Victor Davis Hanson, writing in
On July 8, the New York Times ran an historic editorial entitled “The Road Home,” demanding an immediate American withdrawal from
I saw the NYT editorial in question this past Sunday. It seemed like the entire ‘sphere was on about it, in one way or another (Shorter Left: “See? Told ya so!” Shorter Right: “Typical NYT. Terrorist lovers/enablers!”), so how could one miss it? As VDH notes, the editorial was “historic,” and not in a good way. I chose not to blog about this, but simply shook my head and thought “this really, really sucks.” The editorial, speaking as it does to the NYT’s core constituency (Blue America), certainly didn’t speak for me or to me…other than to demonstrate, as VDH notes, the sheer immorality of preaching defeat while the war is still in progress, not to mention the fact that the US’s new strategy has just now begun to be fully implemented and, oh-by-the-way, is showing positive results. As to the last point, VDH says:
We promised General Petraeus a hearing in September; it would be the height of folly to preempt that agreement by giving in to our summer of panic and despair. Critics called for the resignation of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, a change in command in
The “summer of panic and despair.” Interesting phraseology, that. I don’t think we —the nation— are in a “panic and despair” mode. I think Bush’s foes, and they are legion, smell blood in the water and are moving in for the kill. Panic and despair are just two emotions Bush’s enemies are using to manipulate public opinion into backing a premature withdrawal. It appears the strategy is working, now that the NYT has officially, rather than tacitly, signed on. It's a damned shame that Bush's political enemies are putting their partisan interests ahead of the nation's best interests. I never thought I'd see the day...
It’s getting uglier and uglier. And it certainly isn’t easy or fun being a member of that 30% or so of Americans who simply aren’t willing or able to accept an American defeat in
And now, Gentle Reader, I have to go out to Cannon Air Plane Patch for a doctor’s appointment. I’ll be back later.
Why is it permissible to use panic and despair to get us INTO a war, but not to get us out of one?
ReplyDeleteTotally agree with you, Buck.
ReplyDeleteI'm getting the sense that even the BBC is getting worried that we might leave Iraq in the lurch. They are finally asking the question, "What will happen to the Iraqis and the region if the U.S. leaves?"
I came across this great interview with General Petraeus that I thought you'd like to see, if you haven't already.
Lifting the Pall
From http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/07/13/MNGIBR007T1.DTL:
ReplyDeleteBruce Schulman, a political historian at Boston University, said support for the war remains in the South, a GOP stronghold. Republicans "don't want to admit that it's a failure, that's the dynamic here. They don't want to take responsibility for losing."
"As a historian, I can't help but draw a comparison with the Johnson and Nixon administrations," Schulman said. "They were constantly trotting out new initiatives, more troops, more bombings, expanding the conflict to nearby countries, asking to give it time to turn around. It didn't -- and the same kind of process is at work here."
_______________________________
History does indeed repeat itself.
I will punt on whether it is immoral for the NYT to make this kind of a call while a war is in progress. It is definitely foolish for them to do it, without taking an inventory of their bedfellows.
ReplyDeleteYou know what I would compare it to? Making a call for a nation-wide overhaul of family law, making it more dad-friendly and less mom-friendly, etc. Maybe starting a nonprofit, printing up bumper stickers, certainly, writing editorial after editorial.
Do I think an argument can be made that such an overhaul needs to take place? It seems indisputable. But would I start such a group? NO. Because it would undoubtedly be joined by bigots, chauvinists, misogynist freaks who genuinely hate women, people with whom I don't want to be associated in any way. I'd just want the guys to have a fair shot, but I'd end up "in bed" with some very hateful and disreputable people.
By the same token -- I'm sure there are people on the New York Times who want the USA to regain the "friends" it has supposedly "lost," and who just want the carnage to stop. But they are joined with other folks around the world, who entirely agree with the editorial, who just want the United States to be defeated. These are terrible bedfellows to have. Some of them want us to suffer a token nose-whacking, so as to be politically embarrassed. Others want us to be defeated tactically and suffer a tangible weakening. They have plans for the future, that involve us not being here anymore. Still others genuinely hate us, and want us to go away.
They're all out there. Take it to the bank.
The "Get Out Now" brigade is really, really overdue to take stock of what kind of bedfellows it has. I make a wonderful barbeque sauce, but you don't want to share a picnic table with every creature it's going to draw in, some of them are unsavory.
But the rest of us should be careful, too, when the "Get Out Now" brigade sounds off with nonsense like this. This has very little to do with ending war in Iraq or anyplace else. The primary focus of this drive, at least in the NYT editorial room, is dictating the themes of the 2008 election -- simplifying it to the point of "If you're for blood and death vote Republican, if you're for happier times in which everybody loves each other and there aren't any problems, vote Democrat."
VDH predicts a disaster if we pull out now. In an honest dialog, the next step would be for his opposition to contradict that. I notice nobody's doing that; nobody's even saying things will get better if we pull out. Not even NYT. That would involve too much responsibility.
So who's using demagoguery?
mkfreeberg wrote:
ReplyDelete"VDH predicts a disaster if we pull out now. In an honest dialog, the next step would be for his opposition to contradict that. I notice nobody's doing that; nobody's even saying things will get better if we pull out. Not even NYT. That would involve too much responsibility."
Things probably won't get better if we pull out. In fact, the Middle East will probably implode. Why wouldn't it? It's been on track to do that very thing for thousands of years. Who are we to get in the way? Who even cares? Unless you have a loved one fighting over their, this war is just another television show.
It's like this joke that's going around the 'net:
_________________________________
President Bush and Rumsfeld are sitting in a bar.
A guy walks in and asks the barman, "Isn't that Bush and Rumsfeld sitting over there?"
The bartender says, "Yep, that's them."
So the guy walks over and says, "Wow, this is a real honor! . What are you guys doing in here?"
Bush says, "We're planning WW III."
The guy says, "Really? What's going to happen?"
Bush says, "Well, we're going to kill 140 million Muslims and one blonde with big tits.
The guy exclaimed, "A blonde with big tits? Why kill a blonde with big tits?"
Bush turns to Rumsfeld and says, "See, I told you, no one gives a shit about 140 million Muslims."
_________________________________
No one does. They're brown people. What did I read the other day on Craigslist Rants and Raves? "If it's brown, flush it down." They're brown and they talk like they've got a throat full of phelgm. A lot of them probably still wipe their butts with their left hands. Unfortunately, they also have a bunch of oil. Too bad, that. Too bad we've spent $500 billion on this project and we could've developed a whole bunch of alternative energy with that same money.
"Winning" in Iraq isn't going to solve anything, and the Iraqis are like the South Vietnamese: they don't have the will or desire to do enough to help themselves. So screw it, and screw them. Seriously. Because if you think that we're going to "defeat" Al Qaeda in Iraq ... heh ... they shape shift and they'll always be around. Better to rethink our strategy and figure out where they'll strike next, because they're not all in Iraq ... they're everywhere, I think.
Aaeiiii!! I feel panic and despair setting in.
(Not.)
Lori said: Why is it permissible to use panic and despair to get us INTO a war, but not to get us out of one?
ReplyDeleteAnd just which war would that be, Lori? You appear to be invoking a Lefty meme I'm getting sick of, frankly. No one was afraid of frickin' anything when we invaded Iraq. Bush was simply implementing an action that was LONG overdue, what with Hussein's intransigence re: WMDs, inspections, UN resolutions and so on, ad nauseaum. Don't forget: Regime Change in Iraq was US policy initiated by your Buddy Big Dog, and unanimously ratified by the frickin' Senate. So you're saying CLINTON was suffering from panic and despair? I don't think so.
Your other comment about "history repeating itself" is another Lefty argument I'm tired of. Iraq is not Vietnam. Period, full stop. Are there some similarities? Yes, there are. Both conflicts were/are insurgencies in Third-World nations. Both governments are more or less corrupt. The similarities end right about there. I'm less than impressed with your source's "more bombings, more troops, etc., etc." I tried to find a bio of Lochead, the author of the SFGate article article you quote...unsuccessfully. I DID find a picture and a note that:
Lochhead holds a B.A. from UC Berkeley and a master’s degree in journalism from Columbia University.
Her picture makes her look like she's at least in her late 50s, and her academic pedigree suggests her "views as a historian" were forged in the crucible of the Vietnam nightmare. Which brings me to another rant point: I'm also sick of the frickin' "every war is Vietnam" bullshit.
I love you to death, Lori, and respect your right to hold a differing opinion on this frickin' war. But I am diametrically opposed to your point of view. I can't put it ANY stronger than that.
I linked that article yesterday, Bec...it's a good one.
Morgan: Well said. Thank you.
Now about realigning the courts so men get an even break? I'm all ready to sign up for THAT, regardless of the fact misogynists and other bed-wetters may be involved.
Lori, I couldn't access your article; I think part of the address got chopped off. I googled part of the quote and found it for you though. Here it is:
ReplyDeleteSFGate
I couldn't disagree more with Bruce Schulman, however. I'm not from the South and I've been a Democrat all my life until a couple of years ago. Like many people (more former Democrats than you might realize) I see the struggle as trying to help the Iraqi people and not leave them at the mercy of groups like Al-Qaeda and Iranian fundamentalists. We are not at war against Iraq at all, in my view. We are trying to help give them space so that they can form a stable government. If the government wanted us to leave, we would. True?
I do agree with this part of the article, though:
Bush said political progress is a "lagging indicator" that would improve only after military stability has been achieved. He also praised the "bottom-up reconciliation" that relies on local, not national leaders, modeled on the Sunni tribal sheikhs of Anbar province who have joined U.S. forces against the Sunni terrorists who call themselves al Qaeda in Iraq. (I thought this was excellent news, when I first heard it a while back!
Bush acknowledged that he worried "whether or not the American people are in this fight." But he said the full troop increase has been in place only for a month and he would wait until a final report in September by Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, and Ambassador Ryan Crocker to judge its progress.
I linked that article yesterday, Bec...it's a good one.
ReplyDeleteOops, sorry Buck. I remember now. I'm getting a mite confused after cruising all these blogs. :-)
Lori said, among a lot of other stuff: No one does. They're brown people. What did I read the other day on Craigslist Rants and Raves? "If it's brown, flush it down." They're brown and they talk like they've got a throat full of phelgm.
ReplyDeleteWow, Lori, you're determined to trot out ALL of the thought-impaired, bigoted, and biased Left-wing tripe today, aren't you? Why just today I managed to run over about three of those nasty little brown folk on the way to and from the base. Gotta admit, though, they were pretty quick and fast when they tried to get out of my way, especially the kids. Too bad they weren't A-rabs. But then again, maybe they were. Just doin' MY bit to solve the immigration problem, ya know. Being a good Rethuglican Wing-Nut, in other words.
Sheesh.
Sigh ... of course some of that was meant to be tongue-in-cheek, although it certainly didn't read that way, and I knew it wouldn't, and that's okay.
ReplyDeleteI feel all right, knowing I'm in good company, with 70% or so of Americans not wanting this war to go on any longer. I'm not usually a fan of "majority rules" but I have to admit that sometimes it does, and sometimes it should, and now is one of those times.
mkfreeberg said: The primary focus of this drive, at least in the NYT editorial room, is dictating the themes of the 2008 election --
ReplyDeleteI agree wholeheartedly. It is as if the MSM thinks that the American people are too stupid to think for themselves - so they try to tell us what we should think and therefore how we should vote. In both of the last two Presidential elections they told us that the Dems had it hands down. Was that an out-right lie, political manipulation or just wishful thinking. Now they are doing it again. They don't care about Iraq or our military folks. They only care about the 2008 elections.
I also agree with Buck - I am so sick of comparing this war to Vietnam. It seems that people who spout such nonsense are just paranoid war worriers. Sure there are similarities, but you could compare the Iraq war with all wars in some way or another. It seem like Lincoln had problems with his congress wanting to end the war early - that could have been interesting.
desertflier.blogspot.com had some clear thoughts on why pulling out of Iraq early is a bad idea.
I, too, wondered about Lori's question, " Why is it permissible to use panic and despair to get us INTO a war, but not to get us out of one?"
What panic and despair? It seemed pretty cut and dry - Buck said it well.
70% of the people - you really think so? Is that one of those statistics like the "exit poles" taken in the last two pres. elections?
ReplyDeleteLori, you certainly make for some exciting discussion in EIP:)
Hey, bad blog! Buck hisself said:
ReplyDelete"And it certainly isn’t easy or fun being a member of that 30% or so of Americans who simply aren’t willing or able to accept an American defeat in Iraq."
100% - 30% = 70% (or so)
70% is the number generally being used in just about all media. I don't trust the media very much either, but if it looks and feels like 70% ... even in flag waving red states like North Dakota, where I just visited, people are just as unhappy about the war ... then the other 30% are going to have to accept that that's what it is.
Gee, 30% is pretty close to the number folks in the American colonies who were in favor of independence in 1776.
ReplyDeleteAnd there's a comparison I'm already tired of ... what is the deal with comparing Iraq to the American Revolution? If that's a fair comparison, why have we never heard it until just the other day? (And that other sound ... is that an aging and crippled elephant making its last gasps for air?)
ReplyDeleteI love how people use polls to support their position - whatever side you are on. It's called spin, folks. Check out this: http://www.neptunuslex.com/category/politics-and-culture/ (Buck, sorry but I don't have that html language @ home for this to work right). Lex points out a new Rasumussen poll that says:
ReplyDeleteJust 19% of American voters believe that the U.S. troop surge in Iraq was a success. A Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 43% of voters consider the surge a failure. Twenty-four percent (24%) say it’s too soon to tell while 15% are not sure.
You have to go to the link to see how Lex spins it - as a perfect illustration of how polling results can be used to support any position you want to take.
30%, 70%, 19%, 24% - who cares. Polls typically sample 1,000 people who are supposedly representative of the entire population of 300 million in the U.S.
Yeah, polls have such tremendous value.
Oh and I'm in the 24% who think it's too soon to say whether the surge is working or not, since it JUST finished ramping up about 30 days ago. We need to give our troops ample opportunity to show us that the surge will work - as certainly preliminary results in Al Anbar and Baghdad are showing.
General Petraeus will be providing a report and update in September - the least we can do is give him the opportunity to actually deliver the report.
And there's a comparison I'm already tired of ... what is the deal with comparing Iraq to the American Revolution?
ReplyDeleteThe deal is -- the 70% figure is a complete non sequitur. It is the argumentum ad populum logical fallacy at work. Comparing the American Revolution, is simply a convenient way of pointing it out.
You only have three choices at that point. You can repudiate the notion that 70%, assuming it can be verified, has anything to do with making the correct decision; you can embrace it unconditionally, in which case you have to say Independence was an equally awful idea and you would have been opposed to that as well; or you can reject consistency altogether. That's the most reasonable option and it's probably the one you will take. "Seventy percent means something now, and it didn't back then -- it means whatever I say it means."
Effectively, that means getting out of Iraq is the correct decision, not because of any Alice-in-Wonderland 70% poll numbers, but because you say it's the right thing to do.
Which means your argument rests on exactly nothing. You could still be right. But peer pressure aside, there's no reason to think so at all...at least none that you're giving us. It's just a personal opinion of yours that -- today -- happens to coincide with the majority.
Lori,
ReplyDeleteSurely that was a typo and you would not stoop to calling names - which of course would be childish, immature and a show of frustration.
Lou said: Lori,
ReplyDeleteSurely that was a typo and you would not stoop to calling names -
Assuming you're talking about the "bad blog" thingie; I'm sure it is, too. I've seen Lori debate in other fora before and she's never called anyone names (that I can recall).
Wow! This sure has been fun, hasn't it!?! (Seriously)
Buck says: Wow! This sure has been fun, hasn't it!?! (Seriously)
ReplyDeleteGosh, I'm still trying to imagine myself as "an aging and crippled elephant making its last gasps for air." Darn. And I've only just become one, too.
Well, one thing about elephants, they are uncommonly sedate, secure and polite...until they go on a rampage!
I stopped by, as usual, to see what was up and was mildly shocked to see 19 responses... and HAD to read what was so interesting... it was worth the time.
ReplyDeleteSo, to throw in my .02, I think the whole 70/30 thing is interesting in so far as how many Americans really feel or even think they are qualified to talk about National Policy? The decision to invade Iraq was based on sound information, it was a rational decision. It may very well have been wrong, but that's a different question. I'm not going to defend how the conflict has been handled since then... no real point to that. But getting back to the 30% thing, popular opinion should have no place in running a war. War by committee is doomed to failure. I can't understand why people cannot see that or why they have not even considered it.
Sam: Your points about the general public and "war by committee" are well-taken. It makes me wonder just how and why so many of our "wise" leaders simply fail to grasp this seemingly elementary point. Which, of course, is why I put "wise" in quotes.
ReplyDeleteBec said: Gosh, I'm still trying to imagine myself as "an aging and crippled elephant making its last gasps for air."
Lori makes a good point. The coalition that is the Republican party has always been a loosely-constructed federation of differing, yet similar, views. And that coalition is looking decidedly frayed at the edges, if not coming apart at the seams. Several "traditional" Republican constituencies are feeling increasingly betrayed and/or alienated by the GOP and its leaders. Where the GOP is going, and its associated electoral future, is fodder for much speculation amongst the chattering classes of late, not much of it (the chatter) good, either.
I can't imagine ANY current Republican voting for ANY of the current Donkey-Party presidential candidates. Independents, perhaps. But I don't think there's an Independent out there that stands the proverbial snowball's chance of winning. The outcome I fear the most is the rise of another Perot-like independent...resulting in a fragmentation of the conservative vote that hands victory to Hillary or someone like her. It's happened before...
For the record, yes, "bad blog" was a typo.
ReplyDeleteMy ... bad. : )
Gotta go take care of my garden now, which has become overgrown with large weeds in my absence from home.
Buck says: Lori makes a good point.
ReplyDeleteIndeed she does. I didn't intend to make light of the GOP's dilemma by any means - it's just that her image was so entertaining!
On the serious side, though Buck, you and I have talked about it before when I've mentioned my parents' worship of He-who-must-not -be-named (Lou D.), darn him. I've noticed a shift of direction coming on for some time. I remembered this article in which Peter Beinart analyzes quite well the difficulties in the GOP - The GOP's Fading Populism.
I also recommend his other link at the bottom of the page: "Pander and Run." The latter is why I think the GOP will always have a chance, if not now later.
But that's IMHO. I'm still shaking the Lefty dust out my ear, you have to understand.
Thanks for that Beinart link, Bec. Dunno how I missed it back in June, but I DO remember that "Pander and Run" article from last year.
ReplyDeleteBeinart generally gets it right (no pun...) when he closes with:
But today, with the culture war at a low ebb and the Iraq war a national disaster, the elites with whom Republicans seem most enraged are their own.
I think the culture war is anything but "at low ebb." Unless Pete's definition of the term and mine differs. That lil discrepancy aside, Beinart is the type of Democrat that might woo me back into the fold...or, at the very least, persuade me to vote for a Democrat that shares Beinart's views on national security. "Woo me back into the fold" is a little much, now that I've taken a second or six to think on it. ;-)
As for shaking Lefty dust off...it's a life-long endeavor. Trust me... ;-)
As for shaking Lefty dust off...it's a life-long endeavor. Trust me... ;-)
ReplyDeleteAgreed! It took a lifetime to learn it; it'll probably take the rest of my life to make sense of it.
Here is something I just ran across that is part of that loooong effort (originally from Instapundit - I think!): On a former BBC "ideologist."
Bec: Once again, thanks for the (Samizdata) link. I'm gonna move the Telegraph article to the front page when I post this morning. Or afternoon. Whichever comes first...
ReplyDelete