March 12, 2007
The United Left of Defeat
The Los Angeles Times, of all places, posted an excellent editorial this morning, lambasting the defeatist cant that has been issuing forth from House Democrats, as Democrats responding to their left-wing base have continued their attempt to force a loss in the Iraq War by way of micromanaging our military into defeat.
Characteristically, it seems that liberal politicians such as John Murtha and Nancy Pelosi, along with their strident defenders on the political left, have sought to frame the conflict in Iraq as a Republican-only war. Both in Congress and in the blogosphere, liberals see the Iraq War as a conservative political weakness, and think that by forcing a withdrawal, that they will gain political strength. Indeed, if they are successful in undermining the war effort, you can count on them claiming a victory, however fleeting that "victory" may be.
On a fundamental level, leftists are no longer Americans first. They nakedly place their partisan political objectives above those of the nation as a whole. Blinded by internal domestic politics they fail, perhaps purposefully, to account for how their actions vindicate the long-term strategic goals of Islamic terrorists and undermine the credibility of the United States on the world stage. They rank partisan politics above national interests. They are the United Left of Defeat; their stated agenda and goals shows clearly that they view the long-term health and well-being of United States of America—and the success of the state of Iraq, and the larger War against Islamic Terrorism—as secondary issues to their own continued quest for more political power.
Their primary and overriding interest of the Left is their own political success and vindication. They have created a belief system around the thought that if the United States is successful in helping the Iraqi people emerge from this conflict as a more-or-less stable parliamentary democracy, that the war would be a victory for George Bush and the neo-conservative movement.
They are incapable of seeing it as a victory for the Iraqi people, whom they have made abundantly clear though their choices of rhetoric and proposed legislation, are secondary citizens of the world, at best. They refuse to acknowledge the possibility of a victory in Iraq as being good for the United States, the Iraqi people, or the world at large. They have chosen sides, and they do not side with the best interests of our country, or that of other free nations.
As I noted last week, Democrats are quick to call for the end of American involvement in Iraq, while purposefully failing to mention the catastrophic political and human cost to Iraqi civilians that would result from the arbitrary and complete withdrawal that they hope for. They dare not speak of the all-out civil war that could result, nor the wider Sunni vs. Shia regional war that could develop. They have become an Executioner's Congress, willing to lay waste to Iraqi and other Middle Eastern lives to satisify the needs of their base for domestic liberal political consumption.
These same liberal politicians fail to speak about how a defeat in Iraq will be a major victory for Islamic extremism, and will extend, perhaps by decades, what has been rightfully identified as Our Children's Children's War. They purposefully fail to inform their constituencies that a loss in Iraq will lead to a rekindling of the same expansionist Islamic mindset that enabled the rise of al Qaeda, the Taliban, and other Islamic extremist groups.
Democrats are willing, even eager to hand George Bush a defeat in Iraq, but are unwilling to take credit for the loss they will hand to all Americans. Liberals love to tell us that the War in Iraq is a great recruiting tool for Islamic terrorists, but in their naked cowardice, Pelosi, Murtha, and their ilk refuse to mention how much more of a recruiting tool an American defeat in Iraq would be for these same extremist elements.
That such a Democrat-led defeat would be a boon for terrorist recruiters is obvious, and yet, Democrats will not acknowledge the effect their assistance will provide.
They are unwilling to tell their constituents the obvious truth of their actions, which is that terrorists inspired by a Democratic-led defeat in Iraq would seek to expand upon their Democrat-delivered victory. If Democrats are successful, our war against Islamic extremism will expand, not be brought to a close.
All of these truths are self-evident and readily apparent to those willing to face reality, but the political far left has long ago abandoned reality for something it prefers called a "reality-based" community. They pick and choose the reality to which they would respond, ignoring the inconvenient truth that their world exists only in as much as society's defenders—the same military and police that they typically despise—allow this illusion to survive.
Liberals refuse to address the fact that their plans for a U.S. defeat in Iraq weakens both Iraq and the United States, and that the defeat they long for will increase both terrorist recruiting and the possibility of more terrorist attacks.
The radical Left wing of the Democrat Party is driven by their own short-term political goals and refuses to view the future health and well-being of the United States as a whole as their primary concern. To defeat "George Bush's War," they are willing to sacrifice the sacrifices made by our soldiers and their families, and the lives of those future generations of American military and civilian families that will bear the bloody costs of their agenda-driven myopia. Of the tens of millions Iraqi lives that hang in the balance, they care even less.
As is evidenced in their words and deeds, liberal political success, however short-lived, is their primary and overriding goal. What is best for America and Americans are matters of ever-decreasing importance among those who would wreck the world for their fleeting, dishonorable moment in the sun.
You hit the nail on the head. I would like to e-mail your post to the Speaker of the House. I just don't know how.
Posted by: Zelsdorf Ragshaft III at March 12, 2007 12:37 PMGee... where to begin...
"On a fundamental level, leftists are no longer Americans first. They nakedly place their partisan political objectives above those of the nation as a whole."
Unlike the GOP, which continually replaces talented, highly praised professionals with unskilled hacks and cronies (see: US Attys, NASA administration, FEMA, etc, etc.); also, those lovely no-bid contracts with no oversight whatsoever; oh, and the original load of 20-something college-republican clone troopers they stocked the original CPA with.
The Dems haven't been in power in years, but the Bush administration has systematically, and at every oppoprtunity, sacrificed US capability and competence for partisan political gain. I call that treason, and I'll defend that accusation.
"Blinded by internal domestic politics they fail, perhaps purposefully, to account for how their actions vindicate the long-term strategic goals of Islamic terrorists and undermine the credibility of the United States on the world stage."
Dude, what planet have you been living on the past few years? Vindicate the goals of Islamic terrorists? Undermine US credibility? Bush has done that in spades. Terrorist recruitment numbers are through the roof.. why? because of Bush's "God told me to go crusading" mentality. They don't hate us because of our freedom, they hate us because they think we're on a mission to destroy Islam, and too many people like Bush are happy to sign on to that bandwagon.
"They refuse to acknowledge the possibility of a victory in Iraq as being good for the United States, the Iraqi people, or the world at large."
No, we refuse to acknowledge that this administration is competent to ever deliver a victory in Iraq. There's a big difference.
"Liberals love to tell us that the War in Iraq is a great recruiting tool for Islamic terrorists, but in their naked cowardice, Pelosi, Murtha, and their ilk refuse to mention how much more of a recruiting tool an American defeat in Iraq would be for these same extremist elements.
That such a Democrat-led defeat would be a boon for terrorist recruiters is obvious, and yet, Democrats will not acknowledge the effect their assistance will provide."
Again, what's the color of the sky where you live? The administration's own numbers show that terrorist recruiting and terror attacks around the world have skyrocketed thanks to this insane invasion. Maybe if Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld hadn't micro-managed the forces in Iraq (both political and military) onto such a patently wrong-headed direction - stay the course/hit it with a bigger hammer - you might have some potential for eventual success to point to. But it won't ever happen. Not with these idiots in charge.
"To defeat "George Bush's War," they are willing to sacrifice the sacrifices made by our soldiers and their families, and the lives of those future generations of American military and civilian families that will bear the bloody costs of their agenda-driven myopia."
And that's where you get truly insulting, as well as deliberately dishonest. George Bush cannot win this war. Not now, not ever. From that, keeping our troops in Iraq any longer than necessary to safely withdraw them is blood on his hands, and yours. There will be a horribly bloody civil war in Iraq; Bush's criminally-incompetent mismanagement of the "regime change" and post-Hussein events has guarranteed that. Our troops cannot stop it. Many many innocent Iraqi civilians will die, but that will happen whether our troops stay there 6 more months, or 6 more years, or 60.
Posted by: legion at March 12, 2007 02:46 PMCY, again and again and again ... Never admit a mistake! It's always the others who are to blame:
"Leftists ... fail, perhaps purposefully, to account for how their actions vindicate the long-term strategic goals of Islamic terrorists and undermine the credibility of the United States on the world stage."
- The leftists are not needed. The Bush-Administration has been pretty good at doing all this alone ...
... by pro-war propaganda on the basis of an (not-existing) Iraq-9/11-connection
... by the fake-presentation on WMD in Iraq by an American Secretary of State before the Security Council
... by waging a war against the rules of internatonal law
... by Abu Ghuraib, Guantanamo, the CIA-kidnappings of foreign citizens ...
You complain "... the catastrophic political and human cost to Iraqi civilians that would result from the arbitrary and complete withdrawal" - Tens of thousands (if not more) of civilians have already been killed, and more are being killed every day. This is the catastrophy, and it began on March 20th, 2003. Removing the totalitarian, but secular regime of Saddam was a bad move on the chessboard of GWOT: chaos in Iraq, a new front and recruiting area for Al Quaida & Co, room to move for Iran, less stability in the region, more danger for Israel. And on the eve of OIF the Bush-Administration had been warned of all this by friends, but met this with ignorance, arrogance and childish reactions (Remember the "freedom fries"?).
... As you say: "All of these truths are self-evident and readily apparent to those willing to face reality"
Posted by: he at March 12, 2007 03:20 PMWhat legion said.
You are the first person I've heard call Murtha a liberal. He regards himself as a conservative. He's renowned for his close ties with the military.
None of the liberals I know view the war in partisan terms. Instead we are horrified about what has happened to the nation we love. We see Dem politicians as spineless for not standing up to W in 2003, and for not ending the war, even though it's the right thing to do and what the US citizens and Iraqis want. Some of us feel exonerated because while we were warning that this war was a bad idea you called us traitors and sympathizers. Now nearly everyone acknowledges that the war was unnecessary and moreover a disaster for US standing in the world.
What do you need to see to convince you that the war was a mistake? All we heard about for months was nerve gas, mushroom clouds, drones, aluminum tubes, yellowcake, etc, and this turned out to be at best incorrect. Then W says it was the CIA's fault, yet gives Tenet the Presidential Medal of Freedom. Now you all pretend that the war was about promoting democracy all along, even though no one has ever created democracy at the barrel of a gun before.
I don't understand what winning the war means. The Sunnis are primarily the ones killing our soldiers, as in the Sunni Triangle. Yet we can't side with the Shias because they have ties with Iran. The Saudis have pledged that they will support the Sunnis financially if we side with the Shias. The Kurds are forcing all the Arabs out of their territory. There's no incentive for these people to form a democracy with each other.
Posted by: Lex Steele at March 12, 2007 03:21 PMLet me see if I've got Legion pegged correctly as a leftist:
This is a George Bush/Republican/neo-conservative war, not America's.
Unlike the GOP, which continually replaces talented, highly praised professionals with unskilled hacks and cronies (see: US Attys, NASA administration, FEMA, etc, etc.); also, those lovely no-bid contracts with no oversight whatsoever; oh, and the original load of 20-something college-republican clone troopers they stocked the original CPA with.The Dems haven't been in power in years, but the Bush administration has systematically, and at every oppoprtunity, sacrificed US capability and competence for partisan political gain. I call that treason, and I'll defend that accusation.
Check.
Blinded by internal politics, makes every bit of this a referendum on George Bush, mentions little or nothing about about the effect of this loss on the United States or the Iraqi people.
(see above and elsewhere)
Check.
Is incapable of envisioning any sort of a victory for the Iraqi people, having tied their own success to an American defeat.
No, we refuse to acknowledge that this administration is competent to ever deliver a victory in Iraq. There's a big difference.
Check.
Refuses to acknowledge that the retreat they call for expressly vindicates the strategy issued forth by al Qaeda and other terorist groups.
Again, what's the color of the sky where you live? The administration's own numbers show that terrorist recruiting and terror attacks around the world have skyrocketed thanks to this insane invasion. Maybe if Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld hadn't micro-managed the forces in Iraq (both political and military) onto such a patently wrong-headed direction - stay the course/hit it with a bigger hammer - you might have some potential for eventual success to point to. But it won't ever happen. Not with these idiots in charge.
Check.
Refuses to acknowledge in any way that the defeat they strike for will be a huge terrorist recruiting tool.
(same paragraph as above)
Check.
Refuses to acknowledge that with a Democrat-provided victory, Islamists would be encouraged to press forward with attacks.
Refuses to address this fact at all.
Check.
Willing to accept and all-out civil war that could result, and the wider Sunni vs. Shia regional war that could develop.
Refuses to address this fact at all.
Check.
I find it amusing the Legion phrases his response differently, but more or less concedes or confirms every point I've made, even as he argues them, reinforcing another assertion made, the disconnect between reality and the "reality-based" community.
Posted by: Confederate Yankee at March 12, 2007 03:34 PMBoy, you stirred up the unthinking. My personal favorite comment is from "Lex Steele" when s/he says "...even though no one has ever created democracy at the barrel of a gun before."
My response is read history much? Let's see, Us of A, France, even the UK are just a few democracies created from war. Then we can add Japan, Germany, Italy, etc.
Scary aren't they?!? Their view always more correct!
Posted by: CoRev at March 12, 2007 03:51 PMNow that's a fair piece of writing.
I've quoted you and linked to you here: http://consul-at-arms.blogspot.com/2007/03/re-united-left-of-defeat.html
Posted by: Consul-At-Arms at March 12, 2007 05:02 PMCoRev -- 'democracy at the barrel of a gun' is a common expression that you seem to misunderstand. Google for it if you don't believe me. It refers to the idea of an outside power forcing democracy upon a populace. In the case of the US and the UK, it was the populace who obtained democracy themselves.
Germany and Japan aren't good counterexamples either : "Both Germany and Japan surrendered unconditionally, their wartime leadership was thoroughly discredited, and they had long pre-war traditions of democratic constitutionalism."
My view isn't always correct, but about the war it's been correct for years, apparently unlike your own.
Posted by: Lex Steele at March 12, 2007 05:58 PMJapan is the PERFECT example of a democracy at the point of a gun. We coerced the them to write a constitution of our liking by holding the Emperor hostage. What part of by the point of a gun does this not fit.
Posted by: David at March 12, 2007 06:13 PMOh, yeah, and MacArthur wouldn't let people he didn't like run for office. Nope just a normal peace time transition to democracy.
Posted by: David at March 12, 2007 06:18 PM'fraid I'm with David on this one. While Japanese folks "drafted their own constitution", they didn't have the final say. Do you really think that Japan 60 years ago would allow women to vote? Or do anything for that matter?
Both Germany and Japan surrendered unconditionally, their wartime leadership was thoroughly discredited, and they had long pre-war traditions of democratic constitutionalism.
Long pre-war traditions of democratic constitutionalism? As far as Japan is concerned, that's a laughable statement. Before the Meiji restoration in Japan (when the emporer was restored to "power", though not exactly true), Japan was a shogunate (feudal military dictatorship). I don't think the shoguns and daimyos gave a damn about "the people" during that time, nor did the people have much of a voice after the meiji restoration, with the kempei-tai running around.
Posted by: paully at March 12, 2007 07:25 PMBusted Lex. Googling does not always come up with with consistent responses.
My literal definition is less convoluted and tortured than yours, Google or not.
Posted by: CoRev at March 12, 2007 08:25 PMTerrorist recruitment numbers are through the roof.
Where can I find the numbers for this assertion?
Posted by: Purple Avenger at March 12, 2007 08:46 PMBlinded by internal domestic politics they fail, perhaps purposefully, to account for how their actions vindicate the long-term strategic goals of Islamic terrorists and undermine the credibility of the United States on the world stage. They rank partisan politics above national interests.
You're talking about Republicans here, right?
We are continuing this policy in bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy. Allah willing, and nothing is too great for Allah,” bin Laden said in the transcript.He said the mujahedeen fighters did the same thing to the Soviet Union in Afghanistan in the 1980s, “using guerrilla warfare and the war of attrition to fight tyrannical superpowers.”
“We, alongside the mujahedeen, bled Russia for 10 years until it went bankrupt and was forced to withdraw in defeat,” bin Laden said.
He also said al Qaeda has found it “easy for us to provoke and bait this administration.”
“All that we have to do is to send two mujahedeen to the furthest point east to raise a piece of cloth on which is written al Qaeda, in order to make generals race there to cause America to suffer human, economic and political losses without their achieving anything of note other than some benefits for their private corporations,” bin Laden said.**
Bamboozled, ever one of ya...
Posted by: Frederick at March 12, 2007 09:08 PMpaully and David --
You are completely off base. McArthur left the existing Japan government nearly intact, minus the Emperor and a few others. He had the Diet pass laws allowing for elections, and pass laws against autocratic practices. The Iraqi government we are trying to set up must be made out of whole cloth. Japan has no ethnic strife or tribalism, whereas Iraq is dominated by these. There was little or no resistance in Japan to the changes McArthur imposed. In Iraq there is a tremendous amount of infighting. Read the paper I cited, it goes into more detail.
So a 60 year old imperial constitution equates to a long pre-war tradition of democratic constitutionalism?
I totally agree that it's silly to compare middle-eastern reform and democratization with post WWII Germany and Japan for a bunch of reasons, but not because of their previous "democratic constitutions". The fact that they lived under a strong central government is more important than whether it was a constitutional democracy or not.
Posted by: paully at March 12, 2007 11:44 PMpaully,
All you really need to know is that Japan didn't put up any kind of insurgency after their military defeat, and that the existing political organization of the country allowed for an incremental change to democracy. Further there was no ethnic or religious enmity there. We did not force democracy on them with guns, they were willing to cooperate to become McArthur's Children.
Iraq is the opposite. The Sunnis have formed a strong insurgency. The Sunnis, Shias, and Kurds see each other as rivals. There was no national political system save the Baath party with which to introduce democracy in the first place, and as you know that horse done left the stable. Because of the insurgency, and because of the distrust between shia, sunnis and kurds, our soldiers literally would have to force them to cooperate to form a complete government. It's never been done under the best of circumstances, and Iraq is possibly the worst circumstance.
Posted by: Lex Steele at March 13, 2007 12:27 AMLeft the formor intact? We convicted and killed the leadership and replaced the administration with 8th army for at least 6th years. No point of gun here.
And by the way, an out of the loop german admiral surrendered to the allies and we RULED germany in 4 sectors for close to a dozen years. Nope no guns here.
Bluntly, Lex, you are a racist. The people of the middle east are incapable of democratic institutions. Lets leave then to their oppressers, they are after all a worthless , inherently undemocratic people. Check. Got it Opression is a GOOD thing for human dirt.
Posted by: David at March 13, 2007 02:25 AMLex,
A small point if I may, We are not forcing Democracy at the point of a gun, we are holding the wolves at bay while Iraq wrote their own constitution and hold their own elections. We are giving them a chance, THAT is what Democracy is about.
Right, wrong, or indifferent, we went in there to begin with (the point is now moot, though people still want to argue it). What are we going to do for them NOW? Cut and run saying, "Sorry, you're on your own now, we don't want to play anymore."
There are many things that could have been done differently, it's easy to see in hindsight. Try to see what will happen with foresight.
What is truly our safest course to try to end terrorism? Most terrorists only want complete control, do you want to live under their rules?
Trackbacked by The Thunder Run - Web Reconnaissance for 03/13/2007
A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention.
David -- there was very little insurgency in Japan and Germany, and that's a world of difference. The German and Japanese societies are cohesive, and that's a world of difference.
Do you honestly think it's easier to impose our idea of government on a populace that is fighting us versus one who, in defeat, realizes that their old form of government is flawed? What about onto a cohesive society versus one where two of the factions are openly at war? They are torturing each other, and bombing each other, and you think they are going to respect each other's representatives because Uncle Sam says so. The minority Sunnis have lorded it over the Shia for ages, and you think they are going to put aside their differences because Uncle Sam wants them to.
W expected to find WMD and to be greeted as a liberator. Those didn't happen, and promoting democracy is the only play he has left. In '99 he explicitly said, several times, that he would not engage in nation building.
Your charge of racism is so threadbare as to discount the remainder of what you say.
Posted by: Lex Steele at March 13, 2007 11:20 AMRetired Navy --
"We are not forcing Democracy at the point of a gun, we are holding the wolves at bay while Iraq wrote their own constitution and hold their own elections."
I respect your opinion, but I don't see how to separate the wolves from the Iraqis in general. Sure there are some zealots who would be willing to kill US citizens solely from ideology, but there are many young men who see red when we put a bag over their uncle's head or knock down their door at night or kill their sister or violate their national or religious pride or what have you. Polls show Iraqis suspicious of Western democracy, and that the Iraqis would prefer us to leave.
"What is truly our safest course to try to end terrorism? Most terrorists only want complete control, do you want to live under their rules?"
Occupying Iraq and killing thousands of innocent Iraqis is surely increasing terrorism. A recent study shows terrorism worldwide increasing over the last four years. We're creating a generation of Iraqis that's trained in IED use and combat.
What about Pakistan and Iran? Terrorists are training there as well, and our war in Iraq takes resources away from what we could be doing there. We would be much better off if we'd sewed up Afghanistan and left Iraq to fester.
What to do now? Reagan's NSA head William Odom gave the best problem description that I've heard in a Hugh Hewitt interview. His basic point is that the civil war is going to get as bad as it will get whether we stay there or not. Anyway, polls show that the Iraqis want us to leave. That being the case, it doesn't make sense to sacrifice our soldiers in an attempt to give them something they don't welcome.
Posted by: Lex Steele at March 13, 2007 11:35 AMLex,
Again I say we are there, right wrong or indifferent. The problem exists and we helped create it. The job is not done. I agree a lot of innocent people are being killed, most by their own corrupt or power hungry countryment/forign terrorists (the wolves). We have gained ground and continue to do so.
I can't speak for all military, but do for myself and many I came into contact throught the years.
Freedom isn't free, never was. Our country is not the only one that deserves it, that should be a HUMAN condition. You mentioned Pakistan and Iran, well, if and when it's possible, we should do something to help. Iran already has the seed of dissent, the young don't want nuclear war and are voicing their opinion.
A lot of Americans talk a good talk and spew forth all kinds of 'Freedom this' or 'Freedom that'. Truth be told, we had help to establish that right. What is wrong about giving others a chance? It took us years as a fledgling republic to get up and stand on our own, it took Germany and Japan around a decade or more. People should have the right to be free.
Posted by: Retired Navy at March 13, 2007 01:07 PMI agree with a lot of what you said. If I shared your optimism that we can get the job done, then I'd agree with you 100%. I suppose I just interpret the news more cynically than you do.
Thanks for the discussion, and best wishes.
Posted by: Lex Steele at March 13, 2007 03:27 PMYou too Lex.
My wife would laugh if she heard someone say I was optimistic instead of cynical. Maybe it's my 20 years military, I know what our boys-n-girls can do if congress (all parties) would let them alone to do it.
Posted by: Retired Navy at March 14, 2007 04:53 AM
