.

[syriacus]

But there was no Iraqi threat, and most Iraqis are probably worse off than before

Some people like to put a book down before they get to the end of the story.

Some people even like to say they know how the book ends, without reading to the last page.

In reality, neither of them know for sure how the story ends.

Whatever happened to patience?

Iraq had role in Sept. 11 attacks, lawsuit says.

[JohnGalt]

There was a thread last Friday where some interlopers and even some regulars were supporting an author who declared it a good thing, that US soldiers were now ready available targets for terrorists--the logic being some mutated form of better there than here.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/971959/posts

While a gutless anti-conservative policy, its very revealing that so many will accept what amounts to a quagmire as official policy.

[society-by-contract]

My favorite Sobran article, from December 2002:

http://www.sobran.com/reluctant.shtml

[JohnGalt]

That's only evidence that huckster lawyers are alive and well and are dreaming of Saudi bank money.

[billbears]

Whatever happened to patience?

Patience is one thing, misinformation and obfuscation being practiced by those in power are another. If, and that's a big if, there ever were WMDs, they're gone and Kay needs to drop the 'search' that's being sponsored by our tax dollars

[ijcr]

The history of America shows us that in every war, no matter how great a government’s power its rule is never unconditional. No matter how righteous the cause, the effort is never totality. No war has ever been fought with the administration united in support of it and with the citizenry one hundred percent behind them.


There have always been the minority that opposes war, for such reasons as unwillingness to make necessary sacrifices, fear of personal loss or anguish, or idealistic and ethical objections to warfare as a method of resolving international disputes.


Then there is lack of confidence in the competence of the leadership; bitterness at being called upon to play a subordinate role; gloomy belief that victory is far from certain and defeat a daily possibility; egocentric happiness caused by refusing to run with the herd, and psychosomatic resistance when a movie or recording star is held to account for their views.


This same historical review, teaches us that the ranks of the objectors are mainly filled with the selfish, the greedy, the resentful, the conceited, and the moral cowards. Unwilling to take a stand when confronted by pure evil, a moral dilemma, or economic woes, these people instantly begin hand wringing and seek to pass the predicament onwards. Their primary response is to turn to the courts and other non-governmental agencies to enforce their policies without shouldering liability. They often create such institutions where none exist so that they can avoid responsibility such as the International Criminal Court or the Kyoto Treaty.


We are confronted by an enemy, who has elected to state their rationale through the use of murder and terror, the world has examined and rejected their ideology. Yet despite this refutation, their response is more murder and more terror. On both sides of the political spectrum, many established voices say publicly that it is not a question of if they attack us again but when. As we saw on 9/11 the enemy is indifferent to our age, race, social position, economic background, disabilities, and education.


We cannot sit back and wait for the next strike nor can we defend every port, sports stadium, power plant, and water plant or subway station. We must fight the enemy on its home turf using our rules and not pass the problem to the United Nations where democratic government is the exception not the rule.

[JohnGalt]

Permanent war for permanent peace.

Spoken like a budding fascist.

[mr_snoopy]

Indeed...Joe Sobran and others seem to ignore the "terrorism" that befell the Allies in World War II in Germany (and to a lesser extent, Japan). One of the problems with Joe Sobran (who I generally like as columnist) and his take on this issue is that he won't acknowledge in his article that most of the "fighting" that in Iraq is between the US and former Baath party sycophants and / or foreign terrorists. It's not like the average Iraqi, after watching their country's military destroyed in a few days decided to start making bombs in their garages and start killing Americans. Another issue that Sobran avoids is the Shiite angle. The foreign terrorist are associated with Sunni and Wahabbi sects of Islam. The historical conflict between the Sunni and the Shiite groups is another big factor in the continued fighting. The radical Isalmists (i.e. al-Qaeda and their ilk) know that a peaceful, democratic, Shiite-majority Iraq is a threat to their Islamo-facist goals.

[JohnGalt]

That posts makes no sense.

You state that Sobran, who you claim to like but by your posts does not suggest you read him too often, does not talk about causes of why there is a 'quagmire' which, by your reasoning, dismisses his claim that there is a quagmire?

No serious person is unaware that 'terrorism' (your term) occurs around a war and a defeated entity be it Iraq, Serbia, Germany or Japan-- are you actually suggesting Sobran does not realize this?

[mr_snoopy]

Well, he didn't mention any of those points in his article. Instead, the implication is that the Iraqi people in general are rising up against the American occupiers.

"Now the Iraqis are fighting back with the only weapons they have left — not the doomsday weapons of Bush’s fantasies, but rifles and explosives that could never threaten us at home, but make ruling Iraq a nightmare."

No mention of which Iraqis are "fighting back."

[JohnGalt]

But what does that have to do with this article?

You are basically saying the adminstration was grossly unprepared for the ethnic realities of Iraq, correct? While that is true, I think Sobran takes for granted that his readers already knew the obvious.

[caltrop]

The other day the History Channel had a program on the Japanese Occupation. They indicated there were no US casualties during the occupation. I presume that doesn't include accidental deaths.

[Mind-numbed Robot]

Excellent comments.

[ASA Vet]

[Mind-numbed Robot]

Like many pundits, Sobran conveniently overlooks some important points. Like most of the mainstream media who descended on Iraq after the war, as opposed to those who were there during the war, he highlights a few who complain about the electricity but fails to note that they no longer have to fret about being tortured or deposited in one of many mass graves by the Ba'athists. He insinuates that it is the general Iraqi public who are fighting the Americans rather than foreign al Qaeda interlopers, common criminals released from prison by Saddam, and the Saddam supporters who dream of recapturing their past rather than facing death or prison if captured by a legitimate Iraqi government.

Although Sobran has been praised by many, even labeled conservative, I have never cared much for him and this article validates my opinion, to me.

[JohnGalt]

Oh I see, those aren't the real Iraqis?

The Vichycons have ceased making sense and are left bumping 'good comments' posts to blatant anti-Conservative war mongers.

[ijcr]

The first recourse for loosing an arguement is to turn to name calling.

If you could state your case with clarity and
fortitude, show a reasoned premise as to your opinions then
it would be considered a debate.

Your response indicates that such a mindset is a future project. However, in your favor geneticists are working on lifespan extension pharmacuticals, please do not waste them.

[JohnGalt]

Will do.

"The history of America shows us that in every war" it does or was this just hyperbole?

"There have always been the minority that opposes war, for such reasons as unwillingness to make necessary sacrifices, fear of personal loss or anguish, or idealistic and ethical objections to warfare as a method of resolving international disputes. "

This is straigh Mein Kampf but I will entertain that you are serious in this rhetorical flourish. Your assumption is that the nation-state is always right, which makes you a nationalist. A patriot believes in his country right or wrong, which implies that his country could be wrong.

A nationalist assumes his country is always right. Patriotism has always been considered noble and conservative, less so with nationalism which is thought to be a rather superficial invention, if it does have some practical applications in issues of economics and immigration.


"Then there is lack of confidence in the competence of the leadership; bitterness at being called upon to play a subordinate role; gloomy belief that victory is far from certain and defeat a daily possibility; egocentric happiness caused by refusing to run with the herd, and psychosomatic resistance when a movie or recording star is held to account for their views. "

More Joe Goebles here than Mein Kampf, but basically this is the standard response from Nationalists who explain away defeatism. Your premise is that one should subjugate their individualism for the betterment of the state which is anti-conservative and fascist.

"This same historical review, teaches us that the ranks of the objectors are mainly filled with the selfish, the greedy, the resentful, the conceited, and the moral cowards"

More hyperbole with another splash of fascism.

This was the topper:

"Unwilling to take a stand when confronted by pure evil, a moral dilemma, or economic woes, these people instantly begin hand wringing and seek to pass the predicament onwards."

More rhetorical flourishes and appeals to emotional abstractions (pure evil????) clearly either a by product of the feminization of men or just a simple cynical tactic.

Conservative generally believe that a well armed citizenry is the key tennet to national security policy. Are you declaring those on the planes that hit the WTC to be moral cowards?


"Their primary response is to turn to the courts and other non-governmental agencies to enforce their policies without shouldering liability. They often create such institutions where none exist so that they can avoid responsibility such as the International Criminal Court or the Kyoto Treaty."

Who is they? The moral cowards?


And finally the culmination of your manifesto:

"We cannot sit back and wait for the next strike nor can we defend every port, sports stadium, power plant, and water plant or subway station. We must fight the enemy on its home turf using our rules and not pass the problem to the United Nations where democratic government is the exception not the rule."

By we you mean boys and 19-year old girls from West Virginia so you can sit home and be safe right? That is a gutless policy for anti-patriots and a clear abdication of the responsibility we all have to protect ourselves our love ones and our families.


Lastly the appeal to Jacobinist prinicpals, by simply mentioning democracy as if it means anything, is another clear anti-conservative 'feeling' of yours and perfect way to close out your rant.

[syriacus]

I'd say that the nay-sayers need to get busy proving there are no hidden weapons of mass destruction (or significant WMD parts ), but I'd be accused of asking someone to prove a negative.

It could take some time to come to the final determination.