The political left is showing signs of nervousness about Iraq. Why? Not because Bush's policy has failed, but because it may yet succeed. Bush continues to exhibit confidence even in the face of low poll ratings. In his latest speech he said a "free Iraq" that can stand on its own is now within reach. "A free Iraq...will be an example that provides hope for millions throughout the Middle East, it will be a friend of the United States, and it's going to be an important ally in the ideological struggle of the twenty-first century."
A scary idea for some people. No wonder that leading Senators and Congressmen have rushed to condemn Bush's optimism. Witness Senator Carl Levin's latest attack on the Iraqi Prime Minister, coupled with his absurd demand for Iraqis to elect someone else. Not that these congressional back-seat drivers have better information than the president, nor can they (as they did last November) claim a popular mandate. Let's remember that the poll ratings for Congress are even lower than Bush's. In fact, Congress has the support of less than 20 percent of the American people. Even Democrats don't like the way the Democratic Congress has been doing business. Bush has very little to fear from these folks.
Here are the positive signs. The Iraqi insurgents seem unable to launch effective large-scale attacks on U.S. targets. They no longer threaten to overthrow the elected government. Al Qaeda has, according to its own captured documents, been reduced to hit-and-run operations. Even the insurgents' mosque-burning and pilgrim-shooting strategy can be seen as moves of desperation. Several Sunni leaders have turned against Al Qaeda and are now cooperating with U.S. forces. While we wait for the official reports, it seems that the troop buildup has helped to neutralize insurgent strongholds and to provide a bulwark of protection. Meanwhile, the training of Iraqi troops proceeds.
If America succeeds in Iraq, Bush will have proved the critics wrong and his leadership will be vindicated, just as Reagan's was when the Berlin Wall came down. If that happens, think of all the people who will feel like fools. Think of all the political hopes that will be dashed. Quite a few people--not just Islamic radicals but also left-wing Democrats--would find themselves in a very awkward position if Iraq turns a corner.
Reader Comments ( Page 2 of 4)
16. Christopher, people that blow up buses, market places and schools can't be allowed to win because if they do, they will rule the World.
Rich at 6:50PM on Aug 23rd 2007
17. CHENEY '94': IRAQI QUAGMIRE.....C-SPAN
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BEsZMvrq-I
CAN WE BELIEVE ANYTHING THIS LYING ADMIN. SAYS? MAYBE DEAD EYE DICK SHOULD HAVE LISTENED TO HIS OWN ADVISE??
sandy at 8:34PM on Aug 23rd 2007
18. Timber, Naivity is not always a good thing to posess.
Do you truly believe Mr. Bush would say 'Hey, we just got us a shitload of oil offered to us by Iraq'
and give us a heads up? Considering the 'leader of our country' cannot even properly pronounce 'nuclear', I find the above usage of language appropriate for Mr. Bush. Do you think Viet Nam did not involve oil, as well?
Rich, as per your usual posts, since Palestine does the blowing up of many things, the Ku Klux Klan burnt, raped, murdered and blew things up, persons resposible for the genocide in Darfur blow up lots and lots of things and , hey, guess what? They friggin' don't rule the world, yeah?
It is shameful you use the monicker of of one of the greatest jazz musicians ever to hurl your idiocies, ugh, hard to say, Birdman. Mr. Jones, the use of the political party named 'Democrat' is not an obscenity nor is it used in reference to half-wits. By choosing to disagree with the policy of war in this country, Viet Nam and Iraq, is a constitutional right. You have only made proof positive by referring to 'when America loses', as indeed it has on many occasions. It does not in any way make me happy, it saddens me that as a country partisanship has taken on an evil and destructive manner that takes particular glee from belittling those that have a belief in a better and more peaceful world. By maintaining a sense of tolerance and understanding of all religions, I say religions only, due to fact of seething hatred aimed at certain religious and ethnic groups. By demanding better and simpler ways to acheive a decent world order, amongst many other things.
If this means to be a Democrat, I am surely proud to be called as such.
rhodalee at 8:41PM on Aug 23rd 2007
19. Pardon, I meant possess.
rhodalee at 8:42PM on Aug 23rd 2007
20. If we win and we still could, you are
so right about the problem the left
is faced with. People will begin to
understand that the left has been
lying to them all along.
Hillary can end up the first Politician
to proclaim, she was for it, before she
was against it, before she was for it
again. She probably stand up and take
credit for the win, like a certain vice
President took credit for the success of
the inter net, remember, Al.
I mean the liberal news would still be
fine with her running and not even blink
an eye to stay behind her.
I believe God does not want the
terrorists to win, no matter what some
waco preacher says.
I'm Christian and He said those who bless
Israel, God would bless. We're still I
hope standing behind Israel for a long
time into the future.
Those liberals who want us to turn our
backs on Israel do not understand true
Islam. Muslims do not like the liberal
things the US does and this is the major
reason they believe we are the great
Satan. If there were no Christians here
and that will be that way soon with the
exception of backsliders, then the
US will be in trouble. Big trouble and
no God to stand in their way.
Right now I give Him credit for standing
on our part even though we have been
turning our backs to Him. Jesus is Love
and Love never fails. Like the Word says,
if we deny Him, yet if His Spirit abides
faithful, He cannot deny Himself.
He's here, or they would be!
William Ehlert at 9:23PM on Aug 23rd 2007
21. This is almost too delusional to even comment on. You have no clue Dinesh what is happening in Iraq or America. I'll only say the thing people like you do not seem to get is A) There is nothing to "Win" in Iraq.. Sorry Neocons there is no pony..
B) Even if there was something to win it will not have been worth the TRILLION of our tax dollars it will eventually cost. So even if your Neocon wet dream could somehow come true you still pay the price politically.. Say buh-bye.. Yes Iraq really was a lose lose situation from the start.
Joe at 9:35PM on Aug 23rd 2007
22. Responding to Rhodalee (#16):
Your post suggests a rather pompous ad self-righteous attitude!
You read too literally, and even then, you fail to pay attention to the specific words used. You need to read with an open-mind, with a broader focus, with some imagination.
In post #13, Rich wrote: “people that blow up buses, market places and schools can't be allowed to win because if they do, they will rule the World.”
He did not say a PERSON who uses violence will rule the world.. He was not talking about a single despot. He was talking about people in general who use violence to rule their part of the world. Can you imagine what will happen if the terrorists are not stopped. Once fanatics see that terrorism is successful, once they see that the “civilized” parts of the world are too apathetic or cowardly to get involved, then, more and more fanatics will adopt that approach to accomplish their goals and impose their agendas.
These fanatics may not have a “global vision”. They may only care about their little corner. But, if there are hundreds or thousands of these fanatics, grouped together in hundreds of small groups, they can in fact have a huge impact on this world. Is that the world you want to live in? Is that the world you want your children (assuming you have or will have any) to live in?
Prior to WW2, America failed to show any backbone towards Germany and Japan. The “peacelovers” thought their approach to the obvious growing struggles and conflicts was the “morally right” approach. Their apathy led to the deaths of tens of millions of people. Take note – I write this from Shanghai China. Japan invaded China in 1931, a full 10 years before they attacked Pearl Harbor. Millions of Chinese suffered and died because the rest of the world simply did not care. I guess the Chinese were not “white enough” for the “peacelovers” to care. Can you imagine how much suffering could have been avoided if we had convinced the Japanese we would fight and fight to win? Keep in mind, many in Japan knew we were the stronger nation. They knew that if we chose to fight, Japan would lose. Their hope was that people like you would convince our government not to fight at all. On behalf of the millions who died in the Pacific Theatre, thanks for caring!!
Part of the problem is that you always see the struggles as between two adults or two groups of adults. From your perspective, “let ‘em fight it out”. However, there are “innocent” bystanders: children, elderly, who are not able to defend themselves or even get out of the way. They are the ones that the world has to care about.
Rhodalee – I challenge you and all other “peacelovers” to show me one major conflict that was solved without the use of violence. (There may actually be one or two; I just can’t think of any.) True – long-term solutions require non-military solutions. But, it has always taken a “military” response to quell the initial violence, root out the oppressors, and bring the opposing sides to the table to settle their differences and do what is best for the children.
In 1993, Clinton bowed to political pressure (from both sides of political aisle) and stayed out of the conflict in Rwanda. A decision he later regretted. Over a million died, because the America and the rest of the “free and civilized” world did not care. Again, I guess the victims were too black. Even for black Americans.
Tell me, Rhodalee, since you are so wise and moral, what is the solution to the conflict in Darfur? Huh? How many 100,000s of children and women must suffer and die before the rest of the world develops the moral character. Are the victims I Darfur too black for you to care?
(BTW – I am a democrat myself!)
ray at 10:15PM on Aug 23rd 2007
23. More soldiers dying every single day. No plan. No progress.
Iraqi govt. on vacation.
if Iraq turns a corner? if a pig has wings?
snap out of it.
michael white at 10:34PM on Aug 23rd 2007
24. I'm sorry, but I can't pass this up.
"Here are the positive signs." (D.D.)
1. "Several Sunni leaders have turned against Al Qaeda and are now cooperating with U.S. forces." (D.D.)
"Tens of millions of dollars have been handed out to various tribes and guerilla groups for ceasing attacks on US troops in exchange for an amnesty and assisting the US military to hunt down fighters who refuse to be bought off."
http://www.inteldaily.com/?c=172&a=3282
2. "While we wait for the official reports, it seems that the troop buildup has helped to neutralize insurgent strongholds and to provide a bulwark of protection." (D.D.)
"There are more than 80,000 detainees in the prisons of the government and the occupation forces. People are thrown in prison just for being Sunni," he said."
http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2007/858/re71.htm
3. "Al Qaeda has, according to its own captured documents, been reduced to hit-and-run operations." (D.D.)
As opposed to.....what? And besides,...
"Last month, Ned Parker of the Los Angeles Times reported that of the 19,000 detainees in U.S. custody in Iraq, only 135 were foreigners -- the most likely indicator of membership in al-Qaeda."
http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/003972.php
4. "The Iraqi insurgents seem unable to launch effective large-scale attacks on U.S. targets." (D.D.)
U.S. targets!? What U.S. targets. And what Iraqi insurgents is D.D. referring to? He can't be talking about the Sunni insurgents that are being bought off, or being locked up because they won't be bought off, can he!?
Boy o' boy o' boy 'o boy.
vegastracon at 11:45PM on Aug 23rd 2007
25. "people that blow up buses, market places and schools can't be allowed to win because if they do, they will rule the World."
if that's the case, then NOBODY in iraq can be allowed to win, including us americans. EVERYBODY has blown up somebody else's buses, market places and schools. the shiite militias blow up the sunnis' and the sunnis blow up the shiites'. and we--remember "shock and awe"? you think our air strikes are "surgical"?--blow up our share of both.
dial back to 2003, when lefties marching in the streets tried to tell the bushites that the result of invading iraq would result in american troops getting ground up in the midst of a civil war, they were laughed at, and worse. the bushites were certain we'd be "welcomed as liberators" and even have flowers thrown at us. then came "all major combat operations in iraq have ceased," and "mission accomplished" and--how quickly we forget--"bring it on." oh yes, and "the insurgency is in its last throes."
all this because 19 non-iraqi terrorists, financed by saudi arabia, schooled in pakistan, trained in afghanistan attacked us and killed 3,000 americans. no, wait, it was because of WMDs. no, wait, it was because of a meeting in prague, or aluminum tubes, or yellow cake uranium, or something. no, wait, it was because the bushites--who were previously dead set against squandering american resources on "nation-building"--suddenly decided to do some nation-building.
now we've got bush saying "the iraqi government's got to do more." or what, we'll leave? we invade a country that wasn't a threat, that was, in fact, a kind of bulwark against al qaida; we set up a puppet government (if you don't think it's a puppet government, how come it can't tell us what to do inside it's own borders, instead of the reverse?), we say that we can't leave and let the puppet government fail, and we tell the puppet government we aren't satisfied with it. just what, pray tell, is our leverage there? if the puppet government doesn't shape up we'll leave?
the bushites told us at first not to worry because the war in iraq was nothing like the war in vietnam. and now, guess what? we have to worry because the war in iraq is a lot like the war in vietnam.
if this all weren't such a complete horror, this whole orwellian excercise--and mr. d'souza's grasping-at-straws "what if?"--would be a bleakly funny farce. if iraq "turns a corner", there'll simply be another corner to turn, and another, and another, and....
enough.
slowbadhands at 11:48PM on Aug 23rd 2007
26. one im tired of the dick cheney you tube video that was 13 years ago. Alot can change in tha amount of time (for example 9/11). Also stop bringing up the oil we are not taking oil from iraq. Weather you like this war or not were in it and the best and least bloodiest way of wining is fighting it and souporting it. And i hate to say it but democrates do usually love it when america fails so they can blame the conservitives and throw hard working peoples money at the victims.
jubblins at 1:47AM on Aug 24th 2007
27. Dinesh, you and Bush must be smoking the same stuff--and it ain't tobacco.
"Bush continues to exhibit confidence.." Yeah, well, that's SOP for Delusionals.
emelpe at 1:43AM on Aug 24th 2007
28. It is not a big surprise that in the areas where the surge has been implemented that violence has decreased while in the areas outside of the surge violence has increased. This is exactly what happened during the previous four surges.
What happened when the surges were finished, violence increased. The same pattern will happen here. Even Bush has said that troops from the surge will start coming back in 2008. Once this happens, violence will increase again. So far this strategy has a 100% failure rate and there is no reason to assume the fifth incarnation of this strategy will work any better than the other surges.
BTW, Al Queda has never been the biggest threat in Iraq. According to the US military it accounts for less that 10% of the insurgency. It just hits bigger targets than most groups. The chance of Al Queda claiming power in Iraq is almost zero as the Iraqi people have never accepted Al Queda.
Jim at 2:07AM on Aug 24th 2007
29. Lets assume that you are right how can you justify the loss of so many lives and the destruction occasioned by an invasion based on a falsehood just like vietnam was ? Remember the domino effect ? and the weapons of mass destruction and bush condemnation of country building ?
Under Bush the American empire is testing its limits and our leaders should follow our founding fathers who said "Do not look for dragons to slay"
emmanuel at 3:09AM on Aug 24th 2007
30. iraq has turned a corner. right,onto a collision course.free iraq is more bush baloney. it's called disinformation. as for "hope." hope is relative, ituational. bush's hope is NOT logical.other jihadists have hope -far different than bush's but,for them,entirely logical- for their region,too.
pure propoganda:"ideological struggle." OMG!isn't "ideological" a communist word? sounds like something MAO Tse-Dong or stalin said. it's just more foot-in-mouth dis-ease! WTF?! "free" vis a vis the MidEast=Iran,the islamic "republic". it's a theocracy. republic translates to "iran without the shah,without the interference of america,left to our own devices, praise allah." we can't manipulate them.we don't hope for freedom to visit the mid-east!The bush fam's saudi buddy-the royal fam-rules that vassal state/personal fiefdom as an absolute monarchy. bush & co like doing business with the saudis. is it important that country should be "free?" not for us, no! syria has a despot but no oil.skip the hope for freedom for syria. who cares? and we're friendly with less-than-free kuwait-sheikdom; the arab emirates-autocracy.ditto bahrain,qatar,abu dubai,oman. so let's clarify what the prez (& you)is talking about? hope in the mid-east = let us do what we want; give us the oil and we'll close our eyes to hope and freedom.in fact, to preserve the status quo,we'll give you any assistance in stifling any movement toward democracy in your countries. that's the only ideology the US wants/needs.
and you,dinesh, just keep getting dumber and dumber.
bush will never be vindicated! he(and congress) started a war based on lies. those lies have killed over 4thousand americans and hundreds of thousands of iraqis, destabilized the country,& essentially, hosted a civil war.as for your parallel to "mr gorbachev,tear down this wall" Reagan has that iran-contra illegal(not to mention hypocritical-just say "no" to drugs for guns")anomaly that should have got HIM impeached. The wall had nothing to do with Reagan and everything to do with people sick and tired of their leaders.
"several" sunni leaders "turning against" al-qaeda means-what?-the various sects have been turning against one another for years. not much of an "improvement." appending "positive" to "several?!"that's NOT positive,dinesh! "meager," is the real description.
like mccain, dinesh, you're head is armored. and i consider it dangerous. you neglect to mention iraq's infrastructure is in a shambles. people are hungry.water is contaminated. building superstructures have commenced but remained unfinished. completely derilict. seems electricity helps a lot when it comes to modern day construction.but not twice a day for unpredictable hours. also, workers don't enjoy being shot dead on the job. or blown to pieces. remember the proliferation of car bombs and EIDs? surge hasn't prevented those. besides, in military strategy, hit and run helps to demoralise troops. o,yeah,roads are barely navigatable.gas supply tankers are ambushed on the trek across the desert.there's been an exodus of doctors, lawyers, business people, scientists, engineers et al.have to any country other than iraq.
so i can see NO hope in this brand of freedom that is continuing to destroy iraq.they are not interested in institutionalizing bush and co's concept of freedom. western freedom is considered morally corrupt and satanic.
Bush is blind, borish, and braindead as ever. you, too, dinesh. you are so egregiously naive. to believe (even in dreams) that radical fundamentalist islamists will feel "awkward" should we succeed. iraq,hope,success,freedom=more oxymorons and you're a moron to swallow this gag-me-with-a-hook,line and sinker ideology.
boredwell at 3:32AM on Aug 24th 2007