Winning the Iraq Wars - All of its many fronts.

[Jim]

As I read this article by my hero, Victor Davis Hanson, I felt the warm glow that only comes when someone extremely smart, knowledgable and articulate encapuslates what I've already been thinking.

 

Wow. This is my position in a nutshell. I wanted to stand up and applaud when I read:

 

Finally, we are witnessing a larger existential war, in which Iraq is the central, but not the only, theater. Put simply: will the spreading affluence and liberality of Westernization undermine the 8th-century mentality of the Islamists more quickly than their terrorists, armed with Western weapons, prey on the ennui of a postmodern Europe and America — with our large gullible populations that either don’t believe we are in a real war, or think that we should not be?

 

Americans know exactly the creed of the Islamists and what they have in store for us nonbelievers. Yet if we are not infidels, can we at least be fideles? That is, can we any longer articulate what we believe in, and whether it is worth defending?

 

The problem is not that the majority of Americans have voiced doubts about the future of Iraq — arguments over self-interest and values happen in every long war when the battlefield does not daily bring back good news.

 

Instead, the worry is that too many have misdirected their anger at the very culture that produced and nourished them. Sen. Kennedy could have objected to Abu Ghraib — so far the subject of nine government inquiries — without comparing the incident to the mass murdering of Saddam Hussein.

 

Sen. Durbin might have had doubts about Guantanamo — the constant site of Red Cross and congressional visits — but there was no need to tie it to the fiendish regimes of Stalin, Hitler, and Pol Pot.

 

Cindy Sheehan could have recanted her initial favorable remarks after meeting George Bush without later labeling him the world’s greatest terrorist.

 

The New York Times might have editorialized about the dangers of stealthy government security measures without publishing sensitive, leaked material in a time of war. It is precisely this escalation from criticism of the war to furor at our elected government and civilian-controlled military that is so worrisome — and so welcomed by the enemy, as we see when it cleverly regurgitates our own self criticism as its own.

[ecoli]

He makes an excellent point. Right now, our worst enemy is ourselves. Governments have done far worse things in the past, but you wouldn't know it if you listened to the people listed in the articles.

[SmallIsPower]

Murder is a hideous crime when it involves 1 person. Hundreds of thousands of "excess deaths" havew occured, and you buy the rationalisation that it's OK, because there have been worse? I doubt you said the same of the 9/11 attacks.

[Mokele]

Dissent is the highest form of patriotism.

 

Most of the article was OK (not exactly thrilling), but the condemnation of some people who were merely excessively hyperbolic in thier criticism reeks of strawman, and condemning the NYT for exposing how the government has been spying on it's own citizens and seriously infringing civil liberties is just nothing more than pathetic whining about having been caught doing something they shouldn't have been doing anyway.

 

Sure, there's a noble purpose. But the ends do not justify the means, no matter how badly the author wishes it were so.

 

Mokele

[Pangloss]

Good points Mokele, about the ends not justifying the means and also about dissent. Not only is it patriotic, but it's absolutely necessary. Ironically extremists recognize this when talking about themselves, but fail to recognize it in their opposition.

 

Great quote from John McCain on this:

 

Americans should argue about this war. It has cost the lives of nearly 2,500 of the best of us. It has taken innocent life. It has imposed an enormous financial burden on our economy. At a minimum, it has complicated our ability to respond to other looming threats. Should we lose this war, our defeat will further destabilize an already volatile and dangerous region, strengthen the threat of terrorism, and unleash furies that will assail us for a very long time. I believe the benefits of success will justify the costs and risks we have incurred. But if an American feels the decision was unwise, then they should state their opposition, and argue for another course. It is your right and your obligation. I respect you for it. I would not respect you if you chose to ignore such an important responsibility. But I ask that you consider the possibility that I, too, am trying to meet my responsibilities, to follow my conscience, to do my duty as best as I can, as God has given me light to see that duty.

[ecoli]

Murder is a hideous crime when it involves 1 person. Hundreds of thousands of "excess deaths" havew occured, and you buy the rationalisation that it's OK, because there have been worse? I doubt you said the same of the 9/11 attacks.

I didn't say that the deaths were OK... so you can stop the strawman now.

 

I said that they should stop portraying the US as being more evil then it acutally is. Why they would want to slander their own country, I have no idea.

 

Protesting thousands of deaths is one thing, comparing GW to Hitler is quite another.

[Jim]

Dissent is the highest form of patriotism.

 

No, it's not. I'll not judge what is the highest form of patriotism but a far higher form of patriotism than mere dissent would be defense of the right to dissent. While the right to dissent is beautiful, dissent itself comes in all forms. Dissent isn't always courageous, helpful or even interesting. Dissent can be moronic, hurtful and even racist.

 

For example, the KKK once demonstrated in Skokie Ill because they dissented from racially neutral laws. This wasn't patriotism. What was patriotic was the ACLU's courage in defending that right all the way to the US supreme court. The ACLU's briefs in this appeal no doubt made clear that the ACLU deplored the KKK's dissent. It was the right of dissent which is precious and it is a strawman #1 to imply that Davis was questioning that right when he expressly stated the ". . . problem is not that the majority of Americans have voiced doubts about the future of Iraq — arguments over self-interest and values happen in every long war when the battlefield does not daily bring back good news."

 

With the right to dissent comes responsibility and making extreme comments such as those mentioned by Davis is simply being mindless. There's nothing patriotic about going to such extremes.

 

Most of the article was OK (not exactly thrilling),

 

I note that you don't take him on though.

 

but the condemnation of some people who were merely excessively hyperbolic in thier criticism reeks of strawman, and condemning the NYT for exposing how the government has been spying on it's own citizens and seriously infringing civil liberties is just nothing more than pathetic whining about having been caught doing something they shouldn't have been doing anyway.

 

Strawman #2: He didn't condemn the people; he condemned the "mere" excessive hyperbole. He expressly stated that he had no problem with the NYTs editorializing about government secrecy. His point was that it was irresponsible for the NYT to be "publishing sensitive, leaked material in a time of war." I don't see how you respond to that point.

 

Sure, there's a noble purpose. But the ends do not justify the means, no matter how badly the author wishes it were so.

 

Strawman #3: I cannot see any portion of Davis' article that suggests that the ends justify the means.

[padren]

I don't think the extreme comments and comparisons are accurate, nor do I think that those people made the comparisons due to careful consideration, and did so more for the emotional effect.

 

I do think Cindy Sheehan may honestly feel that Bush is the world's greatest terrorist, but I doubt it is due to great and careful consideration.

 

All the same, it is her right to say it, and up to us whether we agree with it or not.

 

 

I don't know what most people think who are against the war, but my personal feelings are that I am against limiting criticism because it is the nature of debate that ideas and strategies can be improved upon. I don't care what side of the isle the leader is from as long as he does a good job...when he is faced with criticism I want to hear a strong rebuttal that sets the record straight on way his way is good, or why it was wrong but is being corrected and what steps are taken to ensure what caused those mistakes won't occur again. I don't want to be told no one should say ill thus be accused of making the terrorists feel warm and fuzzy inside.

 

Debate is our process, its our way, and the terrorists can take it however the hell they want. If they want to believe it is a sign of weakness that is their fault, and they'll learn that quickly enough when our open processes allow us to fight them with the ever improving effeciency of an ever improving military machine. Authoritarian-minded ideaologies learned this lesson throughout the first two world wars and the cold war, I don't think it will be any different now.

[Jim]

For example, the KKK once demonstrated in Skokie Ill because they dissented from racially neutral laws.

 

My bad. It was the Nazis that the ACLU fought for in Skokie.

[Jim]

I don't know what most people think who are against the war, but my personal feelings are that I am against limiting criticism because it is the nature of debate that ideas and strategies can be improved upon.

 

No one in this thread has argued that we should limit criticism. Except for possibly the flag burning amendment and a desire to curb the despicable antics of Mr. Phelps, I am aware of no proposal by anyone in a position of power to limit criticism.

 

What Hanson said was "too many have misdirected their anger at the very culture that produced and nourished them."

[ecoli]

I agree with Jim on this one. I think the article's goal was to make social commentary about the comments made by liberals who are making excessive statements about their own government which are unfounded and thoughtless.

 

He is in no way suggesting that we start legislating this criticism.

 

These people are making statements in anger that are not based on fact, but emotion. They only serve to make the United States worse in the public eye, which is not OK, considering the source of the comments are baseless and exaggerated.

[Jim]

I agree with Jim on this one. I think the article's goal was to make social commentary about the comments made by liberals who are making excessive statements about their own government which are unfounded and thoughtless.

 

He is in no way suggesting that we start legislating this criticism.

 

These people are making statements in anger that are not based on fact' date=' but emotion. They only serve to make the United States worse in the public eye, which is not OK, considering the source of the comments are baseless and exaggerated.[/quote']

 

There were many other excellent concepts in this article which had me figuratively nodding my head.

 

First, of course, is the fighting itself to preserve the elected democracy of Iraq . Twenty-five-hundred Americans have died for that idea — the chance of freedom for 26 million Iraqis, and the more long-term notion that the Arab Middle East’s first democracy will end the false dichotomy of Islamic theocracy or dictatorship. That non-choice was the embryo for the events of September 11.

 

Put this way, it almost seems chauvinistic or worse to oppose the war.

 

For all the propaganda of al Jazeera, the wounded pride of the Arab Street, or the vitriol of the Western Left, years from now the truth will remain that our soldiers did not come to plunder or colonize, but were willing to die for others’ freedom when few others would. Neither Michael Moore nor Noam Chomsky can change that, because it is not opinion, but truth — something that the Greeks rightly defined as “not forgetting” or “something that cannot be forgotten ” (alêtheia).

 

I can't say it any better. This paragraph indicts anyone who would seize on Haditha or Abu Ghairb to tar the entire mission.

 

Note also that after the hysteria over body armor and unarmored humvees, the Democratic opposition offers no real concrete alternatives to the present policy .

 

Why not? Because there are none.

 

The choices are really only two: either leave right away and quit the war on terror, or train the Iraqis and draw down carefully as planned all along. The Democrats will clamor for the former. But when put in the public spotlight, they will hold off from Vietnam-style funding cut-offs to claim credit for the success of the latter.

 

We saw this in the recent debate about time tables. The dems who had voted for a timetable were left to disingenuously claims that their position had been supported by Gen. Casey. I only hope Hanson is right that they will hold off on Vietnam style funding cuts.

Yet, because George Bush is in his second term, and is not Clintonian in obsession with polls and being liked, he can still guarantee the military two more years to stabilize the country. Then the hope is that the Iraqis will be able to secure their democracy in the future with a small number of American advisors and civilian aides, which might allow Iraq an opportunity something akin to that offered to the postwar Balkans.

 

I wish he were more eloquent and, in particular, I wish he had defined the conditions of victory differently. However, there is a firm courage to George Bush which is only underscored by his unpopularity. He understands that there is no choice but to finish what we started and all of the Sunday morning gas bags are not going to change his course.

There is a third war: that for the larger future of the Middle East . Pessimists point to the Gulf, Egyptian, and North African autocracies. And they see there only failure in the American efforts at democratization.

 

But the point is not to see Rotary Clubs and school boards sprouting up in the failed states of the Middle East . Instead, we can be happy enough with the beginning of the end of the old “stability” that nurtured terrorism. The public is nursed on news of car bombs, and the tired canard that supporting democracy always ensures perpetual Islamism. But if we remain calm and rational, then we can already see signs of real change in the unease and agitation of the Middle East, from Libya to Lebanon . All this was unleashed by the removal of Saddam Hussein and the American effort to stay on to foster something different despite base slurs, escalating oil prices, and the politicization of the war in a soon to be third wartime national election.

 

Nascent democracy is the reason that Afghans and Iraqis, alone in the Middle East , get up each morning and risk their lives to hunt down Islamic terrorists. For all the mess on the West Bank , it was only the free elections that brought in Hamas which offered the Palestinians the opportunity of self-expression. And now they alone suffer the responsibility to live with the economic and military consequences of their disastrous decision. Perhaps they may wish to reconsider next election.

 

Arafat’s pernicious façade of a “legitimate” government that “sincerely” tried to rein in “rogue” elements is now shattered in both Europe and America . After the Palestinians willingly voted a terrorist government into power, the Hamas politicians are simply fulfilling campaign pledges and doing what terrorists always do: rocketing civilians, murdering, and kidnapping. And now, since there is no more shady, so-called “Hamas,” but only the Hamas-led legitimate government of Palestine , there may be soon a conventional struggle at last, between two sovereign and legitimate states. Such are the wages of moral clarity that accrue from democracy.

 

I have to shake my head at how seldom this view is expressed. I particularly agree with the value of making the Palestinian's responsible for their decisions.

 

After the section of the article I quoted in the OP, Hanson concludes in part:

 

The military is doing its part. It defeated Saddam Hussein, and prevented a plethora of terrorists from destroying a fragile democracy abroad and the contemporary world’s oldest here at home. Despite the caricature and venom, the original belief of the 2002 Congress that there were at least 23 reasons to topple Saddam remains valid and is reaffirmed daily...

 

This is the part that mystifies me. What is the source of the venom with which the war is treated both domestically and internationally? I can see how a parent whose child was risked, killed or injured might not think the effort worthwhile, but how can so many so easily dismiss the opportunity for freedom which is being handed to 26 million Iraqis and the entire Middle East?

 

The world should again be thanking America for its sacrifice. I cannot account for the mindless venom.

[Skye]

Put this way, it almost seems chauvinistic or worse to oppose the war.

There's a certain amount of irony here as the word chauvinistic is derived from the name of one of Neopoleon's military leaders who was considered to be blindly nationalistic

 

As far as all this goes, I see it as part of the shifting of American isolationist ideology to the Democrats. Isolationism in various forms has been part of US foreign policy talk for quite some time, but like alot of issues in US politics it is becoming increasingly polarised by the strengthening association of particular ideology with particular parties.

[Jim]

Can we at least put one myth to rest? That Saddam would not have run circles around the international community until eventually he acquired, reimported, unearthed, or restarted a WMD program?

 

From the less than Bush-friendly NYTs:

 

On June 1, world powers made Iran an offer they said Tehran shouldn’t refuse: suspend uranium enrichment in “weeks, not months” or face economic sanctions.

 

That was three months ago. Iran hasn’t suspended anything, despite the passage of an Aug. 31 United Nations Security Council deadline. The six countries that made the offer — the United States, Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China — are still debating what to do. And last week, the day after the deadline, European Union foreign ministers meeting in Finland called for more dialogue with Iran before any talk of sanctions. “For the E.U., diplomacy remains the No. 1 way forward,” the Finnish Foreign Minister, Erkki Tuomioja, said.

[Sisyphus]

Why they would want to slander their own country' date=' I have no idea.

[/quote']

 

I think you're misunderstanding the intention behind a lot of this. What is so often mistaken for "liberal anti-Americanism" is usually anything but. Yes, American liberals do use extreme double-standards when comparing their country to others. But shouldn't that be the case? Shouldn't we hold ourselves to higher standards? The very highest standards, even, if we truly mean what we say about America being great? Shouldn't we strive to be the exact opposite of what we abhor, instead of clinging to excuses of "not being as bad?" Doesn't it make perfect sense that we should focus on being critical of ourselves and not others, since it is only our own behavior that we can change? In an internal debate, criticizing ourselves is the only means to improvement, while criticizing others is merely pointless complaining and a convenient excuse for not improving.

 

And, obviously, like in all things, there are different levels of reason and intelligence on all sides of the issue. Certainly plenty of "liberals" have misunderstood the true liberal spirit as you have, and morphed it into a kind of perverse self-hatred. I do not defend those people, but I think they are less common than you believe, and actually quite contrary to true liberalism.

[Jim]

I think you're misunderstanding the intention behind a lot of this. What is so often mistaken for "liberal anti-Americanism" is usually anything but. Yes' date=' American liberals do use extreme double-standards when comparing their country to others. But shouldn't that be the case? Shouldn't we hold ourselves to higher standards? The very highest standards, even, if we truly mean what we say about America being great? Shouldn't we strive to be the exact opposite of what we abhor, instead of clinging to excuses of "not being as bad?" Doesn't it make perfect sense that we should focus on being critical of ourselves and not others, since it is only our own behavior that we can change? In an internal debate, criticizing ourselves is the only means to improvement, while criticizing others is merely pointless complaining and a convenient excuse for [i']not[/i] improving.

 

And, obviously, like in all things, there are different levels of reason and intelligence on all sides of the issue. Certainly plenty of "liberals" have misunderstood the true liberal spirit as you have, and morphed it into a kind of perverse self-hatred. I do not defend those people, but I think they are less common than you believe, and actually quite contrary to true liberalism.

 

We should be held to a higher standard BUT, at the same time, we have to be realistic so that we do not create such a high standard as to paralyze the nation when action is required. Every war has failures, SNAFUs and atrocities on both side. There is something in play bordering on racism to think that our guys cannot make mistakes or torture. Of course they can and of course it will always happen in every war.

 

In another thread, Severian wrote how "incompetent" the US is because they had friendly fire on British troops. Obviously, friendly fire is more of a problem for the more lethal forces. The US military has had obvious success in having an obscene ratio of casualties to kills and in toppled a force that stood up to Iran for years, What, then, is the motivation for the desire to label it inept? I never will say and do not even think that this is a lack of patriotism.

 

I think there are two factors in play for the press. First, let's face it, you win a pulitzer or "punch your press ticket" not by writing a glowing report of US success. No one who does this is going to have Robert Redford play them in the movie version of events. Second, I do think that some are fearful of a successful US military policy. By this, I do NOT mean that they want US troops to die. I mean that they fear the military industrial complex and the dynamic of a nation at war and they know that if we have unmitigated success future "adventures" are more likely. I share this feeling in many respects.

[Sisyphus]

I think there are two factors in play for the press. First' date=' let's face it, you win a pulitzer or "punch your press ticket" not by writing a glowing report of US success. No one who does this is going to have Robert Redford play them in the movie version of events. Second, I do think that some are fearful of a successful US military policy. By this, I do NOT mean that they want US troops to die. I mean that they fear the military industrial complex and the dynamic of a nation at war and they know that if we have unmitigated success future "adventures" are more likely. I share this feeling in many respects.[/quote']

 

I agree that those factors are in play as well. Also, with regards to the media, there is, as always, the profit motive, which manifests itself in a number of ways. One, naturally, is the "car wreck" mentality, where more people watch if stuff is gruesome and out of control. Another, of course, is the "tell people what they want to hear," which means giving the target audience something to be outraged about, the most common topics being "stupid liberals" and "stupid consevatives."

 

I find the second factor you mention interesting. The "too easy" phenomenon. We Americans, with regards to military conflict, have grown used to a)being in basically zero danger in our own country, b)not even being majorly inconvenienced, and c)being so much more powerful than our adversaries that simply removing someone from power is discussed like parents discuss how to punish a child - that is, that we can't fail or really be hindered, it's just a matter of whether or inevitable success will be productive in the long run. We're utterly reliant on military might being a successful option, war is altogether too casual, and those who profit from it too influential. I actually applaud efforts to point out that war does still have a real and heavy cost to someone, if not necessarily those of us sitting on the couch watching cable news.