Barack Obama's debate strategy of portraying the Bush administration as a complete failure is running into one big problem: Bush's Iraq policy appears to be succeeding. How embarrassing! Well, at least the Democrats can try to make sure that no one finds out about this.
During his foreign trip, Obama tried to take advantage of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's statement that America should work out a withdrawal plan for Iraq. Obama triumphantly declared that now is the time for Iraqis to work out their own destiny. Obama failed to mention, however, that if he had been president, Iraq would still be ruled by Saddam Hussein. The only destiny that Obama would have consigned Iraq to is oppression, torture, and mass graves.
To understand what is going on in Iraq, we must distinguish between two approaches: the Bush doctrine and the Reagan doctrine. Unlike the Bush doctrine--which seemed to require invasion and occupation--the Reagan doctrine was one of assisted non-intervention. Reagan believed that people in foreign countries should fight for their own freedom. We do not fight for them. But if they are willing to fight, we are willing to help. And so in Afghanistan, in Nicaragua, in Angola and to some extent in Ethiopia, Reagan supported rebels who sought liberation from Marxist tyranny. For intance, Reagan supplied Stinger missiles to the Afghani mujaheedin who were fighting to repel the Soviet invasion of that country. Reagan did not, however, send large numbers of American troops to Afghanistan.
Now in Bush's defense it should be said that the Reagan doctrine could not have worked in Iraq. Unlike in Afghanistan, which the mujaheedin turned into a Soviet "bleeding wound," there was no Iraqi resistance that could substantially threaten Saddam Hussein. Bush's choice was either for America to get rid of Hussein, or to leave Hussein in power. But from the beginning the administration understood that, even in Iraq, over time the Bush doctrine must metamorphose into the Reagan doctrine.
It has taken longer than expected. But that's because Saddam's Baathist minority--let's call them the Saddamites--ran not only the government but the entire society. So it has been quite a process to train a Shia elected government to learn to govern a nation in which they were victimized for a quarter century. Slowly, however, the Iraqis have been rising to the task, assisted by able U.S. forces under the competent leadership of General Petraeus.
So now, finally, Iraqis are getting to the position where they can defend their own country and fight for their own freedom. This is what "success" means in Iraq: not the end of the insurgency, or the end of terrorism, but a situation in which Iraqis take the helm and America moves into a supporting role. Of course America is going to get out of Iraq. The only question is whether we will leave recklessly, precipituously, with the risk of escalating violence and chaos and perhaps even a return of the Saddamites. This seems to be the approach the Obama Democrats want. The other option is to leave cautiously, deliberately, in a way that leaves Iraq a self-governing society, the only pro-American Muslim democracy in the Middle East.
Postscript: Due to internal re-organization at AOL, it seems that this and other blogs are going to be suspended effective the end of this month. The blogs we have posted will still be online, but no new blogs will be posted. What a pity, especially as the election debate is heating up. I have enjoyed doing this blog and I want to thank my readers--yes, even the Dineshophobic atheists--for checking in and posting comments. (Sometimes I wonder if some of you atheists who post several times a day have regular jobs.)
AOL has informed me that the company is hiring a new blog manager and I will be negotiating the resumption of this blog--perhaps in a new format--with that person. This however could take a month or two. In the meantime look for my columns each Monday on Townhall.com and also consult my website dineshdsouza.com for forthcoming speaking events and updates.
Reader Comments ( Page 4 of 909)
46. I am concerned that AOL chooses these particular 2 months to "internally reorganize" which in effect limits such globs from being posted.....Does even AOL succomb to censorship during the presidential election?
Sheryl at 8:39PM on Oct 7th 2008
47. Clif,
Awhile back you posted a piece.. "If you _____, thank a liberal". Would you mind reposting it? Thank You
kbates at 11:44AM on Sep 28th 2008
48. Yes, Dinesh, Reagan sure did a fine job with Afghanistan! He gave arms and training to Osama bin Laden and paved the way for the Taliban.
The Afghanis and our own nation would have been far better off if Afghanistan had remained under Russian rule.
emelpe at 12:15PM on Sep 28th 2008
49. At last an honest article.
escort6768 at 12:34PM on Sep 28th 2008
50. Rev 3:16 says, "It is great to have dissenting opinions, but if anybody insists on foul language, or turns your blog into their personal message boards to talk to each other, I think you should consider banning them from participation. Everybody should use, not abuse, the Dinesh blog."
And so it would begin, little by little freedom would be chipped away.
Of course assholes like you wouldn't see it like that at all.
D'Souza would be 'maintaining a certain standard', right?
Well standards are arbitrary. For example if you were the moderator(or whatever you call it) it might seem reasonable for you to suggest D'Souza start another blog on a blog entry entitled...
"Obama and the Reagan Doctrine"
... right?
On the other hand it might be easy for you(as said monitor) to block comments disagreeing with you, using 'foul language', 'off topic', 'not Godly enough' etc. any excuse really, they do it all the time on the Christian blogs. (it's a slippery slope really, isn't it?)
not-pboyfloyd at 1:17PM on Sep 28th 2008
51. There are many of us that will miss this blog. You know, you libs are all for free speech, except when it's something you don't agree with. You can't have it both ways.
Smiley at 2:27PM on Sep 28th 2008
52. AOL wants Dinesh off before the election. Some of the observations about Obama must have hit pretty close to home.
I don't blame Obama for not helping his half brother. Why would you use your own money, when you can deliver a truckload of taxpayer money as soon as your elected.
HAROLD KERR at 2:55PM on Sep 28th 2008
53. 49. There are many of us that will miss this blog. You know, you libs are all for free speech, except when it's something you don't agree with. You can't have it both ways.
Smiley at 2:27PM on Sep 28th 2008
--------------------------------
Free speech yes, lying to everybody and demonizing us atheists, not so much.
Grow up. If you can't see what he's doing, you're part of the problem.
Saint Brian the Godless at 2:57PM on Sep 28th 2008
54. Unfortunately for republicans, like DeSousa, the war in Iraq will surpass by all means any figures already disclosed by the government. Because of the war in Iraq is that we have now to bailout our financial institution, meaning that is heavy price to pay just to topple Saddam Hussein. After all the anti American sentiment wont be changed in the middle east. We are hated there because they believe we represent wrongdoing and exploitation. We have to remember that we are view as a supper power which only motive and interest in the region is strategical and also to enrich ourself at their cost.
We have to understand that the war in Iraq is a disaster for America. Because of that war we are not longer trusted and admire not even by our allies, and the price have almost cripple our economy.
After the elections of 2000, when the supreme court decided to hand the presidency to the less popular of the two candidates, the one who got less total votes, the new establish president, George W. Bush, let the 9-11 disaster to happened in order to pump his unpopularity. We have to understand that withou 9-11 his mandate was at
risk. They did not expected this terrorist act to be so damaging but after all it saved its presidency.
The war in Afganistan has never being unpopular, unjust and/or not supported by the international league of nations. The war in Iraq has being all the opposite to the one in Afganistan. it has not being even popular among Americans because it is a lie. When I said that the war in Iraq is the principal reason we are in this mess, is because this unpopular war made that this administration took the eye from the housing bubble and let it happened in order to keep our population off the Iraq war. We have to notice that most people sough that the bubble was helping to the growth of our economy. Now we know otherwise.
Terrorism can not be fought by conventional means. our enemy is not in Iraq, therefore winning there is impossible. The war against terrorism wont be wont if we do not win in Afganistan and finally get Ozama Bin-Laden.
Pretending to convince people that because we
convert Iraq into a democracy is a victory against terrorism it is absurd. The war against terrorism had nothing to do with toppling Saddam.
The search is an excuse of the failing policies
of any one that agrees with this war.
Some of us have to learn what priorities are.
Iraq was never a priority, and still is not.
ESTEBAN at 3:09PM on Sep 28th 2008
55. 49. There are many of us that will miss this blog. You know, you libs are all for free speech, except when it's something you don't agree with. You can't have it both ways.
Smiley at 2:27PM on Sep 28th 2008
I have heard arguments both ways, but the only person I have heard against free speech is the Rev, who is hard right. Would you mind stating some cases where either side, other than the Rev, said no to free speech?
Jerry Brown at 3:13PM on Sep 28th 2008
56. Case in point, Rev 3.16
... if you were site monitor would you allow Smiley's post because he/she seems to imagine that it would be the 'liberals' who would be 'censoring' right-wing drivel.
I think liberals would be the one's encouraging pinheads like Smiley to drivel on, giving them(the liberals) an opportunity to explain why they are WRONG!
So, let me explain it to you why you are wrong Smiley.
Just because D'Souza is a right-wing hack and a lousy Christian apologist doesn't make this blog a Christian blog or a right-wing blog.
It is a public blog, which is exactly why 'foul language', 'off topic' etc. ARE ALLOWED.
It is guys like you and Rev 3.16 who would turn something like this into a D'Souza cheering section with comments such as yours going completely unchallenged.
Hey, if you're right, you're right but if you're wrong wouldn't you at least like to know that there are some who disagree with you?
Or is it the case that Christians and Republicans want to imagine that their 'morals and values' are 'universal' no matter how many disagree with them?
Is the word 'universal' itself subject to redefinition by you guys too?
not-pboyfloyd at 3:15PM on Sep 28th 2008
57. 50. AOL wants Dinesh off before the election. Some of the observations about Obama must have hit pretty close to home.
---------------------------------
Yeah, it's a vast left-wing conspiracy.
You're not very bright, are you? ALL of DD's "observations" were idiotic strawmen and fallacies.
I know, I know, you guys on the right don't "get" very much, and live a simple life that prevents you from getting smart enough to see through lying scurrilous pseudochristian commentators. Too bad you've been so thoroughly dumbed-down. Amazing, really.
Saint Brian the Godless at 3:16PM on Sep 28th 2008
58. Hey, if you're right, you're right but if you're wrong wouldn't you at least like to know that there are some who disagree with you?
------------------------------------
pboy, are you feeling faint or something? You think they'd WANT TO KNOW if they are wrong? They stick their fingers in their ears and sing "lalalala" practically when they see anything that even smacks of proving them wrong. They're terrified of it so much that they've convinced themselves that it's IMPOSSIBLE that they're wrong! To even think it is a sin! :-)
Saint Brian the Godless at 3:19PM on Sep 28th 2008
59. Yea Brian, I suppose you're right.
Hey, I was just thinking that maybe I could catch a few of them 'off guard' like D'Souza does in every single one of his blog entries.
e.g. ... "pro-American Muslim democracy"
There is a MUCH better word for Muslim democracy... Theocracy.
It doesn't matter how many people vote in the Quran as the arbiter of law because they dare not NOT. It's STILL not a democracy!
D'Souza is just sneakily supporting the idea of 'religious democracy' which is an oxymoron whether it is 'Muslim' or 'Christian' or 'Aztec'.
The idea that a religious 'so-called' democracy would be 'pro' "any-country-that-is-not-a-theocracy-too" is laughable.
Don't forget...".. there are no homosexuals in Iran!" ... VERY 'democratic' of them!
Likely no atheists either.
not-pboyfloyd at 3:34PM on Sep 28th 2008
60. Glad to see you leave AOL. We have enough A$$holes On-Line. Happy trails, Dinesh, you little old self-proclaimed scholar, you!
web jones at 3:45PM on Sep 28th 2008