| NYT | 0 | |
| Miami Herald | 0 | |
| Don Surber | 0 | |
| AP | 0 | |
| WaPo | Obama Urges Groups to Stop Attacks [on Dems who oppose ObamaCare] |
0 |
Audacity of Truth
"Change" You Can Believe In:
"Nixon didn’t try to do that. They couldn't control (the media). They didn’t try. [...] What the hell do they think we are, puppets?"
- Liberal opinion writer Helen Thomas, describing the Obama admin's penchant for heavily scripting public appearances & press conferences - 7/1/09
The consequences of losing in Iraq
On the heels of Rich Lowry’s defeatist Democrat theme (which I blogged about here) and W. Thomas Smith, Jr.’s piece on the potential negative effect on Iraq war pulblic opinion thanks to media mis-reporting on Operation Swarmer (blogged about here) comes this editorial from the WSJ that discusses the consequences of the US failing in Iraq:
With that in mind, it’s worth thinking through what would happen if the U.S. does fail in Iraq. By fail, we mean cut and run before giving Iraqis the time and support to establish a stable, democratic government that can stand on its own. Beyond almost certain chaos in Iraq, here are some other likely consequences:
• The U.S. would lose all credibility on weapons proliferation. One doesn’t have to be a dreamy-eyed optimist about democracy to recognize that toppling Saddam Hussein was a milestone in slowing the spread of WMD. Watching the Saddam example, Libya’s Moammar Gadhafi decided he didn’t want to be next. Gadhafi’s “voluntary” disarmament in turn helped uncover the nuclear network run by Pakistani scientist A.Q. Khan and Iran’s two decades of deception.
Now Iran is dangerously close to acquiring nuclear weapons, a prospect that might yet be headed off by the use or threat of force. But if the U.S. retreats from Iraq, Iran’s mullahs will know that we have no stomach to confront them and coercive diplomacy will have no credibility. An Iranian bomb, in turn, would inspire nuclear efforts in other Mideast countries and around the world.
• Broader Mideast instability. No one should underestimate America’s deterrent effect in that unstable region, a benefit that would vanish if we left Iraq precipitously. Iran would feel free to begin unfettered meddling in southern Iraq with the aim of helping young radicals like Moqtada al-Sadr overwhelm moderate clerics like the Grand Ayatollah Sistani.
Syria would feel free to return to its predations in Lebanon and to unleash Hezbollah on Israel. Even allies like Turkey might feel compelled to take unilateral, albeit counterproductive steps, such as intervening in northern Iraq to protect their interests. Every country in the Middle East would make its own new calculation of how much it could afford to support U.S. interests. Some would make their own private deals with al Qaeda, or at a minimum stop aiding us in our pursuit of Islamists.
• We would lose all credibility with Muslim reformers. The Mideast is now undergoing a political evolution in which the clear majority, even if skeptical of U.S. motives, agrees with the goal of more democracy and accountable government. They have watched as millions of Iraqis have literally risked their lives to vote and otherwise support the project. Having seen those Iraqis later betrayed, other would-be reformers would not gamble their futures on American support. Nothing could be worse in the battle for Muslim “hearts and minds” than to betray our most natural allies.
• We would invite more terrorist attacks on U.S. soil. Osama bin Laden said many times that he saw the weak U.S. response to Somalia and the Khobar Towers and USS Cole bombings as evidence that we lacked the will for a long fight. The forceful response after 9/11 taught al Qaeda otherwise, but a retreat in Iraq would revive that reputation for American weakness. While Western liberals may deny any connection between Iraq and al Qaeda, bin Laden and the rest of the Arab world see it clearly and would advertise a U.S. withdrawal as his victory. Far from leaving us alone, bin Laden would be more emboldened to strike the U.S. homeland with a goal of driving the U.S. entirely out of the Mideast.
We could go on, but our point is that far more is at stake in Iraq than President Bush’s approval rating or the influence of this or that foreign-policy faction. U.S. credibility and safety are at risk in the most direct way imaginable, far more than they were in Vietnam. In that fight, we could establish a new anti-Communist perimeter elsewhere in Southeast Asia. The poison of radical Islam will spread far and wide across borders if it can make even a plausible claim to being on the ascendancy, and nothing would show that more than the retreat of America from Iraq.
Read the whole thing.
The President has made it clear realizes the above is what’s at stake here, which is why he’s gone on the offensive regarding what’s on the line with Operation Iraqi Freedom. The problem is, the mainstream media who harp incessantly on the negative and the Defeatocrats who want the US to pull out too soon due, in part, to their slavish devotion to making the President admit failure even if it comes at the cost of the US’ reputation, do NOT seem to get this. If nothing else keeps people from voting Democrat in the ‘06 elections, this should.
Read more via the Political Pit Bull, The Jawa Report (must-read!)
RSS feed for comments on this post.
18 Responses to “The consequences of losing in Iraq”
Comments
Blogads
Disclaimer: The views expressed on this blog do not necessarily reflect those of ST's advertisers, nor do their opinions necessarily reflect ST's. Stats
No one wants a failed state in Iraq, not even the Left. But, bush’s policy will not succeed, it will fail. Which is why it has been a failure so far. The way to success is thru Iran. We should immediately reestablish full diplomatic relations with Iran. Israel, should then give back the Sheba Farms and the Golan Heights. That would defang Hezbollah and begin dialogue with Syria. The ultimate goal here is a nuclear weapons free zone from the Mediterranean Sea to the Bay of Bengal, including Israel. Peace
This is what most of the people that frequent this site have been saying, so this article just helps back up those of us that know that the US needs to support the Iraqis until they have an established Democratic Government. If the “cut and runners” would look at what happened in Vietnam and the countries around it when we did what they are advocating some minds might be changed. I know there will be those that no matter how much history or facts show them how disastrous it would be to cut and run they will still advocate the “Cut and Run”. There are those that even if you put a funnel in there ear and poured in common sense it would run out the other.
Hey Steve (There coming to take me away)the men in the white jackets are on the way with your meds just hold on a little longer.
Steve,
I don’t understand where you’re coming from about the President’s policy having already failed. From what I can glean from the evidence, there are two more countries in this world that aren’t oppressed by dictators and or thoroughly repressive regimes. That is a consequence of that policy. Yes, both countries are in the infancy stage, but the issues they are working through (and struggling) sure as heck don’t signify policy failure, nor do they signify failure on the part of the fledgling governments. As to your comment about Israel giving up the land in question, you couldn’t be more wrong about what it would do to Hezbollah. Having lived and worked in that area of the world, I can tell you that the one overly important trait that Arabs understand is strength. It commands attention and respect. One has to look at the recent documents released concerning Iraq and Hussein. He pressed on with his “supposed” charade of having WMD (I still believe he did have them and programs to continue production), because he believed that the US (due to recent lack of reaction/response and other recent history of a lack of staying power as a result of negative popular support at home) would not commit to action. That is one of the main reasons (if not THE main reason) he thumbed his nose at the sanctions and the UN resolutions: he felt that the UN and member states would not call him on the issues.
Therefore, Israel’s return of these lands would give Hezbollah exactly what they want – a reason to tell the rest of the Arab and Muslim world that Israel capitulated to their demands and is a weakling in their eyes. If all of these factions felt enough strength to take on Israel, they would do so. They know that Israel is stronger than they are and won’t directly engage them, because to lose to Israel would prove fatal in the world of both public and political opinion.
Good Lord what a powerful piece. You have quite the talent ST for finding people making overwhelmingly compelling arguments.
And right on MikeW. Rewarding terrorists will only breed more terrorism. You can bank on that.
If you want to try an expirement Steve, you can reward the first criminal you see and see how far it gets you with your theories. Establish full relations with your nearest burglar/murderer/snake
“The U.S. would lose all credibility on weapons proliferation. One doesn’t have to be a dreamy-eyed optimist about democracy to recognize that toppling Saddam Hussein was a milestone in slowing the spread of WMD.”
Please. That would certainly would have been true, had Saddam actually HAD any. And Bush is risking whatever credibility he still has on weapons proliferation with the recent changes in policy towards India (although I heartily approve of his cultivation of India).
The reason Saddam thought the USA wouldn’t topple him was because he was a CIA man. Then came bush, knowing nothing about foreign policy and listening to the Zionists, the Armageddonists and the neo-cons who all wanted a war in Iraq for their own reasons. And now, what a mess we have. The land that Israel sits on with all of it’s Ashkenazi Zionists, is Arab land. Just because the United Nations gave it to the Zionists doesn’t make it theirs. It is still Arab land. Peace
>The reason Saddam thought the USA
>wouldn’t topple him was because he was a
>CIA man.
Right. Cause the CIA has a habit of toppling pro-western governments to install pro-Soviet fascist dictatorships. Seen “Syriana” one too many times, have you? The reason Saddam believed he was safe was his oil field exploitation deals with France, Russia and China. He bought their Security Council votes, secure in the belief that the US was too weak to act without UN approval. Like you, he was a fool.
>That would certainly would have been
>true, had Saddam actually HAD any.
I invite you to open the serch engine of your choice and type one word: Halabja. The dead are, oddly, far more eloquent than the living.
In fact, I’ll save you the trouble. Follow this link to learn something of the Anfal campaign.
There are people (Liberals) that could trip over WMD’s and dead bodies and you could prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Saddam was responsible, they still would say what WMD’s and Bush is to blame for the dead. Their hatred for Bush is such that they are blinded and refuse to digest any facts or information that would shake their beliefs. These people believe there isn’t any reason at all for War even when diplomacy has completely broken down. These same people would give up their freedoms and everyone elses wringing the hands and saying we just need to understand these people more as those same people goose step right over us.
Found this on the Drudge Report if this doesn’t take the cake these peaceniks (moonbats) were freed by coalition forces and their families said they were freed no mention of the US and British solders on a raid the freed them. They can’t even acknowledge that our troops freed them they make it sound as if the terrorist let them go so give them back to the terrorist the ungrateful idiots!
steve(FN), why do you hate Israel so that you can’t even get your facts straight? There were Askenazi and Shepardic Jews in the land that is Israel for all recorded history. The Arabs only occupied Israel after Rome and then the Ottoman Empire scattered the Jews.
Why does everyone dislike the Jews? Always being scattered and chased off? Peace
Hmmmmmm, what are you trying to say steve? That they deserved it? Your anti-Semitism is absolutely astounding. Hey, wanna claim that the holocaust was a fraud?! Maybe you’ll save that for next week.
NC Cop, no Steve(FN) won’t wait until next week just give him a few minutes he’ll spout something so unquestionably stupid it will amaze everyone.
Yeah, damn those evil Joooos. They believe in hard work, education, family, saving money, all those evil disruptive things like that! Why, they move into an area, and pretty soon, people are wondering why they do so well! Can’t be the hard work and education thing, or that we’re stupid and lazy, must be something evil they’re doing, the bastages! We hate anyone that makes us look bad!
The Joooos left the noble Palestinians fully functional greenhouses that could be used to make tons of money growing vegetables and flowers, and then they forced the Palestinians to destroy them, evil I tell you, just evil!
I love the Jews, don’t like Zionists much though. They so easily slide from Zionist to Jews to Israel to anti-semite, like those are all the same persons and things. No differentiation between Ashkenazi or Arab-semite. But, thats why the Zionists have been able to convience themselves that Palestine is really Israel. Or that black is white. They are morally bankrupt. Peace