Betting on Defeat?

Locked
Haydnseek
Posts: 1211
Joined: Tue May 20, 2003 7:59 am
Location: Maryland, USA

Betting on Defeat?

Post by Haydnseek » Fri Jun 16, 2006 1:25 pm

Betting on Defeat?
It’s far from a safe bet.

By Victor Davis Hanson

Lately, it has become popular to recant on Iraq. When 2,500 Americans are lost, and when the improvised explosive device monopolizes the war coverage, it is easy to see why — especially with elections coming up in November, and presidential primaries not long after.

Pundits now daily equivocate in their understandable exasperation at the apparent lack of quantifiable progress. The ranks of public supporters have thinned as final victory seems elusive. It is hard to find any consistent public advocates of the American effort in Iraq other than the editors and writers here at National Review, the Wall Street Journal, Christopher Hitchens, Charles Krauthammer, Mark Steyn, Norman Podhoretz, and a very few principled others.

But for all the despair, note all the problems for those who have triangulated throughout this war.

First, those who undergo the opportune conversion often fall prey to disingenuousness. Take John Kerry’s recent repudiation of his earlier vote for the war in Iraq. To cheers of Democratic activists, he now laments, “We were misled.”

Misled?

Putting aside the question of weapons of mass destruction and the use of the royal “we,” was the senator suggesting that Iraq did not violate the 1991 armistice accords?

Or that Saddam Hussein did not really gas and murder his own people?

Perhaps he was “misled” into thinking Iraqi agents did not really plan to murder former President George Bush?

Or postfacto have we learned that Saddam did not really shield terrorists?

Apparently the Iraqi regime neither violated U.N. accords nor shot at American planes in the no-fly zones.

Senator Kerry, at least if I remember correctly, voted for the joint congressional resolution of October 11, 2002, authorizing a war against Iraq, on the basis of all these and several other casus belli, well apart from fear of WMDs.

Second, those with a shifting position on the war sometimes cannot keep up with a war that is shifting itself, where things change hourly. And when one has no consistent or principled position, the 24-hour battlefield usually proves a fickle barometer by which to exude military wisdom.

Even as critics were equating Haditha with My Lai, al-Zarqawi, the al Qaeda mass murderer in Iraq, was caught and killed. And what was the reaction of the stunned antiwar pundit or politician? Either we heard that there was impropriety involved in killing such a demon, or the former fugitive who was once supposedly proof of our ineptness suddenly was reinvented as having been irrelevant all along.

The Iraqi army — well over 250,000 strong — is growing, and the much smaller American force (about 130,000) is shrinking. How do you call for a deadline for withdrawal when Iraqization was always predicated on withdrawal only after there was no Iraqi dependence on a large, static American force?

After lamenting that the Iraqi government is a mess, we now see a tough prime minister and the selection of his cabinet completed. So it is not easy to offer somber platitudes of defeat when 400,000 coalition and Iraqi troops are daily fighting on the center stage of the war against Islamic terrorism. Someone from Mars might wonder what exactly were the conditions under which a quarter-million Muslim Arabs in Iraq alone went to war against Islamic radicalism.

Third, there is a fine line to be drawn between legitimate criticism of a war that is supposedly not worth American blood and treasure and general slander of the United States and its military. Yet much of the Left’s rhetoric was not merely anti-Bush, but in its pessimism devolved into de facto anti-Americanism.

Senator Durbin compared Guantanamo Bay to the worst excesses of the Nazis. Senator Kennedy suggested that Abu Ghraib, where thousands perished under Saddam Hussein, had simply “reopened under new management: U.S. management.” Democratic-party chairman Howard Dean confidently asserted that the Iraq war was not winnable. John Kerry in his youth alleged that Americans were like Genghis Khan in their savagery; in his golden years, he once again insists that we are “terrorizing” Iraqi civilians. With friends like these, what war critic needs enemies? Americans can take disapproval that we are not fighting “smart,” but they resent the notion that we are somehow downright evil.

Fourth, the mainstream media is now discredited on Iraq, and their drumbeat of doom and gloom is starting to rile more than pleases the public. Aside from the bias that counts always our losses and rarely our successes, we are sick and tired of manipulations like the lies about flushed Korans, forged memos, and the rush to judgment on Haditha. Most weary Americans want at least a moment to savor the death of a mass-murdering Zarqawi, without having to lament that he might have been saved by quicker medical intervention.

Fifth, the historical assessment of Iraq is still undetermined, despite the pontification of former supporters who think they gain greater absolution the more vehemently they trash a war they once advocated.

The three-week effort to remove Saddam Hussein was a landmark success. The subsequent three-year occupation in his place has been messy, costly, and unpopular. But the result of the third and final stage that Iraq has evolved into — an existential fight between Iraqi democracy and al Qaeda and Islamic fundamentalism — is still uncertain. If we draw the terrorists out, defeat them in the heart of the ancient caliphate, and win the allegiance of enough democratic Iraqis to crush the Islamicists, then our military has won a far greater victory than the removal of Saddam Hussein.

Sixth, note how critics now rarely offer alternative scenarios. All the old gripes such as the paucity of body armor or thin-skinned humvees have withered away. The Iraqi elected government is sympathetic and earnest, so demonizing them ultimately translates into something like “Cut these guys lose; they weren’t worth the effort.” Yes, the American people want out of Iraq, but on terms that preserve the democracy that we paid so dearly to foster.

Even the one legitimate criticism that we were too slow in turning over control to the Iraqis, and that the Bremmer interregnum had too high a public profile, is now largely moot, as Ambassador Khalilzad and Gen. Casey are in the shadows, giving all the credit to the very public Iraqis and taking most of the blame for the bad news.

So we are nearing the denouement of the Iraq war, where we wanted to be all along: in support of a full-fledged and democratically elected government that will either win or lose its own struggle.

Seventh, the old twin charges — no link between al Qaeda and Saddam, no WMDs — are also becoming largely irrelevant or proving untrue. It must have been difficult for Time, Newsweek, and the New York Times, in their coverage of the death of Zarqawi, to admit that he had been active in Iraq well before the end of Saddam Hussein, along with a mishmash of old killers from Abu Nidal to Abdul Rahman Yasin, the Iraqi American who helped plan the first World Trade Center bombing.

In addition, most abroad were convinced before the war that the CIA was right in its pre-war assessments. The publication of the Iraqi archives points to a real, not a phantom and former, WMD capability — in line with efforts elsewhere in the Islamic world, from Iran to Libya, to reclaim something akin to the old Soviet deterrent.

The costs in Iraq have been high and the losses tragic. But nothing in the past three years has convinced me otherwise than that in a post-September 11 world Saddam had to be removed on ethical and strategic grounds;

or that the insurgency, though unexpected in its intensity, could be put down by a U.S. military that would react and evolve more quickly than the terrorists to changing conditions on the ground;

or that our mistakes, though several and undeniable, are tragically the stuff of war, and so far have not proved to be irreversible or beyond what we experienced in any of our past efforts;

or that the maligned secretary of Defense was right about troop levels and the plan for Iraqization — although demonized for trying to transform the very nature of the American military in the midst of a war;

or that we are engaged in the great humanitarian effort of the age, as “one person, one vote” has brought to the perennially downtrodden Arab Shiites a real chance at equality;

or that the best method of winning this global struggle against fascistic Islamic terrorism remains fostering in the Middle East a third democratic alternative between autocracy and theocracy that alone can deal with the modern world.

Once a democratically elected Iraqi government emerged, and a national army was trained, the only way we could lose this war was to forfeit it at home, through the influence of an adroit, loud minority of critics that for either base or misguided reasons really does wish us to lose. They really do.

— Victor Davis Hanson is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. He is the author, most recently, of A War Like No Other. How the Athenians and Spartans Fought the Peloponnesian War.


http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OD ... Q3MTczZjM=
"The law isn't justice. It's a very imperfect mechanism. If you press exactly the right buttons and are also lucky, justice may show up in the answer. A mechanism is all the law was ever intended to be." - Raymond Chandler

Barry
Posts: 10344
Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2004 3:50 pm

Post by Barry » Fri Jun 16, 2006 1:36 pm

I check out Hanson's site with all of his essays from time to time, and I often agree with much of what he has to say. But he does sometimes go over the edge when it comes to objectivity. And I'd have to say his claim that it turns out Rumsfeld was right all along with regard to troop strength is one of those cases where he's more cheerleader than objective analyst.

It's understandable that he'd feel the need to put up an entirely positive front though in the face of what he correctly perceives as overwhelmingly negative coverage that disproportionally emphasizes the negative over the positive aspects of the war by the MSM.
Last edited by Barry on Fri Jun 16, 2006 2:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"If this is coffee, please bring me some tea; but if this is tea, please bring me some coffee." - Abraham Lincoln

"Although prepared for martyrdom, I preferred that it be postponed." - Winston Churchill

"Before I refuse to take your questions, I have an opening statement." - Ronald Reagan

http://www.davidstuff.com/political/wmdquotes.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pbp0hur ... re=related

Werner
CMG's Elder Statesman
Posts: 4223
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 9:23 pm
Location: Irvington, NY

Post by Werner » Fri Jun 16, 2006 2:40 pm

You're right, Barry - this strikes me as an over-the-top effort to justify all the Administration has done in its misguided efforts in this war. And the constant maligning of what is called the MSM - in contrast, I suppose, to the ever-right rightwing journals, is nothing new. And Mr. Hansen's justification of Rumsfield, after all the misadventures under his wing, shows hte objectivity of his piece.

Yet, after all this time, the death of Zarquavi and the long-overdue appearance of an organized Iraqui government - may it succeed! - does seem to hint at the possibility of a successful outcome, which is much to be hoped for.

Much as I have opposed - and still do - this President, he will leave the country - and his reputation - better off if the successes the troops have fought - and died - for turn out to be within reach. This would be one case where a misguided approach to a problem that was probably better handled in other ways may, after all the pain, come out on the correct side. And in that case we can thank our lucky stars.

Of course, some will answer me that in the place of the lucky stars we had wise and all-competent leadership. I will kindly withold any eply.
Werner Isler

Cosima__J

Post by Cosima__J » Fri Jun 16, 2006 3:04 pm

It's going to take a bit of time to translate all of the captured documents from the various "not-so-safe" houses of the terrorists, but who can doubt that they will indeed prove to be a treasure trove of information about Al Quaida in Iraq and about how terrorists think and operate.

If I were one of the doomsayers who regularly grab a microphone and say that the US made a mistake to go to Iraq and that the world is worse off because of it, I think I'd shut up for awhile and see what those captured documents reveal. Already we've learned that Zarqawi was worried and disheartened by the progress the US and our Iraqi allies have made in combatting the terrorist insurgents. And yet all the American doomsayers can say is that we're failing.
Last edited by Cosima__J on Fri Jun 16, 2006 3:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Cosima__J

Post by Cosima__J » Fri Jun 16, 2006 3:09 pm

Just as an aside, I'm currently Victor Davis Hanson's book "A War Like No Other" about the Peloponnesian War. I love ancient history.

Barry
Posts: 10344
Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2004 3:50 pm

Post by Barry » Fri Jun 16, 2006 3:44 pm

Cosima__J wrote:Just as an aside, I'm currently Victor Davis Hanson's book "A War Like No Other" about the Peloponnesian War. I love ancient history.
Cosima,
I recommend Robert D. Kaplan's "Warrior Politics' on how both ancient and more recent history should be consulted as a guide for dealing with modern problems.
"If this is coffee, please bring me some tea; but if this is tea, please bring me some coffee." - Abraham Lincoln

"Although prepared for martyrdom, I preferred that it be postponed." - Winston Churchill

"Before I refuse to take your questions, I have an opening statement." - Ronald Reagan

http://www.davidstuff.com/political/wmdquotes.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pbp0hur ... re=related

Lilith
Posts: 1020
Joined: Sat May 14, 2005 5:42 pm

Post by Lilith » Fri Jun 16, 2006 4:35 pm

I'm sick and tired of all the people who use the words 'victory' and/or 'defeat'.
We are nation building - a very very difficult task - at the end of which will almost certainly be something less than 'victory' and even more certainly not 'defeat'.

Unfortunately, its the President who has consistantly used that word 'victory'. Always talking about 'Victory in Iraq', 'victory over the terrorists'.... distorting the truth with simplistic ideas and misleading phrases. Blending fact and fiction (Like Pizza does) at will to defend some of the administration's actions.

Corlyss_D
Site Administrator
Posts: 27663
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2005 2:25 am
Location: The Great State of Utah
Contact:

Post by Corlyss_D » Fri Jun 16, 2006 11:50 pm

Cosima__J wrote:If I were one of the doomsayers who regularly grab a microphone and say that the US made a mistake to go to Iraq and that the world is worse off because of it, I think I'd shut up for awhile
Yes, but they aren't as smart as you are, Cos. And fortunately for the few good guys left in the Congress, the doomsayers won't shut up. I hear that today, I guess during the debate on the vacuous resolution on the war, Murtha repeated his inexplicable call for the US to emulate the Clinton strategy that succeeded so well in Somalia: flee. I'm sure that will figure prominently in the ads of every Republican running for office this fall.
Corlyss
Contessa d'EM, a carbon-based life form

Barry
Posts: 10344
Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2004 3:50 pm

Post by Barry » Sat Jun 17, 2006 10:55 am

Corlyss_D wrote:
Cosima__J wrote:If I were one of the doomsayers who regularly grab a microphone and say that the US made a mistake to go to Iraq and that the world is worse off because of it, I think I'd shut up for awhile
Yes, but they aren't as smart as you are, Cos. And fortunately for the few good guys left in the Congress, the doomsayers won't shut up. I hear that today, I guess during the debate on the vacuous resolution on the war, Murtha repeated his inexplicable call for the US to emulate the Clinton strategy that succeeded so well in Somalia: flee. .
Not to mention the Reagan strategy in Lebanon; probably his single worst foreign policy decision.
"If this is coffee, please bring me some tea; but if this is tea, please bring me some coffee." - Abraham Lincoln

"Although prepared for martyrdom, I preferred that it be postponed." - Winston Churchill

"Before I refuse to take your questions, I have an opening statement." - Ronald Reagan

http://www.davidstuff.com/political/wmdquotes.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pbp0hur ... re=related

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests