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 722 of 908)
10816. Mac, I would guess Martin Luther had a real loving father since he was so strongly Christian.
JefFlyingV at 6:05PM on Jul 9th 2009
10817. Ian, @ # 10368: (I'm still catching up!)
"...I'd even venture to say that if a child was raised to avoid religious messages until such time as he/she could understand the source book, that that person would not believe what the Bible says."
That child is/was me. And I AM an atheist.
GearHedEd at 6:32PM on Jul 9th 2009
10818. Ryan, @ # 10390:
"Botts; how again does a damaged testicle distract a congregation? Assuming the priest is wearing pants of course..."
Like this:
http://www.asnom.org/image/444_filarioses/Elephantiasisscr.jpg
LOL
GearHedEd at 6:41PM on Jul 9th 2009
10819. OH I DID NOT NEED TO SEE THAT!
That's Dick Cheney, right?
Saint Brian the Godless at 6:52PM on Jul 9th 2009
10820. MI, @ # 10423:
"...(I just wonder with amazement at most of his dance moves--especially when he can end up balancing his entire body on nothing else but the tips of his toes!)"
Pfft! Peewee Herman could do THAT!
GearHedEd at 7:00PM on Jul 9th 2009
10821. BTW, Brian,
Congrats on the newest little Saint Connor, and best wishes for him and the rest of y'all. I just read that page last night.
GearHedEd at 7:03PM on Jul 9th 2009
10822. Pfft! Peewee Herman could do THAT!
GearHedEd at 7:00PM on Jul 9th 2009
----------------
You mean the Holy Prophet PeeWee of the "I know you are but what am I" standard christian defense tactic?
Saint Brian the Godless at 7:04PM on Jul 9th 2009
10823. The very same, Brian.
GearHedEd at 7:05PM on Jul 9th 2009
10824. Thanks Ed. He's a great baby. We are very happy with him in the family, even the dog. Initially the dog was terrified of him, like he thought he had poisonous fangs or something, but now he's always fawning over him.
Saint Brian the Godless at 7:06PM on Jul 9th 2009
10825. Jeff, @ # 10424:
"Interesting how the holy word can change through interpretation and practice over a 2800 year history.
The holy spirit has infused Mohammed, Smith and Pope John Paul II in different ways through the ages."
In my opinion, the main reason why we have so much disharmony about what was put down in the bible is that in EVERY case, the message was delivered only to ONE individual at a time. Why would a GOD who wants us to come to knowledge of Him do this? The natural result of this method of revelation guarantees a system of human interaction where there are "chosen" leaders and the rest of us, who have to gulp the spew down with a faith chaser.
This is the true message of the authors of the bible:
"We were divinely inspired to write this, and you can't call shenanigans on it, because we're now the religious and political authorities and we'll accuse you of blasphemy and offer to you a cordial invitation to a barbecue with you as the guest of honor."
The Bible has ALWAYS been a tool of control.
GearHedEd at 7:14PM on Jul 9th 2009
10826. Keep seeking and hopefully, one day you will find and hopefully you will be found.....
I don't count on it; seeing how jaded and biased your thinking is, but I do pray for it and I do hope in a miracle of it for you.
----------------
The Wise Sage speaks and knows in her heart that Her Wisdom is too profound for others to see, and so suffers them gladly and offers prayer for ehtir dear souls, thus demonstrating her generosity of spirit.
Oh wait, it was all just an egotistical self-aggrandizing swagger from a small person with an unbelievable superiority complex. Darn. No truth here. Just self-serving bullpoopy, as usual.
***
(LOL! That should give you enough material to stir up some more dusty and clouded illusions for you to busy yourself with for awhile....)
MI at 5:22PM on Jul 9th 2009
--------------------------
You actually think you're deep. Now that's really funny.
Saint Brian the Godless at 7:16PM on Jul 9th 2009
10827. Ed; don't worry, he came back.
Ryan Anderson at 7:19PM on Jul 9th 2009
10828. Observant, @ # 10438:
"10431. Observant; what are your thoughts on free will now?
Ryan Anderson at 10:25PM on Jun 30th 2009
------------------------------
The same as before.
I by my own freerwill choose to be here."
You have no more free will than a moth being drawn into a campfire! LOL!!!
GearHedEd at 7:26PM on Jul 9th 2009
10829. mac:
"I don't need to drink from the toilet to know someone took a shit there."
Ah, the wisdom of the ages. I'll bet Confucius wished he'd said that!
GearHedEd at 7:29PM on Jul 9th 2009
10830. MI, @ # 10512:
"...Also, confusion goes with the atheistic territory."
If you're implying that atheists are confused, I have to disagree strongly, Mary. I have one of the most consistent, coherent, rational and compact worldviews of anyone I know, without confusion of any sort. I see no need to "grandify" it with mumblings about some unfathomable deity. Not bitter, not opposed to some vaporous notion of "morality" that only God can provide (I can and DO control myself without resorting to the need for divine control many Christians express).
Just sayin'....
GearHedEd at 8:27PM on Jul 9th 2009