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 723 of 974)
10831. Ian, @ # 10515:
"...It's pathetic how 'Christians' are determined to find a supernatural cause for natural disasters and THAT, that is quite obviously because folk just want the world to be fair(to themselves) so they blame who they see as the bad guys but at the same time they'll admit that they WANT there to be a Heaven and Hell BECAUSE they KNOW that the world ISN'T FAIR."
Precisely! That's the same reason I invoked when I said that "eternal souls" are a construct of wishful thinking--so that there could be rewards and punishments in the afterlife for those who didn't receive their due in THIS life.
Bravo!
GearHedEd at 8:35PM on Jul 9th 2009
10832. MI:
Once again, your recent post says everything there is to say about you. The rest of us realy need not comment further.
Harvey at 8:42PM on Jul 9th 2009
10833. Dialogue from 10526:
Ian: "The thing is Botts, you just can't read the Bible from, "In the beginning..", because it is hokey nonsense."
Botts: "If you stop at "in the beginning", I see your point."
Botts, you're being willfully obtuse here. Ian put an ellipsis after "In the beginning, indicating that it CONTINUES...
I think (although Ian hardly needs me to speak for him) that he meant that anything in the Old Testament prior to Psalms is most likely hokey, magical bullshit, with a smattering of holy land grabbing and genocide thrown in for good measure. Don't play semantic games with us, Botts. That stuff is in the bible.
GearHedEd at 8:49PM on Jul 9th 2009
10834. Botts (to mac) @ # 10530:
"When you actually read the Bible with the correct premise, get back to me."
Paraphrased, saying that mac (and presumably the rest of us including the uber-Christians MIW and Observant!) can't or doesn't understand the bible because he's not reading it "correctly".
When one proposes that another doesn't understand because of some failing in the other, that is exactly equal to "I know what you don't, but the only way you'll ever know what I know is to be like me and do things exactly like I do."
What part of that assessment is any different from the way you've described "organized religions" Botts?
GearHedEd at 9:00PM on Jul 9th 2009
10835. LOL! Harvey! I knew you'd appreciate someone else blogging on like you do; Exactly. Nothing left to say? That's just because you have nothing of substance to give. Just like to post long posts to hear yourself talk while you massage your ego.
Which reminds me, you mentioned awhile back that you do not give of your time. At that time, it took everything I had in me to hold my tongue, but not now; my friend, if you do not give it; you surely *waste* it. LOL. People here simply bear with you.....
PS. Don't be so sensitive. Lighten up ;~D
MI at 9:08PM on Jul 9th 2009
10836. Ryan, @ # 10540:
"Ian; Awhile back I started wondering if anyone was who they said, Ed said someone hijacked his handle, Jerry started swearing, Botts started his line by line rebuttals, Observant got weird, MI showed back up...
...but then life is simpler if you just assume they are who they claim to be. No way to ever know for sure…"
Someone DID hijack my handle. When I said that I was absolutely sure that the posts made in my name could not have been me because I had no access to the internet when the time stamps said they had been posted.
Maybe it's the ghost of Dinesh fucking with us...
GearHedEd at 9:12PM on Jul 9th 2009
10837. I appreciate Havery's posts and do not "simply bear (sic) with" him.
Can I get an amen?
Ryan Anderson at 9:15PM on Jul 9th 2009
10838. Botts, @ # 10565:
"It's an era we never knew or were a part of. We can't truly even begin to understand what things were like. Or what it was like to deal with a direct God."
There was never a direct god, or any others. Holy writings have always been just tools of control, and the Judeo-Christian writings are NO DIFFERENT. And like a gun or a bomb, a tool without the capacity in and of itself for good or evil; but the uses to which the tools were put could be good or evil. Lots of times, the use was to whip up the population to go to war with the heretics who worshipped "those other gods".
GearHedEd at 9:34PM on Jul 9th 2009
10839. rAmen.
I think Harvey is one of the most sober and eloquent posters in here.
GearHedEd at 9:36PM on Jul 9th 2009
10840. Oh, and remember, Harvey, this blog is a venue for serious debate. You should not expect warm, fuzzies.
If you're looking for validation......... LOL!
(You'll most likely get it from your fellow cohorts here; seeing as they have nothing really coherent to say, either...... Unfortunately.
This blog is sooo last week....
Blog on, petty diva's!
And, remember the next time you try and debate a Christian...........THINK, THINK, THINK, THINK!
*Before* you open mouths.
It's too bad that I had to give you all doses of your own medicine.
But, my point has been made. And, to be honest, I don't know how you all thrive on the crap that you do. You've been told and you've been suffered through with way too long. And, now I wish to focus my energies on Life, Love, God, all things good. And, I wish to be around those who do my heart good and not bad.
That's MY free-will CHOICE.
Nothing left for you all except prayers. Take care. Seriously. And, lighten up; SERIOUSLY!
MI at 9:40PM on Jul 9th 2009
10841. Gear Head Ed, I would add that religious tracts gave rise to a parasitic minority that derived their livelyhood from tithings and donations when they had contributed little or nothing to a society by interpreting what the god or gods sayeth.
JefFlyingV at 9:55PM on Jul 9th 2009
10842. Brian, @ # 10606:
"...After all, this is the best scam ever invented, and one of the only legal ones. All we have to do is discard our morality and pretend that we've got the inside track to that of God. Then we pass the plate."
Sounds too much like Pentecostalism...
GearHedEd at 10:05PM on Jul 9th 2009
10843. MI,
Life without the arbitrary and weird restrictions religions place upon you would be a refreshing change, not the scary non-place you seem to think it is.
We're not bitter and wounded and rebellious. We just don't need to feel special by putting on our little "god badges". That's all.
GearHedEd at 10:09PM on Jul 9th 2009
10844. Jeff,
Sycophants are always attracted to what they perceive as "the power".
(Xians, take THAT any way you like.)
GearHedEd at 10:11PM on Jul 9th 2009
10845.
Ed, it's good to see you back and catching up :-)
mac at 10:13PM on Jul 9th 2009