What's it going to be - - Fight or run?
A conversation yesterday with a conservative colleague about the different viewpoints on the War on Terror proved incredibly insightful to me. We were talking about the Republican's continued attempt to paint the Democrats as appeasers; unwilling to engage our enemies abroad where they are. I found that argument incredibly fallacious; I said that no one opposes fighting Al Queda and the other terrorists who are after us. And that is false. What I should have said is that no mainstream (read: pragmatic or sane) people oppose fighting Al Queda. In the weeks and months following September 11, we saw the flat out lunacy of those on the fringe who believed that some sort of accord could be signed with Osama Bin Laden.
Clearly and thankfully, those people are and were in the superminority. The mainstream Democrats and probably 99% of the caucus (with the possible exception of Dennis Kucinich and Barbara Lee) fully support a vigorous engagement of the War on Terror, whatever the hell that means. Despite all the rumblings by Ken Mehlman and Dick Cheney, Hillary Clinton and John Kerry and Ted Kennedy do not want Al Queda setting off nuclear weapons in downtown New York. But as the Democrats have had a really hard time pointing out since day one of the political rancor that predictably followed September 11, there are different paths to the ultimate goal of destroying Al Queda and stabilizing. And, also quite predictably, the Republicans have laid out their strategy, while the Democrats have simply thumbed their noses. Basically, and this is lifted from esteemed Daily Show correspondent and human tsunami Lewis Black, the Republicans are the party of bad ideas and the Democrats are the party of no ideas.
The lack of a Democratic "plan", (this whole idea makes me laugh) has allowed the Republicans to completely frame the debate in their terms. Since they have control of Congress, the White House, and have attack dogs throughout the radio and television media, the Republicans have continuously done a fantastic job at laying out their strategy, which I've gathered is invading every Middle Eastern country beginning with a vowel (with the exception of Israel), and since the Democrats have no strategy with the exception of "bringing our allies to the table" (bullshit), the Democrats can easily be portrayed as opposing the War on Terror, because they offer no viable or clear alternatives to the whole "invading every Middle Eastern country beginning with a vowel (with the exception of Israel)" plan.
President Bush's speech on 9/11 predictably wrapped Iraq into the commemoration and celebration of the dead. Hemmorhaging in the polls and an election nearing, he has no choice but to once again try to reattach Iraq to the War on Terror. The American public hasn't bought that connection in a while, but a solemn occasion that reminds America of fear and danger seems like the perfect time to say the word terror a number of times and also remind Americans that we're fighting in Iraq, and if we leave they'll follow us. Home, I suppose?
The sad fact is that the President is right. He said, "The safety of America depends on the outcome of the battle in the streets of Baghdad". And he is right. Now. Because we went into Iraq and drew Al Queda to us, because we overextended our troops, because we didn't send enough troops, because we fractured a country into religious strife, we have created a disaster in Iraq. Worse than it was when Saddam was in power, except now full of Al Queda operatives and new recruits. We made Iraq the central front of the War on Terror not because Al Queda was there, but because we are there.
But like Colin Powell said before the invasion, if we break it, we buy it. Not only have we destroyed Iraq and created a civil war there, but we have leveraged all of our hegemony and power in the battle with the insurgency and with Al Queda. We can't leave; not only because it would become a full fledged Civil War, but because Al Queda would win. And that's not simply a pride issue -- giving them such a handout would encourage more violence and more attacks. They want to kill all Americans, and frighten us, and change our foreign policy, and rule the Middle East. We cannot allow any of those things to happen. These are not people that will be satisfied with concessions here and there; this is not a merger and acquisition. They are committed to our destruction, no matter what the costs and no matter what the circumstance. Whether it's Al Queda or another radical fundamentalist Islamic group.
This is why the idea of troop drawdown, while politically wonderful these days, is a bad one. President Bush is continuously asked, "How do you define victory in Iraq?" And he usually answers that when Iraq can defend herself, we will leave. But that's not true. There is no such thing as victory in Iraq. We will probably have soldiers there years after Bin Laden has died of Kidney failure in Pakistan. Bush's decision to invade Iraq without proper planning and execution has placed the United States in a completely untenable position with no possible escape. If we stay, our soldiers will continue to die at the hands of insurgents fighting each other and Al Queda fighting us. If we leave, Iraq falls into a civil war and Al Queda believes they can defeat us.
So now it's not just the wacky lefties arguing for troop withdrawal, its people like Clinton, Edwards, Kerry, and on the Republican side people like Hagel. They not only don't want to see more American troops die, but they see a political upside to pushing for the soldiers' return. As well they should; the majority of the American public now disapprove of the war. But the President is right, possibly for the first time since he started the invasion of Afghanistan. He even tipped his cap in that direction on Monday night when he said that regardless of the mistakes made before and during the war in Iraq, the biggest mistake would be withdrawal.
Radical fundamental Islam, with Al Queda at the forefront, will never concede in battle. They will never look for a peace treaty, they will never sign papers on the deck of a battleship or a French palace. They will never surrender with honor and work alongside Americas rebuilding their countries. The comparisons with Nazism is so historically inaccurate in so many ways, but possibly most notably in the way that there are no non true believers. Al Queda and its offshoots and collaborators aren't German or Japanese soldiers drafted into an army to defend their homeland. Their not confused as to whom they're fighting. They are forever commmitted destroying America.
Clearly and thankfully, those people are and were in the superminority. The mainstream Democrats and probably 99% of the caucus (with the possible exception of Dennis Kucinich and Barbara Lee) fully support a vigorous engagement of the War on Terror, whatever the hell that means. Despite all the rumblings by Ken Mehlman and Dick Cheney, Hillary Clinton and John Kerry and Ted Kennedy do not want Al Queda setting off nuclear weapons in downtown New York. But as the Democrats have had a really hard time pointing out since day one of the political rancor that predictably followed September 11, there are different paths to the ultimate goal of destroying Al Queda and stabilizing. And, also quite predictably, the Republicans have laid out their strategy, while the Democrats have simply thumbed their noses. Basically, and this is lifted from esteemed Daily Show correspondent and human tsunami Lewis Black, the Republicans are the party of bad ideas and the Democrats are the party of no ideas.
The lack of a Democratic "plan", (this whole idea makes me laugh) has allowed the Republicans to completely frame the debate in their terms. Since they have control of Congress, the White House, and have attack dogs throughout the radio and television media, the Republicans have continuously done a fantastic job at laying out their strategy, which I've gathered is invading every Middle Eastern country beginning with a vowel (with the exception of Israel), and since the Democrats have no strategy with the exception of "bringing our allies to the table" (bullshit), the Democrats can easily be portrayed as opposing the War on Terror, because they offer no viable or clear alternatives to the whole "invading every Middle Eastern country beginning with a vowel (with the exception of Israel)" plan.
President Bush's speech on 9/11 predictably wrapped Iraq into the commemoration and celebration of the dead. Hemmorhaging in the polls and an election nearing, he has no choice but to once again try to reattach Iraq to the War on Terror. The American public hasn't bought that connection in a while, but a solemn occasion that reminds America of fear and danger seems like the perfect time to say the word terror a number of times and also remind Americans that we're fighting in Iraq, and if we leave they'll follow us. Home, I suppose?
The sad fact is that the President is right. He said, "The safety of America depends on the outcome of the battle in the streets of Baghdad". And he is right. Now. Because we went into Iraq and drew Al Queda to us, because we overextended our troops, because we didn't send enough troops, because we fractured a country into religious strife, we have created a disaster in Iraq. Worse than it was when Saddam was in power, except now full of Al Queda operatives and new recruits. We made Iraq the central front of the War on Terror not because Al Queda was there, but because we are there.
But like Colin Powell said before the invasion, if we break it, we buy it. Not only have we destroyed Iraq and created a civil war there, but we have leveraged all of our hegemony and power in the battle with the insurgency and with Al Queda. We can't leave; not only because it would become a full fledged Civil War, but because Al Queda would win. And that's not simply a pride issue -- giving them such a handout would encourage more violence and more attacks. They want to kill all Americans, and frighten us, and change our foreign policy, and rule the Middle East. We cannot allow any of those things to happen. These are not people that will be satisfied with concessions here and there; this is not a merger and acquisition. They are committed to our destruction, no matter what the costs and no matter what the circumstance. Whether it's Al Queda or another radical fundamentalist Islamic group.
This is why the idea of troop drawdown, while politically wonderful these days, is a bad one. President Bush is continuously asked, "How do you define victory in Iraq?" And he usually answers that when Iraq can defend herself, we will leave. But that's not true. There is no such thing as victory in Iraq. We will probably have soldiers there years after Bin Laden has died of Kidney failure in Pakistan. Bush's decision to invade Iraq without proper planning and execution has placed the United States in a completely untenable position with no possible escape. If we stay, our soldiers will continue to die at the hands of insurgents fighting each other and Al Queda fighting us. If we leave, Iraq falls into a civil war and Al Queda believes they can defeat us.
So now it's not just the wacky lefties arguing for troop withdrawal, its people like Clinton, Edwards, Kerry, and on the Republican side people like Hagel. They not only don't want to see more American troops die, but they see a political upside to pushing for the soldiers' return. As well they should; the majority of the American public now disapprove of the war. But the President is right, possibly for the first time since he started the invasion of Afghanistan. He even tipped his cap in that direction on Monday night when he said that regardless of the mistakes made before and during the war in Iraq, the biggest mistake would be withdrawal.
Radical fundamental Islam, with Al Queda at the forefront, will never concede in battle. They will never look for a peace treaty, they will never sign papers on the deck of a battleship or a French palace. They will never surrender with honor and work alongside Americas rebuilding their countries. The comparisons with Nazism is so historically inaccurate in so many ways, but possibly most notably in the way that there are no non true believers. Al Queda and its offshoots and collaborators aren't German or Japanese soldiers drafted into an army to defend their homeland. Their not confused as to whom they're fighting. They are forever commmitted destroying America.
posted by quint at 9:51 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home