Both Republicans and Democrats agree we cannot lose Iraq. The general insurgency in Iraq imperils our national interest and the hardcore insurgents are our mortal enemies. Talking of troop reductions is to lose sight of the goal.West calls this "common ground," but I can't help feeling that a lot of Democrats -- and others -- will refuse to stand here.
Second, America's conscience is one of its greatest strengths. But self-flagellation, especially in the early stages of a war against an enemy whose worldview is uncompromising, is absolutely hazardous. Three years gone and Iraq's most famous soldiers are Jessica Lynch and Lynndie England, a victim and a criminal, respectively. Abu Ghraib remains the most famous battle of the war.
Soldiers are sick of apologizing for a sliver of malcontents who are not at all representative of the new breed. But they are also sick of being pitied. Our warriors are the hunters, not the hunted, and we should celebrate them as we did in the past, for while our tastes have changed, warfare — and the need to cultivate national guardians — has not. As Kipling wrote, "The strength of the pack is the wolf."
Finally, today's debates are not high-spirited so much as mean-spirited. To allow polarizing forces to dominate the argument by insinuating false motives on one side or a lack of patriotism on the other is to obscure long-term security decisions that have to be made now.
May 29, 2006
Partisan squabbling "affects our warriors, who are frustrated by the country's lack of cohesion and the depiction of their war."
Writes Owen West, founder of Vets for Freedom, in a NYT op-ed:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
38 comments:
The constant stream of defeatism from the left is terrifying in its short-sightedness. We, as West intimates, ignored and avoided this war for two decades. I personally believe that it will probably last until after I am dead.
When people talk about packing it in, and we've only been in Iraq for three short years (with a LOT of good progress under our belts, despite some setbacks) I get really scared for my son. Not that he will be drafted, but that he will be killed somehow by terrorists-- because we put our heads back in the sand and gave up.
I personally believe that it will probably last until after I am dead.
I think you're right, and I'm sure you're a lot younger than I am.
People are having a lot of trouble understanding that things have changed. That is, the enemy has changed, but it seems the struggle never ends. In the '90s, while the next enemy was preparing for war, lots of people in the West were celebrating "the end of history." We'd have perpetual peace, conquer the world bloodlessly with our gadgets and pleasures, and make money without working by investing in the Internet.
Wake up. It was only a dream.
Althouse you're such a coward.
Owen West writes about common ground and makes a statement that somewhat reasonably addresses faults found on the left and the right.
And then you come along and immediately play the game of "It's the Democrats!"
And of course your idiot followers join in.
It's the Democrats! Conservatives are wonderful people whose shit doesn't stink.
9/11 changed everything!!!
This Althouse is your Memorial Day post? To twist a veteran's words into a partisan attack when that is just what he was saying not to do?
Shameful, shameful, shameful.
And cowardly.
Thanks for proving the point Ann was making, Jacques.
West said one thing that really resonated. He called it "crisis of expectations that threatens our ability to react to future threats ". I think that's exactly right.
Both Republicans and Democrats agree we cannot lose Iraq.
Both Republicans and Democrats agree we cannot win the war in Iraq, some say it was never winnable, others believe it was incompetently managed. Former high ranking military officers agree.
The general insurgency in Iraq imperils our national interest and the hardcore insurgents are our mortal enemies.
It is not clear to anyone, including the American People who now overwhelmingly consider the war a mistake what it is about the insurgency that imperils our national interest. What is our national interest that is imperiled? Finding Bin Laden? Reducing Terrorism? Improving American's sullied image? Reducing the costs of a barrel of oil that strife and instability add? Increasing peace and democracy through useful engagement in the middle east? Enabling America to defend itself on our borders and against nations and terrorists that can attack us here?
None of these are imperiled by our leaving the insurgency to itself. All of these are imperiled by our incompentent actions in Iraq, not to mention our criminal actions at Abu Ghraib and perhaps Haditha.
Talking of troop reductions is to lose sight of the goal.
Speaking of troop reductions is a reasonable strategy to take when faced with an unwinnable war and when considering our true national interests: defense of the nation against other nations and terrorist plots against our nation itself, and increasing peace and stability in the region.
How many more logical fallacies are in West's essay?
Let's just mention one, the conflating of dissent with hazard. It is the absolute right and responsibility of a free people to discuss the actions of its leaders and military.
And I know that that is the common ground for Conservatives and Liberals.
It is a pity so many wingnut partisan attack lawyers would disagree.
I have no doubt that "polarizing forces" will continue to dominate the argument, on this board and in other forums. Too bad this call for common ground is so easily dismissed.
When people refer to this "war", are you referring to Afghanistan, Iraq or Iran? All three? Or is it the Middle East + West Asia in general? Does it include Palestine and Israel? Is this "war" geographically defined or is it sort of an non-spatial idea?
I'm not trying to be snarky here.
Danny: The linked article is about Iraq. That's what we're talking about, unless someone chooses to bring in other subjects, which they will presumably be specific about.
Danny,
That you have to ask the question at all (and it's a legitimate one) proves Major West's argument. We suffer from a terrific lack of leadership. The Administration has failed to persuasively explain our war aims and strategies, so much so that many wonder just who it is that we are fighting and why.
I support the war, and sincerely believe that a coherent and persuasive case can be made for it, and I fault President Bush for this failure.
Yet many Democrats have shamelessly demagogued our war efforts, and hurt morale at home and abroad. Major West is right in assessing that much of the opposition has not been high spirited but merely mean spirited. A certain poster on this thread is a case in point. There is no coherent loyal opposition, and we are much the worse for it.
The electorate, I think, sees both failures. That's why the only group polling more miserably than the President is Congress. My God, we've got Senators comparing troops to Nazis, and a Congressman hanging Marines for cold blooded murder without a trial.
Regardless, it is the President's duty to explain this war. The troops understand. Why don't we the people?
Old Dad, you take qoxxo as representative of opposition to the Iraq war, and ignore the reasonable and coherant comments from dklittl, then conclude there is no "loyal opposition." That's cherrypicking, and supports the argument that it's not just Democrats who eschew any attempt at common ground.
The one most flagrant incident of NYT anti-war editorialism that I can remember is this:
Letter from soldier killed in Iraq to girlfriend:
"Obviously if you are reading this then I have died in Iraq. I kind of predicted this, that is why I'm writing this in November. A third time just seemed like I'm pushing my chances. I don't regret going, everybody dies but few get to do it for something as important as freedom. It may seem confusing why we are in Iraq, it's not to me. I'm here helping these people, so that they can live the way we live. Not have to worry about tyrants or vicious dictators. To do what they want with their lives. To me that is why I died. Others have died for my freedom, now this is my mark."
The NYT version:
''I kind of predicted this,'' Corporal Starr wrote of his own death. ''A third time just seemed like I'm pushing my chances.''
This was late last year. The day I discovered this was the day I decided I would not trust the NYT on any topic, ever, nor ever buy another copy of it again.
Elizabeth,
I referenced Quxxo as an example of mean spiritedness.
I stand by my claim that there is no coherent loyal opposition because I fail to see it--certainly not in Congress.
I'm ready to be educated, though. Point me in the right direction.
BTW, I certainly don't hold that those who oppose the war are unpatriotic or disloyal, and although the context of this thread certainly focuses our attention on the war, I meant opposition more broadly, and across a spectrum of political issues. That wasn't at all clear in my post.
For what it's worth, my post blames the President for much the same thing I fault the Democrats for. They can't articulate their support nor can the Democrats their opposition.
A pox on both their houses.
(As for the topic at hand.)
If goldfish have three-second memories, then we are a nation of goldfish. No one remembers that in 2003, Afghanistan was heralded as the "graveyard of empires", and would be the final nail that does in the American Empire. No one remembers that 20 years ago, we were worried about population explosion rather than baby busts. No one remembers that 40 years ago, we were worried about the next ice age rather than global warming. The media can say literally say one thing today, the exact opposite tomorrow, and virtually no one would care.
We are a nation that shuts down the capital when someone thinks they heard something that sounded like a gunshot. Does the US still have the will to lose 6000 troops in one day, as we did on the first day of Iwo Jima, and resolve to fight on?
A friend's mother once told me "Grow and be strong, because the day will come when that bus only has one space left, and you will have to fight for it." Whether she spoke from experience or not, I don't know - but reading the MSM makes me wonder if that primal instinct for survival has atrophied.
dklitti: "The problem with the common ground is that Ann in her post immediately went divisive on the topic. Instead of finding what we can agree on, it becomes "the Democrats refuse to stand here.""
Pay attention! I wrote "a lot of Democrats -- and others." If you don't show that you know the difference, I'm not going to put the time into reading your argument. Instead of rephrasing my words to distort them, why don't you face up to the reality of my suggestion, which is that West's proffered common ground will be rejected by "a lot of Democrats -- and others"? Because you know how mind-crushingly true it is?
Comparing people to wolf packs always makes me nervous. Kipling to the contrary, it's not like the precedents are that great.
There is so much slanted coverage in the media that it is no wonder public opinion has slipped. A lot of us try - rather hard - to get more complete covergae out, but it is frankly an uphill battle.
The sad truth is that an awful lot of Democrats aren't looking for "common ground," they just want to pull out. There's a constant drumbeat from the left to start troop reduction... hand-in-hand, of course, with the sage observation that there aren't enough troops there to get the job done.
And before they were telling us to pull out of Iraq, they were calling Afghanistan a "quagmire." This belies their supposed desire for an American victory in the war on terror. Again and again they demonstrate that all they really want is to score points against the guy unlucky enough to get stuck in office when the shit really hit the fan.
The struggle against Islamo-fascism is not a problem that is going to be solved quickly or easily. The left wants to call the whole effort a failure before we even get started. Absurdly premature and potentially suicidal.
Old Dad,
thanks for clarifying what you mean by "loyal opposition"; since you offered qoxxo as an example of mean-spiritedness and then in the very next sentence made that statement about loyal opposition, without mentioning Congress or making any other transition, you can understand how I'd be confused.
I still don't understand what yo mean by "loyal opposition," especially since you make clear you're not calling anyone a traitor. How can the opposition both be disloyal and not treasonous?
On one thing we clearly agree: a pox on both their houses.
The question then becomes what needs to be done to accomplish victory.
Right. This really is the million dollar question. And no one really knows the answer... correct?
Democrats have to come up with something besides knee-jerk armchair quarterbacking before they will have any credibility. You have to have some ideas, real, concrete ideas, before you start telling us to abandon the current strategy... no matter how bad you think it is presently going.
So far, all the democrats have offered is a weird back-and-forth mixed message consisting of two opposing stances: PULL OUT! NO, WHAT WE REALLY NEED IS MORE TROOPS! NO, PULL OUT! WAIT, NO, MORE TROOPS! NO, PULL OUT! MORE TROOPS!" into infinity.
I swear I'm not trying to be a smartass. This is truly what the Democratic "message" on the war seems to be. Not awe-inspiring, not even confidence-inspiring.
I am bumming that I never get to hear Sippican's take on any of this. Damn that quckso.
To paraphrase Voltaire ...
"Si Quxxo n'existait pas, il faudrait l'inventer."
"The sad truth is that an awful lot of Democrats aren't looking for "common ground," they just want to pull out."
But a do think that a lot of Democratic members of Congress realize it is important to support the war, but are just loath to show any support for Bush. It's an annoying position to be in. I have some sympathy for them.
Madison Man,
The best use of a wolf metaphor was I think Glenn Reynolds talking about United 93:
"They were a pack, not a herd"
Seven Machos,
I think you are advocating the McCain/Lieberman position:
Not certain we should have gone in so fast, should have gone in with more, but now that we're in, we need to win the war, and support the President, even if he makes mistakes along the way.
Reasoned thoughtful support, not blind obedience.
gj,
I fought in 1 war, served overseas in between wars, served in the Pentagon during a second, and my wife is a serving NG officer today.
I have no children, and I'd be concerned if my child or nephew wanted to enlist. But support him, and be proud of his decision, of course!
We're in a serious fight, with folks who want us and our civilization dead. We'll either ultimately win or go into slavery.
Those who put their mortal bodies in the way of harm directed at their families are the noblest of man.
That's my Memorial Day thought.
gj: My husband has already fought a year in this war and I doubt we'll go much longer before he goes back. My kids are a little young but someday I do hope my son at least considers the warrior path.
A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.
John Stuart Mill was pretty eloquent. I'm not.
Elizabeth,
The loyal opposition assumes a democratically shared understanding of what the Constitution means.
The loyal opposition also loves America, and feels in its bones the wonderful force for good that this country is.
And the loyal opposition sees and resists our manifest flaws and historical injustices. And the loyal opposition fights like hell against anyone who hates America.
I think our bitter politics today is rooted in a lack of patriotism--on both sides of the aisle. Winning a ridiculous political argument has become more important than America. That's where the loyal opposition plays such a crucial role.
My fear is that leading voices of the opposition don't love America.
Thanks, Old Dad. Then I have no doubt that there are plenty of us who oppose the Iraq War and are still quite loyal in our opposition, by your definition--with one exception. I'm not on board on fighting anyone who "hates" America; threatens America, absolutely. Hates? No, that's no justification for war.
Chriso:
I disagree about your Murtha characterization. You said:
For the record, Murtha didn't "hang" anyone without a trial. He stated that a military report has been prepared accusing the Marines in Haditha of crimes. He's not convicting anyone of anything, he's reporting what the military investigation has already uncovered. But far be it from you thoughtful types to run with half truths for the purpose of scoring political points. That's the Democrats' job.
Murtha via AP (17 May)said:
"Our troops overreacted because of the pressure on them and they killed innocent civilians in cold blood," John Murtha told reporters.
I don't see any "alleged" or "may have" or "under investigation" or "innocent till proven guilty" sections in that direct prejudging of guilt.
I personally think it's likely they ran amok and are guilty, but I am not a public official and don't make prejudicial statements on national TV.
Murtha was out of line and he should know better.
I forgot to post the link to the Murtha article:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060518/wl_mideast_afp/usiraqrightsmarines
I was mistaken, it wasn't AP, it was the French AFP.
I love the closer, but can't tell if it was really Murtha sentiment or the AFP reported that had to close by blaming Bush :)
"Murtha is a harsh critic of the war in Iraq and said that such incidents are the result of inadequate planning, training and troop numbers in Iraq."
Even if you are on their side in an issue the left doesn't want allies.
I'm not going to wate any more time with those fools.
Truly excellent point, John.
gj,
By getting Senate Democrats to support the war, Bush "shut down debate" and forever politicized it...
? ? ?
gj,
I think you unintentionally scored one for the opposition:
remember, this was one year after 9/11 and the Democrats were not exactly in a position of strength to call for a more searching debate.
And why were they not in such a position? I'd say because they had no plan. Which five years on is still a problem. Perhaps you could explain why the Dems have no plan (other than to declare defeat and bring the troops home).
The issue at stake here does not concern specifically Iraq or any other country.
The real issue is making the world unsafe for thugs. Especially thug regimes in control of an area where Western civilization has an existential economic interest.
A couple of points get overlooked in all the debate about Iraq and how the war has been handled:
• Thug regimes have a bone-deep hostility to Western values, and that includes everything the Left holds dear.
• Thug regimes don't go away if you ignore them.
• Thug regimes have to be destroyed, usually by military action from outside. This ends the specific thug regime, and it discourages others.
• Thug regimes cannot be defeated by fighting nicely. If soldiers from a thug regime consider certain ways of dying to be glorious while others are thought to be degrading, then kill as many as you can in a degrading manner. And publicize it.
• Wars end when one side can no longer summon the will to fight.
• Defending civilization from thug regimes requires fighting to win - no negotiated settlements. Thugs must be seen by everyone to be defeated.
• Although our forces are the most powerful in the world, they are still limited in what problems can be tackled. This is why we fight in the Middle East and ignore Darfur, for example.
No matter where you stand in the political spectrum of the West, the preservation of everything you care about depends on putting an end to Islamic Jihadism wherever it surfaces.
David,
Agreeing with you there is another point to make. When Psycho's tell you that they intend to kill you, we need to listen rather than shrug it off.
Hitler, Mao, and Pol Pot all wrote clearly about their future plans. The current President of Iran and stated his intent numerous times with regard to the west and Israel.
gj said:
"But remember, this was one year after 9/11 and the Democrats were not exactly in a position of strength to call for a more searching debate."
"In the U.S. it is hard for the opposition party to speak with a single voice."
These are valid points, but they are more illustrative of democrats' failings than Bush's, are they not?
Saddam defied the UN for 12 years. The argument that ANYONE was acting too quickly or rashly in finally taking action is laughable.
The reason that the MSM concentration about the abu Graihb thing, and the Marines supposedly/apparently killing innocents bothers me is that they fail to point out how rare these things are. If you divide the number of people implicated by the number of troops who have rotated through, for example, Iraq, you get an atrocity level of 1%% to 2%% (which, from Eugene Volokh, 1%% is 1% of 1%, or 1/10,000). I think we would be exstatic if our police had something anywhere approaching that level. And, if you compare it to any other wars we have been involved in, it shows a level of unparallel professionalism.
The problem with assumming that we have failed in Iraq is that it ignores that it has taken a lot of time and energy to train up a credible Iraqi security force there. Yes, we may have made a mistake there by not using more Saddamites. But the reality is that more units are coming on-line continuously, are steadily increasing their readiness levels, and are taking over the brunt of the fighting and policing.
And that is what we need to get out - an Iraq that can take care of its own security issues. And that is what we are rapidly getting - for example, the number of combat battalions that are at Level 1 or Level 2 readiness has doubled in the last year. And, it is still improving at a steady pace.
The other thing that I never see mentioned by the MSM is that the vast majority of those killed by the insurgents are Iraqis these days. And even the Sunni Iraqis are realizing that this is not good. Killing innocents is against Islam, and even the Sunni clergy are now pointing this out to their congregations in their sermons. This significant loss of Sunni support for the insurgency, esp. from their clergy, is new this year.
Yes, most like that we kicked Saddam out, but also want their country back. We want to give it back. They know what it is going to take, which is why when insurgents kill a lot of people in a recruiting line one day, and it is just as long the next.
I expect major pullouts before the 2008 election not for political reasons, but because we won't be needed there at nearly the level we have been. The trends are going strongly in that direction.
Post a Comment