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 720 of 990)
10786. 10781. One day you may get an insight into the fact that Christians are not confined to being Evangelicals or Baptists.
JefFlyingV at 10:32PM on Jul 8th 2009
---------------------------------------------------------
That is very true,
When it comes to being a Christian or child of God if you will have it that way, I believe there are many people who identify themselves as Catholic , Baptist , Church of Christ ,Methodist, and so on, and so on who have been born again.
Observant at 10:52PM on Jul 8th 2009
10787. 10783.
"The Holy Spirit according to the scripture was sent to bear witness of Jesus that he is the Son of God."
How's he doing with that task?
A full two thirds of the world isn't christian. Seems to me the Holy Spirit is failing at his assigned task.
mac at 10:41PM on Jul 8th 2009
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Holy Spirit works through a clean vessel.
If the Christians are not living clean lives then that would explain why the job is not getting done.
Observant at 10:56PM on Jul 8th 2009
10788. If He created the entire Universe and knows everything that will happen to His Creation for Eternity, that situation certainly smacks of "orchestration".
Harvey at 10:39PM on Jul 8th 2009
-------------------------------------------------------------
Why couldn’t He have created all things with the knowledge and understanding of the outcome with man having a freewill to choose for himself.
All this implies is that God is long suffering as saith the scripture.
Observant at 11:02PM on Jul 8th 2009
10789. So, Mike and Mary Irene, are you two married then?
not-pboyfloyd at 11:02PM on Jul 8th 2009
10790. 10788. So, Mike and Mary Irene, are you two married then?
not-pboyfloyd at 11:02PM on Jul 8th
----------------------------
Why would you ask that?
Observant at 11:04PM on Jul 8th 2009
10791. MI, I get you now. You're a stealth asshole. You pretend you're nice and then you fuck with people.
Screw you. No offense. You're a sick fuck. I'll never give you the time of day again. You've proven yourself to be a piece of human refuse.
Have a nice night, you incredible piece of work you. If I were looking for an example of how christianity produces insane conditioned amoral ignoramuses, I wouldn't have to look any farther than you.
Saint Brian the Godless at 11:08PM on Jul 8th 2009
10792. So, Mike and Mary Irene, are you two married then?
-------------
At the very least all that talk about clean vessels and converting the atheists has obviously gotten them very horny for each other.
Saint Brian the Godless at 11:10PM on Jul 8th 2009
10793. 10791. So, Mike and Mary Irene, are you two married then?
-------------
At the very least all that talk about clean vessels and converting the atheists has obviously gotten them very horny for each other.
Saint Brian the Godless at 11:10PM on Jul 8th 2009
--------------------------------
Yeah Brian I knew I could count on you too clean up the conversation lol
Observant at 11:17PM on Jul 8th 2009
10794. Observant:
"Why couldn’t He have created all things with the knowledge and understanding of the outcome with man having a freewill to choose for himself.
All this implies is that God is long suffering as saith the scripture.
Observant at 11:02PM on Jul 8th 2009"
Since God "knows all things, doeth all things...." etc., of course He Could. In fact, if you believe as you say He did, God in fact created us with something you choose to call "free will", BUT.. if He "created all things with the knowledge and understanding of the outcome" the term free will has no meaning, since it is neither free nor the will of an individual, whose outcomes are already known to God. The two concepts simply are mutually exclusive by any rational understanding of what these words mean. Of course, you can fall back on "I believe this because the Bible tells me it is true" even though it makes no sense at all. Once again, your belief in the literalist meaning of Scripture forces you into various difficult positions when you have to "defend" that literal belief in the face of common understandings and logic.
Harvey at 11:36PM on Jul 8th 2009
10795. Stealth, no: oh no: What you're looking at is the mirror pointing right back to you---the sanctimonious holier-than-thou frustrated tarnished halo who can give it out but just never expects it, God forbid (shiver!) back!
And, I can see that you do not like what you see in your mirror.
There's hope; for you to change. Or to atleast stay consistent.
When a woman's correct (and, all I did here was to "mirror" yourself back to yourself to give you some idea of how you come off--- she's an evil scheming bitch, but when the man's telling it like it is, he expects for all to bow down to his "decency".
There's no such things as a Christian being a friend to an Atheist; with the exception of being said Atheist's handy-dandy punchbag, silently nodding in agreement to every single put-down and name being called. With a smile. Obediently.
Only difference here: the Catholic can take it; the Atheist can NOT ONLY *not* take it; he's frustrated beyond belief, hurt on such a personal level, and resorting to drastic measures.
Such is life.
MI at 12:00AM on Jul 9th 2009
10796. MI, you're a silly cow. Seriously. A joke. A farce. Imbalanced and petty and childish and vindictive.
But don't ever stop. We need the entertainment.
Saint Brian the Godless at 12:58AM on Jul 9th 2009
10797. What you're looking at is the mirror pointing right back to you
------------
So in other words "I know you are, but what am I?"
You people get a lot of mileage out of PeeWee's Big Adventure.
It must be very peaceful to be retarded.
Saint Brian the Godless at 1:00AM on Jul 9th 2009
10798. There's no such things as a Christian being a friend to an Atheist;
---------------
Not when the christian is a psycho, no.
Saint Brian the Godless at 1:16AM on Jul 9th 2009
10799. Why would I ask if you Mike and Mary Irene are married?
Do you imagine that I asked so that you could practice answering questions with questions?
You must feel quite smug when you do this.
Hey, perhaps there IS no Mary Irene at all, just another sad imaginary friend of yours, trying to push everyone's buttons and finding Brian a target because he talks about 's.e.x.' sometimes.
not-pboyfloyd at 1:19AM on Jul 9th 2009
10800. Only difference here: the Catholic can take it; the Atheist can NOT ONLY *not* take it; he's frustrated beyond belief,
--------------------------
Well, I am frustrated at your idiocy, but I've come to expect it. And at your bipolar disorder of course. Is that what you're talking about? That's the only frustration I feel. You're not bright enough to engender anything deeper, sorry.
You're a funny goofball. I can only laugh at you. So where's my big frustration?
Saint Brian the Godless at 1:21AM on Jul 9th 2009