July 31, 2007: La guerre continue (Confessions of a Chickenhawk, Part xxx)

I have not been writing for some time about the Iraq War not because I have changed my mind - as readers of this blog know, I was a supporter from the outset for geopolitical/pro-democracy reasons - but because I am a chicken. Not a chickenhawk as some members of the quondam left have characterized me - but a plain, ordinary chicken that does not like to be attacked. So I have laid low. The situation was too sad.

I am ashamed of myself for my silence. I apologize especially for my absence to my friends Omar and Mohammed, whose personal investment in this war is far greater than mine for obvious reasons.

But I am back, inspired by a post today by Michael Barone who was himself inspired by a New York Times article by sometime war critics Michael O'Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack.

O'Hanlon and Pollack think that the surge may actually be succeeding. That they wrote this in the NYT unfortunately gives them credence (except perhaps to the paper's publisher and to numerous of its writers like Frank Rich who have staked their reputations on failure.) I say unfortunately because the NYT should not have the power that it still does, something the Bushies essentially ceded to them even though the paper was in disrepute, its editor fired, etc. Bush and Co. never grasped the critical role of the media in asymmetrical war, a misapprehension that is stunning given that, when you think about it, victory almost entirely depends on perception.

But back to the Times and the mystery of why they published this article, which could start even some extreme troglodytes reconsidering their positions (a few, anyway). There are several possible explanations - perhaps they think a Democratic victory in '08 is already a done deal (though I doubt they are that naive) or perhaps they were only looking for the illusory balance of opinion. But it is also possible that deep down they worry more than they let on about the preservation of the Enlightenment, because, make no mistake about it, that is what this battle is all about.

Now you would think the quondam left (yes, I'm in love with that adjective) would be more concerned about this than anyone, considering the unremitting misogyny and homophobia of our adversaries. But for reasons almost too depressing to detail here, they prefer to believe that reasoning with Islamism will yield a preferred result. I have written before, but it bears repeating, that this view depends on two essentially racist assumptions - one, that our adversaries are merely "wogs" and therefore ultimately cannot constitute a genuine threat or, two, that they do no really believe the preachments of their religion. It's just a "strategy" of some sort to get a better bargaining position. (Hello, Daniel Pearl). They can't be serious.

Of course they are and they have been since the Eighth Century. So I am back now, shedding my chicken feathers, temporarily at least. What we are doing does have a reason. We are on the right side.

Comments

Comments require registration through TypeKey. Abusive remarks may be deleted. Opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of Roger Simon.

I've concluded that the current view of the quondam left is the same for Islamists as it is for Social Security.

By the end of the next President's second term (if he/she lasts that long), the flow of "extra" Social Security dollars into the Treasury will be over and repayment will begin (that 2040 date you hear about is when it's all paid back). And while Bush's somewhat lame attempt at trying to keep the next generations even partially in the fund has gone down to distain and defeat, Social Security is view as having problems that are .. out there in the future.

If we pull out of Iraq tommorrow, it will take just about as long for trouble to raise it's head in any meaningful way here in the good old US of A.

So you see, both problems are .. out there in the future.

It's no problem when you live for today.

Posted by: Neo at July 31, 2007 10:03 PM

Thanks, Roger ... a most welcome confirmation of enlightened thinking not shaken by the demagoguery of the moment.

Posted by: Won at August 1, 2007 6:19 AM

I've noticed a lot of MSM predictions of a 'highly positive' report from Petraeus. The MSM and Dems seem to be pushing this lately.

Watch for a big build-up of this report by the Dems; then when the actual report comes out in September and it is only 'moderately positive' or not '100% positive', the MSM and Dems will scream "Aha! Things are much worse than we were led to believe! We've lost the war!"

Posted by: Les Nessman at August 1, 2007 6:54 AM

Interesting take Les.

I think that you could have the other part of the "having your cake and eating it too" that the Demos are trying to pull off.

Couple what you say with what the Demo whip just let slip about good news being bad for the 'crats and how they should back off till they get the report and you see a two pronged strategy.

One, back off right now so you don't get hoist on your own petard if things turn out well; and move those goalposts as far as possible so things CAN'T turn out well enough (your point).

Traitors, the lot of them.

Posted by: AlanC at August 1, 2007 8:17 AM

Good post Roger. You capture well the essentials in regard to the seriousness of this war. And you are right in that the Dem's/left refuse to take it seriously.

Yes, we are on the right side.

What will it take for them to be as well?

Posted by: Luther McLeod at August 1, 2007 9:48 AM

"What we are doing does have a reason. We are on the right side."

Amen.

Posted by: ElMondo at August 1, 2007 10:06 AM

Dems attitudinize Iraq with the same nimbleness they do climate change.

Good news is bad news. Signs of both cooling and warming means we are doomed.

Any news report that does not correspond to the preconceived narrative of failure must be dismissed. Or at least question the validity of its authors.

Ive never seen anybody stake so much reputation on failure like Matthews, Olbermann & Huffington and the rest.

Is as if it would not matter a hill of beans to be found out wrong about matters of national security.

Posted by: Lem at August 1, 2007 10:09 AM

The goal of a large chunk of the left, since Saddam invaded Kuwait, has been to play this issue in such a way that they were seen as the authors of success and the GOP as the authors of failure. Actual benefits to America and the free world are not even in the top 10.

When you don't care who gets the credit, you can accomplish a lot. Reagan liked to say that. When you care *only* about who gets the credit, you can do an incredible amount of damage.

I'm not talking about mere partisan bickering here. Plenty of people, from both sides, have looked for ways to do things they thought needed doing, but would also work to their advantage. It's been going on since we had a Constitution. Madison predictied it; he counted on it. No, what distinguishes the left is actively and knowingly working against the interests of the country for their own gain.

Posted by: Steven Mitchell at August 1, 2007 10:34 AM

Dear Roger:

Don't lose heart. Never give up the fight. The United States is on the right side and, even if we need tactical changes, which Gen. Petraus is putting in place, we cannot give up against Jihadism.

You are right about the NYTimes struggle to preserve the power of the eastern establishment.

But, they showed their true colors in a remarkable op-ed they published the day after they published Hanlon & Pollack.

"A War Best Served Cold" By Nicholas Thompson, Op-Ed Contributor, in NYTimes on July 31, 2007" Excerpts follow:

Sixty years ago this month, writing under the byline of X, George Kennan supposedly laid out America's cold war foreign policy. ... Kennan didn't make clear whether he intended containment to be primarily a political or military strategy. Despite the article's ambiguity, everyone assumed the latter. ...

But in a letter to Lippmann that Kennan never mailed ... Kennan explained that he didn't mean containment with guns. He didn't want American armed forces to intervene in countries where the Soviets were mucking around but hadn't gained control, like Greece, Iran and Turkey.

The Soviets are making "first and foremost a political attack," Kennan wrote. "Their spearheads are the local communists. And the counter-weapon that can beat them is the vigor and soundness of political life in the victim countries."

... when it comes to overarching strategy, Kennan's desired but never executed policy from 60 years ago offers profound wisdom for today.

Kennan's insight was that a long-term, complex struggle wasn't best judged in terms of winning or losing. Communism wasn't something we could immediately conquer. The same holds true for Al Qaeda, a movement that, like Soviet communism, offers its subjects oppression and poverty. Time is on our side -- particularly if we act in a way that doesn't inflame our enemies' pride and anger and win them new recruits.

... A 21st-century rendering of X's vision of containment would involve the closing of the Guantanamo Bay detention camp, an unambiguous renunciation of torture and an abandonment of the notion that our legal and moral norms don't apply to the current struggle. ...

"To avoid destruction," Kennan concluded the X article, "the United States need only measure up to its own best traditions and prove itself worthy of preservation as a great nation."

... One of his last public statements was a critique, in 2002, of the looming Iraq invasion. War, he said, was too unpredictable, and this one wasn't worth it. As he wrote to Lippmann six decades ago, "Let us find health and vigor and hope, and the diseased portion of the earth will fall behind of its own doing. For that we need no aggressive strategic plans, no provocation of military hostilities, no showdowns."

I regard the premise of the article, "our inherent superiority will cause the barbarians to recognize the error of their ways and to accede to our rule" as willful self-delusion.

The foolishness of this is manifest. It is reminiscent of the attitude of the Confucian Mandarins who ran China for so long. Every few centuries China would be over run by barbarians and the Mandarins would have to start all over again.

Our enemy is patient and persistent we must be the same as well.

"Army ends N Ireland military duties"
PA on Jul 30, 2007:

The British Army's military operations in Northern Ireland will come to an end at midnight on Tuesday after 38 years

Posted by: Fat Man at August 1, 2007 10:53 AM

Fat Man: "the closing of the Guantanamo Bay detention camp", and Thompson and the NYT can hire the inmates as their body guards against the Bush Cheney gang.

"an unambiguous renunciation of torture" Can Thompson prove torture at all? Or is he just regurgitating leftist talking points? Does he know the International Red Cross has stationed monitors in Gitmo? None of them reported torture happened there. The only torture is the way Thompson and his NYT ilks torture the English language to label everything in Gitmo torture.

"Communism wasn't something we could immediately conquer. The same holds true for Al Qaeda..." Communists have never killed 3000 of our citizens in our city. I believe even the warmongering Bush Cheney gang can't justify war if 911 never happened.

"particularly if we act in a way that doesn't inflame our enemies' pride and anger and win them new recruits" Had Reagan not inflamed our enemies's pride and labeled by NYT a trigger happy cowboy, the communists would still pointing their nuclear warheads at us.

Thompson's totally lame.

Posted by: ic at August 1, 2007 11:40 AM

IC: right you are.

Further proof, as if any were needed, that we are in serious trouble:

"Finally, The Smoking Gun" by Douglas Farah on his eponymous blog, Aug 1, 2007:

One of the most fascinating exhibits presented by the prosecution in the Holy Land Foundation case (provided by researchers for the NEFA Foundation) is a memorandum on the Muslim Brotherhood�s multifaceted plan to convert the United States to an Islamic nation. It is the smoking gun of the Ikhwan�s long-standing efforts to destroy the Western world as we know it. ...

Under the heading �Understanding the role of the Muslim Brother in North America,� he writes:

�... The Ikhwan must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and �sabotaging� its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers so that it is eliminated ad God�s religion is made victorious over all other religions.�

Like the gambler said: "Read them and weep."

Posted by: Fat Man at August 1, 2007 12:15 PM

I think it was Strategy Page what pointed to the difference between Strategy and Tactics. That is, since 9/11 the US overarching strategy has been to modernise the Middle East, dragging it into the First World. This strategy is necessary to the First World because of Oil, which runs our Civilization. (ie, Zimbabwe is not on our radar.)

The Tactic has been to start with Iraq: it is at the centre of the Middle East, it has a large technocratic class, and a large urban population in Baghdad. After 10 years of Sanctions, Kurdistan was able to build up a modern infrastructure (under the American umbrella, and with great help from the UN, I might add.) But. Sanctions were breaking down. Taking out Saddam and his fascist regime has been a necessary step in the process of modernization.

And since 2003, the Americans have attempted in various ways to bring Mesopotamia into the First World. The initial watchword was: "Democracy" and "Freedom". Remember Sharansky? Thus, Rumsfeld's tactics: force the Iraqis to take responsibility for their own borders and peacekeeping, and from that would come pride and freedom and democracy.

But more recently, it has become clear that "Security" is of more importance at this juncture, and it must be American soldiers that provide that security for the near future. So, you note, the US is working closely with the tribal leaders now. The Tribal Leader is the real military and political and social power in most of Iraq.

The result will be, of course, a strengthening of the Tribal Structure, which is definitely NOT a great road to Freedom. But that is the political necessity right now. Iraq - as a nation - must build the strength necessary to fend off its neighbours. Like Iran and Saudi Arabia.

In the meantime, Western Civilization needs to keep the oil flowing. This is a FACT. None of us can afford chaos in the Middle East. NONE of us, including the Democratic Party.

I might add, the English faced this problem in the 1500s, 1600s and 1700 with the Highland Scottish Clans ('tribes'). One thing they did was force English education upon the clan leaders' children. However, remember that Scottish women had a clear position of equality with the men in their tribe. (History. If we studied history, we would be a lot calmer about the Iraqi war. Really.)

As far as I am concerned, the position of Muslim women is at the core of Islam's poverty of mind. How to deal with this is a huge problem, which is one reason that people are talking about a "Long War"...

Posted by: heather at August 1, 2007 1:05 PM

And if you don't agree with certain elements of the wonderful enlightened leftist agenda then you're written off as a misogynist or a homophobe. How convenient. How neat.

Posted by: ricpic at August 1, 2007 1:52 PM

another date to think about: the Statutes of Iona, 1603. This was the first attempt (by the newly Scottish/English King James) to begin integration of the Highland Chiefs into the more modern English system. It was in this Statute that those Chiefs were directed to send their oldest son and (even) daughters for education in the English language, etc.

It's not going to be easy to change things in the Middle East. But if WE - and the Enlightenment - are to survive, then change it must.

Posted by: heather at August 1, 2007 2:58 PM

Heather, maybe a small step?

Posted by: Buddy Larsen at August 1, 2007 5:20 PM

Great stuff heather. There are times when a King/Queen is a good idea. Not for the US though, for good reason. But your example (re the Scots) is an important one. There are times when rules must be set.

Good link Buddy, I almost feel like getting giddy. Sarc.

Posted by: Luther McLeod at August 1, 2007 5:54 PM

absolutely excellent, that link, Buddy.

It may be that the yelping of the Dems, urging that the US get out of Iraq, may have had unintended (by the Dems) consequences: the House of Saud is so frightened by NYT headlines, and Iran, that it is actually willing to work with the Little Satan!

Posted by: heather at August 1, 2007 6:09 PM

Heather wrote:

History. If we studied history, we would be a lot calmer about the Iraqi war. Really.

Heather: right you are. You mentioned the Highlands, and I the history of China. But, even a knowledge of 20th Century history would help. Ten years in Malaya and the Philippines. It took about 35 years to get South Korea to the point where one elected government could succeed another. As I pointed out above Britain is withdrawing its soldiers from Northern Ireland now, after 38 years.

You cannot run a foreign policy based on ADD.

Posted by: Fat Man at August 1, 2007 6:31 PM

Well, I'm not much of a prayin' man, but if Luther's gone giddy, then I can at least try...ahem...Lord, please help your chillun, help the Sauds make common cause with Israel. Just do that, and the world can probably take care of the rest.

Posted by: Buddy Larsen at August 1, 2007 6:48 PM

Ah Buddy, me thinks you missed my sarc tag. Though I do agree with your prayer.

Posted by: Luther McLeod at August 1, 2007 8:53 PM

yes it takes a very long time to change social structures, and therefore political structures. England took some 3 centuries to get from chopping off Charle 1's head to universal suffrage. And the examples of the Philippines and South Korea and Japan & etc are so totally relevant to the War on Terror.

Interesting, though? All the lefty yammering about "diversity" and "multi culturalism" and the Lefty Intellectuals cannot understand the most basic realities of REAL cultural and political differences between people. I really think they are stuck in a sort of Disneyland view of the world. Maybe that accounts for their anger at Bush and Cheney: if they are wrong, then their entire world collapses. Ick. They are people who think Starbucks coffee is cosmopolitan and sophisticated.

Posted by: heather at August 1, 2007 8:58 PM

Like a river a mile wide and an inch deep, Heather, their ideas keep everything wet and muddy, but they cut through no rock, and evaporate under a hard light.

I saw it, Luther--interpreted as, giddy is good sometimes maybe, thinking what generational, continental, historical thing may be happening over there.

Posted by: Buddy Larsen at August 1, 2007 9:50 PM

"Of course they are and they have been since the Eighth Century."

Agreed. Going even further, a clear line can be drawn from the original battle between Cain and Abel to the current Iraq war. Why can't liberals see this? These are the stakes.

Over 2 million Iraqi refugees, untold hundreds of thousands dead, tortured and maimed: these things may sound horrific at first.

But when we put them in the context of an epic struggle between Good and Evil, it's not so bad.

In fact, we don't need to mention Iraqi suffering on our blogs at all. Better to focus on liberal malfeasance.

The naysayers are motivated by hatred and a refusal to acknowledge the truth. Sealed off in their chamber of mirrors, they see only what they want to see. We need to fight abroad, so we don't fight them over here.

Posted by: mint_tea at August 3, 2007 8:30 AM

Email This Post