Victor Davis Hanson has an opinion piece up today at the Wall Street Journal, in which he addresses homefront conflicts over the war in Iraq. He writes:
There is a more disturbing element to these self-serving, always evolving pronouncements of the “my perfect war, but your disastrous peace” syndrome. Conservatives who insisted that we needed more initial troops are often the same ones who now decry that too much money has been spent in Iraq. Liberals who chant “no blood for oil” lament that we unnecessarily ratcheted up the global price of petroleum. Progressives who charge that we are imperialists also indict us for being naively idealistic in thinking democracy could take root in post-Baathist Iraq and providing aid of a magnitude not seen since the Marshall Plan. For many, Iraq is no longer a war whose prognosis is to be judged empirically. It has instead transmogrified into a powerful symbol that apparently must serve deeply held, but preconceived, beliefs–the deceptions of Mr. Bush, the folly of a neoconservative cabal, the necessary comeuppance of the American imperium, or the greed of an oil-hungry U.S.
If many are determined to see the Iraqi war as lost without a plan, it hardly seems so to 130,000 U.S. soldiers still over there. They explain to visitors that they have always had a design: defeat the Islamic terrorists; train a competent Iraqi military; and provide requisite time for a democratic Iraqi government to garner public support away from the Islamists.
We point fingers at each other; soldiers under fire point to their achievements: Largely because they fight jihadists over there, there has not been another 9/11 here. Because Saddam is gone, reform is not just confined to Iraq, but taking hold in Lebanon, Egypt and the Gulf. We hear the military is nearly ruined after conducting two wars and staying on to birth two democracies; its soldiers feel that they are more experienced and lethal, and on the verge of pulling off the nearly impossible: offering a people terrorized from nightmarish oppression something other than the false choice of dictatorship or theocracy–and making the U.S. safer for the effort.
The secretary of defense, like officers in Iraq, did not welcome the war, but felt that it needed to be fought and will be won. Soldiers and civilian planners express confidence in eventual success, but with awareness of often having only difficult and more difficult choices after Sept. 11. Put too many troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, and we earn the wages of imperialism, or create a costly footprint that is hard to erase, or engender a dependency among the very ones in whom we wish to ensure self-reliance. Yet deploy too few troops, and instability arises in Kabul and Baghdad, as the Islamists lose their fear of American power and turn on the vulnerable we seek to protect.
In sum, after talking to our soldiers in Iraq and our planners in Washington, what seems to me most inexplicable is the war over the war–not the purported absence of a plan, but that the more we are winning in the field, the more we are losing it at home.
Read the whole thing.
Update: Ralph Peters at the NY Post reports on what he sees as “dishonest” reporting coming from the MSM on the ‘civil war’ in Iraq. (Hat tip: Austin Bay)
- I blame the truculent decent of the Liberal mind into false refuges of faux “tolorance”, dressed in the intentionally complex and unworkable memes of “multiculturism” and “identity politics”, escaping the harsh realities of the world, on several generations of “Mommyism”. A conscious refusal to deal with reality, and flee to the soft warmness of the bossum remembered, when the answers to all of the worlds problems were just a hug and a nipple away.
- Yet they would not recognize, or accept, that some extremeists, posing as a religious movement or a cultural tribe, will listen to your words of “tolorance”, and then kill you anyway. Not because you have failed to communicate your capitulation, but because you are a christian, jew, or gay, and more specifically because you are not “them”.
- Bang
Comment by Big Bang Hunter @ 3/1/2006 - 1:18 pm
I just put up Max Friedman’s rant over on Iowa Voice. Today seems to be the day to let it all hang out.
Comment by PCD @ 3/1/2006 - 1:20 pm
At Iowa Voice, we just got an e-mail claiming that 9/11 was a Bush hoax. Tommy, you really want to associate with these democrats?
Comment by PCD @ 3/1/2006 - 1:47 pm
It was a hoax. GBA convinced me of it yesterday because Bush said he saw the plane going into the first tower before he went into the class to read the book. Then GBA asked, what did Bush know and when did he know it?
Comment by Baklava @ 3/1/2006 - 3:11 pm
This is an argument about the use of war and violence as a tool for change. The Right believes that the use of violence can be moral. The Left believes that the use of violence is very difficult to justify even in the most extreme situations and is therefore, immoral. Abortion, the death penalty and war are all violent acts and are immoral. You cannot have Peace(Christ) by making war(anti-Christ). Peace
Comment by steve @ 3/1/2006 - 3:50 pm
- And what a great world it would be Steve. if all of the pockets of immoral thuggery, and totalitarian despotic killer groups, scattered around the world, would simply accept that message and stop butchering people. Then those of us who are willing to make the life or death sacrifices that keep you safe would be able to enjoy a peacefull life also, instead of being forced to die in the name of Liberty - “Liberty is the wellspring of Peace”
- Bang
Comment by Big Bang Hunter @ 3/1/2006 - 5:25 pm
steve you seem to repeat yourself more and more with the same tired line, for someone who likes to point out religon and Jesus, you don’t do very well, since you seem to use the same tired line over and oevr again, and it is not even from the bible.
Despite the immense evil of war, Jesus said it is inevitable that wars will continue until He returns (Mark 13:7-8), and He did not oppose earthly governments or their right to maintain armies (Matthew 8:5-10). Other New Testament passages accept the necessity of maintaining armies and the worthiness of military occupations (Luke 3:14, Acts 10:1-6)
For further reading read the The two paths the bible says about War.
Compare with Islam and the Extremists who defile their religon:
Unfortunately, in my opinion, those that do not stand up and denounce those who commit such actions are just as guilty. They allow for the crimes against thier religon to go on without denouncement.
Comment by sanity @ 3/1/2006 - 6:10 pm
Nice shot of sanity
sanity!
Big Bang
That opening absolutely bracketed the problem! “A conscious refusal to deal with reality” bears repeating!
Comment by forest hunter @ 3/1/2006 - 8:09 pm
Big Bang, how many times have you said Amen? Do you have any clue why you say Amen and not something else? Is Amen a word or a name? And sanity “denounce” is not dropping bombs. Non-violent people denounce all the time but, keep the Peace. The Rightwing kills people rather then denounce people. Peace
Comment by steve @ 3/1/2006 - 8:15 pm
My mind is old, so maybe I can’t think of a single example when a non-violent person has ever walked into a battle fully armed with denouncements and “kept” the peace. In order for something to be kept as I understand reality, you must first have it, acquire it or in general get it. Which you clearly do not! I refer you to Big Bangs first comment here. It’s okay to have someone help you with the big words.
Comment by forest hunter @ 3/1/2006 - 8:45 pm
steve foolishly says, ” And sanity “denounce” is not dropping bombs. Non-violent people denounce all the time but, keep the Peace. “
Really?
And where is the muslim outrage?
Where is the muslim outrage at thier religon being hijacked?
Where is the muslim outrage for little girls being beheaded, raped and murdered?
Actually where in Islam does it say that they should rape any woman or litle girl before killing them?
Why do we not see protests, condimination in the streets from muslims that see this being done in the name of thier religon?
Steve you are wrong. Non violent people do NOT denounce all the time. especially muslim.
As for supposedly non violent protest, I have seen what those turn out to be. Do you need another link to go look at some of these ‘non-violent’ protests?
I will agree with you on one thing, there are some true non-violent protests, BUT more times than not, these protests turn to violence when confronted with an opposite or offending view that contradicts thiers.
Comment by sanity @ 3/1/2006 - 9:38 pm
Have you noticed how the MSM tries to make each terrorist attack in Iraq sound like another Tet offensive - that is, “proof” that we are losing to a wildly popular unstoppable democratic force?
The 1968 Tet offensive was a military disaster for the Vietnamese Communists. It is estimated that 45,000 of the Vietcong and the Northern Vietnam troops were killed during the battle. The Vietcong was crushed, and was never a factor again during the remaining seven years of the war. Worse still (from the Communists’ point of view) was the fact that people in the South showed no inclination to rise up against the Americans.
Yet, according to the MSM, Tet was a huge defeat for the Americans - a cherished lie that is still repeated today.
Almost every MSM story about Iraq seems to carry the odor of Tet - the US is losing, the “insurgents” are winning, civil war, quagmire, etc. Opposing points of view - not to mention facts - are not allowed to penetrate the MSM’s bubble. New news cycle, same old spin. It’s 1968 all over again in the network news rooms and editorial board rooms of major newspapers.
Comment by Mwalimu Daudi @ 3/1/2006 - 10:14 pm
Even Ed Koch who I normally respect is coming out with this civil war nonsense. One has to wonder why the left and the MSM needs so desperately to have a civil war going on in Iraq.
A civil war implies an established government, which hasn’t happened, yet. At present, at best, we have an insurgency, funded by outside sources. At worse, we have an invasion of Iraq by foreign forces…but we do not have a civil war.
The fact that Sunnis and Shiites got together, after the bombing of the Golden Mosque, is evidence that the Iraqi people are desperately fighting for their right to have a nation. It does not help to disparage their efforts. Shame on Ed!
Comment by Cump @ 3/1/2006 - 11:22 pm
Amenhotep IV is the person you are all paying homage to. He’s the guy who outlawed the Egyptian Priesthood, War and Slavery, when he came to power with Nefertiti. Anyone know what happened to the guy and his family? The sooner you find out why you believe, what you believe, the further down the road to enlightenment you will be. Peace
Comment by steve @ 3/2/2006 - 11:41 am
Damn Steve Amenhotep IV who changed his name to Akhenaten sounds like a Democrat to me.
Akhenaten turned away from old priests and began the cult of the sun disk, the Aten. Akhenaten acknowledged that Aten was the single god except Re, the sun god. He claimed he was the only person able to converse to his god. This only caused an absence of priests and he soon banned them. He banned the worship of Amon and closed down sacred temples.
His new capitol attacked the cults of other deities in Egypt, especially Amon. Sites of Amon were desecrated and evidence of worship were destroyed. Akhenaten even had his father’s cartouches destroyed because it had Amon’s name encrypted upon it. This only outraged people of Egypt and left the population at unease and anger. Most of the cities in Egypt were deprived of their estates and plantations. Corruption fell upon the temples and soon they were dependant on the city of Akhetaton.
At around the eighteenth year of his ruling Akhenaten died. Everything was destroyed and demolished soon after his death. His mummy is not to be found. Everything was ravished and destroyed upon his death.
If this is your “enlightenment” Steve you can put it where the sun doesn’t shine!
Comment by Jim M @ 3/2/2006 - 1:44 pm
Jim M, the majority of what you wrote is nonsense. Try again cubbie. Remember, when you say Amen this is the man who you are paying homage to. Peace
Comment by steve @ 3/2/2006 - 4:16 pm
Well, there ya go. What Jim M wrote is historically accurate, and steve says it’s nonsense. What can you expect from a person who thinks historical facts are nonsense other than a complete disconnect from reality, which is what steve and his fellow leftists display on a daily basis.
Comment by Severian @ 3/2/2006 - 4:24 pm
steve, again, we have to correct you.
This is getting to be a habit.
Words mean different things and come from different sects, areas and religons.
Just because it meant something in Egypt, does not mean it means the same thing in Jerusalem, or the US, or even in Islam or Christianity.
Link
Comment by sanity @ 3/2/2006 - 4:34 pm
Good job on what words mean, only they don’t. It all depends on what the word is, is. Take truth for instance. Truth depends on the theory of relitivity except in the case of the 10 Commandments. bush and friends are trying to get rich or richer. If along the way they can help you mugs, lucky you. But, he gives 2 craps about you or yours except if he needs to kill you in a war or a natural disaster. There is enough money in America to afford every citizen Health Care but, your friends the Capitalist just have to have their 2nd or 3rd house so bump you. Peace
Comment by steve @ 3/2/2006 - 7:49 pm
Are you still ticked off because they made you break down your cardboard shanty and move out from under the bridge, so they could fumigate for trolls?
No one owes you a living! Get over it! I realize the job market seems too narrow for you 
, but I for one, have no reason to feed you anymore bologna than you’ve already ingested or provide housing to someone who can’t even answer a single question! 
Comment by forest hunter @ 3/2/2006 - 8:40 pm
- I no longer respond directly to Steve because he doesn’t really engage in intellectually honest debate. He simply posts his ignoramous screeds and then shuffles off. On those few occassions when he has responded directly, his arguments had all the alacrity and solid foundation of; Its that way because I said so.
- I don’t know about the rest of the readers on ST’s site, but I stopped arguing with children when I became an adolt, something I’m not intirely sure that Steve is. Nor do I know if hes even an American. He sounds a bit like a angry, disillusioned apostate of some religion or other he apparently thinks has done him wrong in some manner. He tries to hide his “issues” behind falsily premised words of peace, but when presented with real world facts, he just spews forth more rhetoric, rhetoric that more often than not, has a lot of resonance with Communistic/Marxist ideology.
- Frankly I don’t have the time to waste on him and his fellow travelers that troll here.
- Bang
Comment by Big Bang Hunter @ 3/2/2006 - 9:39 pm
- Rather Adult…. I’m pretty sure steve is an adolt….
Comment by Big Bang Hunter @ 3/2/2006 - 9:41 pm
Man, steve is even less coherent than usual. He’s either completely stoned or is having a cerebral hemorrage…
Comment by Severian @ 3/2/2006 - 9:47 pm
D’ya suppose some Preparation H might help with his cerebral hemorrhage? Or will we be exposed as members of the great right wing secrecy conspiracy, whereby Preparations A through G were toooken by the JOOOOOOOS!
Comment by forest hunter @ 3/2/2006 - 10:28 pm
This article is seeming to imply that the soldiers are all “hooray for our role in Iraq”. But that isn’t what the polls have told us. The polls (which, last I heard are the only way to get any idea of what a group really thinks) of the soldiers indicate they want the US out of Iraq in one year by +80%. A year is the very fastest that it can logistically be done. This is unequivical
support for withdrawal. If the soldiers on the ground are so convinced they are winning, explain that number?
Comment by solitaire @ 3/3/2006 - 11:05 am
Polls are, last I checked, the best way to skew data and atttempt to make everyone else believe what you say everyone else believes. The Zogby poll has been pretty well fisked by now. Just remember, Zogby told us Kerry was going to win with 311 electoral votes too, if memory serves. Hmmm…
Comment by Severian @ 3/3/2006 - 11:24 am
Solitaire, I just put up a trackback to an old article I quickly wrote at the time. People like you can’t stand the truth to be told as it makes you look so obtuse and wrong. Take a stroll through the Milblogs, in particular try Amy and Johnny Proctor’s blogs. You are 100% wrong on the troops, but you knew that to begin with didn’t you?
Comment by PCD @ 3/3/2006 - 11:47 am