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 3 of 4)
31. .I would ask those that simply say this war is about oil some questions.Have you seen any hybrid carrier task groups of this nation on the high seas? Have you seen any aircraft or armament of this nation that operate as "hybrids"?Do you expect to see any in the next 50 years or so?Do you think we can allow any specific place in this world to control the flow of oil?If any administration of this nation allows that,you will see the last war.If you survive,good luck starting over.Incidentally, your environment undoubtedly,will then kill you.
bob at 4:47PM on Aug 24th 2007
32. Congrats Dinesh, you're on the list:
http://www.hairyfishnuts.com/archive/00_desperate.htm
You do know that everything you've written here is either a lie or at best demonstrably wrong? That this is just a plea for everyone to ignore the disaster in Iraq for the sake of your Dear Leader?
But keep it up, I love that fundamentalists like you are continuing to marginalize themselves, sort of a self-neutering.
salvage at 8:49AM on Aug 24th 2007
33. ANOTHER "CORNER"?
Our blind Bush supporters are once again returning to the old mantra of "turning corners". Since the invasion of Iraq this administration has turned so many "corners" I doubt they know where they are any longer. Maybe they just keep turning around the same structure over and over again or, they don't know what a "corner" is.
Perhaps someone should walk into the George Bush's office and point out to him that the shape of the room is "oval", there are no corners. Were that pointed out to him he might then understand what "turning a corner" means.
Robert I. Laitres at 9:08AM on Aug 24th 2007
34. Ray, speaking of too literal....Inferring I have an elitist attitude, only shows your inane sense of verbiage. The mention of Darfur is due to the fact I donate to http://www.NotOnOurWatchProject.org. They are advocates of action against genocide occurring in Darfur, raise help and money for health of persons affected by this Genocide, provise shelter and help children cope with conflict. I certainly am one sick pup, yeah? Real friggin' self rightous. If you misunderstood my post you only have yourself to blame. Your rant against me makes me not care a wit whether you are Dem Or Rep..
Did I say people that blow up things? Palestinians
re not A PERSON, KKK are not A PERSON, the Janjaweed Militia responsible for the Genocide in Darfur are not A PERSON, they are groups that advocate violence and are not ruling the world, Entiende?
Sir, do not attempt to involve youself in the right of an individual to glean what they find meaninful or meaningless from a post. This is a blog, sir, not a novel by Alexander Herzen.
If you deem persons that think peace is actually a GOOD THING, simply put, I fell empathy towards you, sir.
To attempt to twist my words to extract and become what you feel is what I posted is your right, but do not attempt to infer that the meaning of my words are what YOU SAY THEY ARE.
You CHALLENGE me? I would never banter with a person of misinformation and ignorance regarding wars and religious tolerance, it is a lose/lose situation. I beat hell out of you regarding FACTUAL info, anyway.
Pardon me, sir, I never saw you at the marches against the Viet Nam war/invasion....Hmmmmm. I served in the USAF, disabled Viet Nam Era Vet, Honorably Discharged. I feel it gives me the right to speak on military matters, yeah?
I will not banter with you, any posts referring to myself, consider ignored. I've better things to do.........
Peace be with you, you certainly require some. And a bit of knowledge, as well.
rhodalee at 9:27AM on Aug 24th 2007
35. Ray, speaking of too literal....Inferring I have an elitist attitude, only shows your inane sense of verbiage. The mention of Darfur is due to the fact I donate to http://www.NotOnOurWatchProject.org. They are advocates of action against genocide occurring in Darfur, raise help and money for health of persons affected by this Genocide, provise shelter and help children cope with conflict. I certainly am one sick pup, yeah? Real friggin' self rightous. If you misunderstood my post you only have yourself to blame. Your rant against me makes me not care a wit whether you are Dem Or Rep..
Did I say people that blow up things? Palestinians
re not A PERSON, KKK are not A PERSON, the Janjaweed Militia responsible for the Genocide in Darfur are not A PERSON, they are groups that advocate violence and are not ruling the world, Entiende?
Sir, do not attempt to involve youself in the right of an individual to glean what they find meaninful or meaningless from a post. This is a blog, sir, not a novel by Alexander Herzen.
If you deem persons that think peace is actually a GOOD THING, simply put, I fell empathy towards you, sir.
To attempt to twist my words to extract and become what you feel is what I posted is your right, but do not attempt to infer that the meaning of my words are what YOU SAY THEY ARE.
You CHALLENGE me? I would never banter with a person of misinformation and ignorance regarding wars and religious tolerance, it is a lose/lose situation. I beat hell out of you regarding FACTUAL info, anyway.
Pardon me, sir, I never saw you at the marches against the Viet Nam war/invasion....Hmmmmm. I served in the USAF, disabled Viet Nam Era Vet, Honorably Discharged. I feel it gives me the right to speak on military matters, yeah?
I will not banter with you, any posts referring to myself, consider ignored. I've better things to do.........
Peace be with you, you certainly require some. And a bit of knowledge, as well.
rhodalee at 9:27AM on Aug 24th 2007
36. damn, Twann, I lost my map. Will GPS be okay?
rhodalee at 9:29AM on Aug 24th 2007
37. Mr D'Souza is a former Reagan aide who is going to tout the greatness of his political party to line his own pockets for the rest of his life. This war whether won or lost is a killer for the GOP and will be for many years to come. Even if Mr. Bush succeeds it wont be known for years and years to come and the bloodshed of US Soldiers will continue to anger Americans for ages. I can say this ....WHen The General gives his report in September good or bad you will see the GOP candidates who were for this war run for the hills in hopes of re-election.
Neil at 11:45AM on Aug 24th 2007
38. Thanks for the blog, Dinesh Good to be reminded that we Americans are not all idiots with our heads buried in the sands of denial. President Bush is not infallible; neither is he stupid. Do I agree with everything that has transpired in Iraq since the war began? Of course not. Would I wish for a stronger more decisive Iraqi govt? Of course. Would I want to be in the shoes of Iraqi leaders right now? No. Should I made demands of that govt based on my limited knowledge of all they are up against? I don't think so. I do believe the Bush administration is headed in the right direction, with specific goals in mind. God bless our long suffering military troups on the ground, most of whom have a far more realistic picture of what Iraqis can do with the right kind of help than we, who sit here in safe America, do. God bless them.....
Judy Ambrosius at 11:56AM on Aug 24th 2007
39. Bushtards such as D'Souza always try to blame the left, or liberals, or the democrats. This war is not turning around. Most Americans can see there is no hope for creating a democracy in Iraq. Any slight improvement that may occur as a result of the surge is only temporary. The insurgents will only have to wait us out. Eventually we are going to leave. Bush and his evil doers created a cataclysmic catastrophe in Iraq. What is so sad is that it was so predictable. Bush should be impeached, convicted, and imprisoned.
John at 11:59AM on Aug 24th 2007
40. Sometimes I feel like i'm the only one with a memory that extends past the last liberal or conservative diatribe. I remember the 17 UN resolutions that went unheeded by Saddam. I remember the news accounts of 10's of thousands of Kurds being gassed by Saddam. I remember EVERY LEADER OF EVERY COUNTRY saying they believed that Saddam had WMD. I also remmember Pres. Bush saying, before the invasion, that this war would take a very long time possibly generations before we win the war on terror and that Irag was just one on many theaters of that war. I also remember that history teaches us one immutable fact about war plans. The best plan goes out the window when the first round is fired. Thank goodness Eisenhower and Roosevelt weren't held to the standards of of our current miltary and political leaders as history has shown the mistakes that were made in WW11. I remember those brave warriors who gave everything and, in my opinion, the best way to honor them is to win this campaign and the next and the next.
Joe Edgington at 2:15PM on Aug 24th 2007
41. Joe, please don't compare Roosevelt and Eisenhower to the current knaves running our foreign policey. Both men were head and shoulders over the current occupant of the white house. Yes, Saddam was a bad man, an evil man who violated the 17 UN Resolutions imposed on him after the first Gulf War. If Saddam's violation of the UN Resolutions were a reason to go to war, then why didn't the Bush administration make that case to the American people and to the international community. They didn't make the case because they knew that it would precipitate a genuine debate concerning whether or not invading Iraq would be an appropriate response to those violations. They also knew that an invasion of Iraq using that rationale would require UN authorization since the resolutions were UN resolutions. Because a majority of the UN Security Council did not believe that Saddam's violations justified an invasion, the Bush administration decided to trump up another rationale that would appeal to the fears and anxieties of the American people and short circuit any real debate concerning the wisdom of an invasion. Erronously linking Saddam to the War on Terror and claiming he had WMD were all part of the web of deception to be pulled over the eyes of the American people. There may have been very good reasons to have premptively invaded Saddam Hussein. But those reasons and not the lies and deceptions are what should have been presented to the American people and debated in the halls of congress. I remember a few things myself. I remember the UN Weapons inspectors asking for time to complete their investigation before we invaded. I remember some of our erstwhile allies trying to warn us what the consequences of a military invasion would mean for Iraq and the region. I remember way back in 1992 when Brent Scowcroft, the National Security Advisor for the first President Bush, warned that a military invasion of Iraq would likely result in the dissolution of that fractuous country. I remember when a top military general testified before congress that we would need at least three times as many troops than we had committed to stablelize Iraq. Were any of these people given a hearing? No, this administration in its arrogance and bravado dismissed them all. The consequence has been the biggest foreign policy blunder in our nations history. Roosevelt and Eisenhower made their mistakes, but they were not that stupid.
randy at 4:21PM on Aug 24th 2007
42. Randy - I have to work on my communicating skills. My point was not to compare the relative intelligence of the WW11 braintrust and the current commanders. My point was simply that I'm not sure Eisenhower and Roosevelt would have fared very well if they had to deal with the highly politisized medial scrutiny that we have in this country today.
Andrew Cordesman, a highly respected military analyst and critic of the war, voiced my position very well when he said in a report just published that we now have an A quality team in place after several F level commanders. My contact with other Marines in theatre agree with that assessment. Morale is very high as the troops on the ground see real progress. Although I agree that the strategies used and even the rationale for fighting this war were deeply flawed, at this point it does no good to constantly rehash those facts. Rather, we need to move forward and complete the mission successfully. This means winning. I would be interested in hearing your argument, if any, against waiting 3 weeks for Gen Petraeus' report and then making a reassessmnt if that is required.
Joe Edgington at 12:40PM on Aug 27th 2007
43. Responding to #38 & #41, well written, Joe...
ray at 11:23PM on Aug 27th 2007
44. Rhodalee, weeeeelllll, I guess I touched a nerve? Sorry, my aim was your brain!
If you reflect on your latest post, you'll note that you spent >50% of it "ranting" at me, while trying to shore up your credibility. You want respect and credibility on this forum? Stick to the subject matter, use credible data and information, and make good arguments. More critical thinking, less ranting.
First, I will concede that my 4th paragraph in #20 should have been written differently. I should have written:
"He did not say a PERSON [add "or a SINGLE GROUP OF PEOPLE"] who uses violence will rule the world.. He was not talking about a single despot [add "or a SINGLE GROUP OF TERRORISTS"]. 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."
Lets recap the 3-way exchange:
Rich makes a comment in #13, claiming that we can not let terrorists win, otherwise, they will rule the world.
In #16, you rebuke him. From my POV, you took his comment too literal. You wrote:
"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?"
I rebuked you for it in #20. Then, in #33, you twist my words in order to accuse me of twisting your words. Quite frankly, you are full of BS, and I don't mean "baloney sandwich".
In #33, you ignored the main point of my post. In #16, you are correct that the Palestinians, the KKK, the "aggressors" in Darfur do not rule the world. But, do you think their victims care? Those groups do rule or significantly influence their little corner of the world. That is all the victims care about. My main point echoed Rich's comment: if we let the terrorists win in Iraq or anywhere else, it will embolden existing and potential terrorists in any part of the world. Will they (a person or group of people) take over the world? No, but they will take over their corner of the world, and they have. (Hence, Iraq, Darfur, Afghanistan, Rwanda, the list goes on.) Your ranting (excuse me, "response") ignored that point.
You donate to help the Darfur situation. Good! But, is that group really doing any long-term good? It is helping to ease the suffering, but, that is not a good long-term solution. Hundreds of thousands suffer and die while you and the rest of the world advocate diplomacy. And you seem to applaud that!
Rich and I are saying that when it is clear that diplomacy is not working fast enough and many suffer and die, a successful military response is usually needed.
You never did answer my questions or my challenges. Of course, in #33, you refuse to lower yourself to my level. How juvenile!
Bottomline – if you do not like being criticized, then, do not criticize others, you pathetic hypocrite.
ray at 11:24PM on Aug 27th 2007
45. Responding to Randy in #39: I agree and disagree with you.
You asked: "why didn't the Bush administration make that case to the American people and to the international community?" And then you proceeded to provide an excellent answer. However, let's face it – the UN is a noble idea that has degenerated into a pathetic, wasteful, useless, bureaucracy. The UN is more impotent than most 80-year-old men. Why should we need the UN's approval for anything we deem appropriate? It may be politically and diplomatically expedient, but, until the UN re-earns the respect it needs, then, I see no need to get the UN's permission for anything.
Then, you took the road of "popular deception". You accuse Bush et al of "trumping up another rationale". Did Bill Clinton trump up the same rationale (WMDs) for sending cruise missiles into Baghdad in 1998 after Saddam expelled the UN Inspection team (led by Hans Blix)? Was Al Gore lying in 2000 during his presidential campaign about Saddam's WMDs? Did Hillary lie in 2002 from the Senate floor?
If "everyone who should have known" knew that the WMDs had been destroyed, then why did Blix want his team back into Iraq?
Which leads to another question? Why haven't the media and other critics gone after Hans Blix and the UN Inspection team? If what we think is true is actually the truth, then, Saddam's WMDs were destroyed in 1991 at the end of the Gulf War. Yet, Blix and his gang, nosed around Iraq for the next 7 years, unable to confirm that the WMDs had in fact been destroyed. Eventually, Blix's team pissed Saddam off and were expelled by Saddam for being spies, leading to the 1998 cruise missile response by Clinton the First. If the critics of the Iraq War are right, then, perhaps Bill Clinton, Hans Blix, and the UN owe Saddam an apology (posthumously of course)?
Now, along comes the "Texas Scrub", who achieves in getting the UN Inspection team back into Iraq, a feat that 5 years of UN "diplomacy", UN sanctions, and American cruise missiles failed to do. What is really interesting is this: In less than 3 months, in 2003, Blix reaches a conclusion that he could not reach in 7 years (1991 – 98). Hmmmmmmmm. That seems rather suspicious!
You also wrote: "I remember the UN Weapons inspectors asking for time to complete their investigation before we invaded."
If my memory serves me right, Blix's team reached their conclusion before we actually invaded. But, their conclusions lacked any credibility, for obvious reasons.
You also wrote: "The consequence has been the biggest foreign policy blunder in our nations history. Roosevelt and Eisenhower made their mistakes, but they were not that stupid."
I'm not sure that Bush's blunder was worse than two of Roosevelt's.
(1) Roosevelt failed to take the Japanese threat seriously enough. Of course, you could argue that Roosevelt was concerned, it was the misguided "peaceniks" that kept us out of WW2 and kept us from warning Japan. But, if you are going to criticize Bush for his failures, you have to fault Roosevelt for his. He failed to convince the American people that Japan was a threat.
(2) Ever look at the famous photograph of Churchill, Stalin, and Roosevelt? I believe they are at the Potsdam Conference in 1943 ( my facts may be a bit off). Ever wonder why Churchill looked so sour? Because he knew that Stalin was the greater threat to world peace than Hitler. And the body count supports that theory. Churchill wanted to let Hitler conquer the USSR (success was doubtful)
I do agree with one other point: the use of a small invasion force was a poor decision, but, it is doubtful that Congress would have gone along with the invasion if Bush had been honest about the numbers needed. His military advisors expressed concern. But, then, the military top leaders have had credibility problems of their own. For example: in the 1920s, the Navy leaders scoffed when General Billy Mitchell claimed that the air plane would make the battleship obsolete. The military brass scoffed, but, he was later proved right. Mitchell also predicted the attack by Japan, specifically, about an attack against Pearl harbor.
ray at 12:37AM on Aug 28th 2007