Shelby Steele has written the definitive piece on the Iraq War.
In the wake of the baffling ISG report, and all the breathless hyperbole it spawned, this is a welcome dose of sanity and insight.
This is a very big moment in history we're living right now. We face difficult, but by no means insurmountable, challenges in Iraq and the rest of the Mideast. But it seems to me we're about to make a giant misstep.
We need to be very clear about where our interests lie, and we need to be very direct in the pursuit of those interests. I believe it is long past the time when we could afford Hamlet-like ambivalence about our role in the world. We're the world's superpower, and we need to start acting like it.
We cannot go about undertaking a mission like Iraq, and then when things get a little bit sticky, go running to our enemies and offer to betray one of our allies in exchange for them allowing us to surrender. If we hope to ward off complete chaos, we must not reward the menace of our enemies, and we must remain steadfast with our allies. It's simple, but not easy.
I believe the ISG has got it exactly backwards. This process must begin by taking back the streets. Then a political solution will be possible. We need a very big surge of American troops to get control of Baghdad and establish order. The only conversation we should be having with Iran and Syria should be a warning that if they don't stop aiding the insurgency in Iraq, very bad things are going to start happening in their respective countries.
It's reassuring to see the crackerjack Democrat squad taking the field.
Bill Kristol has a nice piece on the only way out of this mess. It's up to George W. Bush. While that may disquiet many, it doesn't me. You should never count out a man who has nothing to lose. Bush's detractors have never, and will never give him any credit for anything. But he's still the President of the United States. He still has a lot of power. Ronald Reagan once said, "You can get a lot done in this town if you don't care who gets the credit." Well, Bush shouldn't worry about that, and I don't think he does. For the next two years, Barney, and maybe Laura will be the only friends he'll have in Washington.
After the election debacle, the Rumsfeld resignation was an instructive bit of political theatre. First, it demonstrated that the President still has the power to control the agenda. It immediately changed the subject. And second, it demonstrated something important about this President. He has principle. He could have thrown Rumsfeld under the bus before the election, and probably could have held the Senate. But he did understand that that would have sent the wrong message to the troops--that he would sell out their leadership for politics.
The thing that confounds his critics is that Bush does the right thing. He's a good man.
In the wake of the baffling ISG report, and all the breathless hyperbole it spawned, this is a welcome dose of sanity and insight.
This is a very big moment in history we're living right now. We face difficult, but by no means insurmountable, challenges in Iraq and the rest of the Mideast. But it seems to me we're about to make a giant misstep.
We need to be very clear about where our interests lie, and we need to be very direct in the pursuit of those interests. I believe it is long past the time when we could afford Hamlet-like ambivalence about our role in the world. We're the world's superpower, and we need to start acting like it.
We cannot go about undertaking a mission like Iraq, and then when things get a little bit sticky, go running to our enemies and offer to betray one of our allies in exchange for them allowing us to surrender. If we hope to ward off complete chaos, we must not reward the menace of our enemies, and we must remain steadfast with our allies. It's simple, but not easy.
I believe the ISG has got it exactly backwards. This process must begin by taking back the streets. Then a political solution will be possible. We need a very big surge of American troops to get control of Baghdad and establish order. The only conversation we should be having with Iran and Syria should be a warning that if they don't stop aiding the insurgency in Iraq, very bad things are going to start happening in their respective countries.
It's reassuring to see the crackerjack Democrat squad taking the field.
Bill Kristol has a nice piece on the only way out of this mess. It's up to George W. Bush. While that may disquiet many, it doesn't me. You should never count out a man who has nothing to lose. Bush's detractors have never, and will never give him any credit for anything. But he's still the President of the United States. He still has a lot of power. Ronald Reagan once said, "You can get a lot done in this town if you don't care who gets the credit." Well, Bush shouldn't worry about that, and I don't think he does. For the next two years, Barney, and maybe Laura will be the only friends he'll have in Washington.
After the election debacle, the Rumsfeld resignation was an instructive bit of political theatre. First, it demonstrated that the President still has the power to control the agenda. It immediately changed the subject. And second, it demonstrated something important about this President. He has principle. He could have thrown Rumsfeld under the bus before the election, and probably could have held the Senate. But he did understand that that would have sent the wrong message to the troops--that he would sell out their leadership for politics.
The thing that confounds his critics is that Bush does the right thing. He's a good man.
posted by alwaysright at
7:17 AM
6 Comments:
Oh my... you bought into the surge, predictable as ever, that is why you are always wrong... the surge is just a perpetuation of an already failed policy. We can't keep this up, another 1,000 GI's another 2 billion dollars. When do you people ever get real and admit that this was a complete and utter disaster and move on. It's called 'flogging a dead horse' for crying out loud. This is all about a failed president's vanity... live with it and lets get going toward a real solution, like getting the fuck out and building something that can replace our presence. You're so 2002.
How this 'good man's' war has served America
Building exactly what that can replace our presence? There is nothing that can replace our presence. That's our problem.
This is about a lot more than a "failed president's vanity". This about America's credibility in the world. Or did you forget that both houses of Congress, and both parties voted to undertake this war? As I've been saying for the last three and a half years, the time to be against this war was before it began. There was an opportunity for debate then, but the sad fact is that if anyone besides Dennis Kucinich had reservations about it, they lacked the political courage to do anything about it then. Incidentally, I've never had any issue with guys like Kucinich and even Howard Dean. They opposed the war from the start. I disagreed then, and I disagree now, but I respect that they had the courage of their convictions.
The mideast is a place where evil holds sway. I imagine you guys think that's sort of an outmoded concept, but I think it's not very different from the schoolyard or the 'hood. There's bad people over there pursuing evil ends by evil means. If we don't stand them down now, we'll eventually be facing them when they're much stronger.
If we leave now, we're just sending the signal to Iran and Syria and Al Qaeda and all the rest of our enemies that all they need to do is ratchet up the level of violence and we'll run. Again. Yield to violence and you get more violence.
I don't know if you think it would be a good thing for America to fail. I don't. I think it would make an already troubling security situation worse, not better. So I guess I'm not as ready as you are to throw in the towel.
In any case, there's no way we're pulling out now. Nobody is talking about that. The "surge" may not succeed, but it does represent our best chance to establish some sort of order, which in turn makes some sort of political reconciliation possible.
Sorry, Madeleine, but I don't buy the "we could be spending that money on _____" argument either. This is about national security, which is the government's foremost responsibility. If we can't protect our populace, then nothing else matters. I think I can tell by now that you don't like the particular policy we're pursuing, but I'm afraid the fact is that we're probably going to have to spend a lot more money than we have been if we are serious about ending terror.
This is about national security, which is the government's foremost responsibility. If we can't protect our populace, then nothing else matters.
Precisely. So when North Korea started developing nuclear weapons while Iran beat its chest and mocked the US, where was the necessary strength to give us leverage? Oh yes. In Iraq "defending our security" as you call it. Too bad I felt so *insecure* knowing that a war over non-existant WMD had overextended our forces.
As far as political courage - I marched in the freezing temps in Washington DC before the war, signed petitions, and wrote to my representatives, spoke out every chance I got.
I never believed Bush/ Powell/ Cheyney/Rumsfeld or Rice. They are liars and they are the ones who damage America's credibility in the world and with ordinary people like me.
So what are you saying, Mad, you'd rather be at war with Iran and N Korea?
IMHO, OIF was not about WMD, certainly not about avenging 9/11, but simply about demonstrating to our many enemies,i.e. Iran, Syria, N Korea, that we are capable of toppling regimes that we perceive as threats, and replacing them with something better.
It's fine to recognize that we face multiple threats in the world. We certainly do. Iraq was one of those threats in 2003 and we did something about it. What I don't understand is what you object to.
What are these lies of which you speak?
Yeah right... and the American people would have bought that sad sack of puke... Not on your life! Stop using so many acronyms, it's annoying and juvenile, you don't work for the Pentagon or this Administration so stop sounding like you do. And, as for muliple threats, we have, quite simply, multiplied those implied threats a thousand fold. Now some Macaca in Morrocco is just as likely to despise an American as a Wahabbi in a Wadii, for why? So you and a bedraggled assortment of bullies and cowards can hold your balls at a bar and feel secure? FU and the rest of you simpletons...
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home