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 724 of 993)
10846. mac,
Does any of the stuff I've said make sense? Is it consistent and coherent? Rational?
MI sounds like she's had a couple too many Bloody Marys tonight and she's a mean drunk.
(No, I don't know her in real life. I'd probably avoid her, being a rabid catholic.)
GearHedEd at 10:18PM on Jul 9th 2009
10847. Jef; "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."
Yes, yes, a thousand times yes! Nothing describes "preacher" better than parasitic... if you really step back and look at it objectively.
Ryan Anderson at 10:21PM on Jul 9th 2009
10848. And, remember the next time you try and debate a Christian...........THINK, THINK, THINK, THINK!
*Before* you open mouths.
----------------
If you mean we should think think think about the fact that they (you) won't understand anything we're talking about and will stubbornly adhere to their unsupportable silliness and magical thinking, and will think that they've won the argument when they've lost it horribly, then you're exactly right. You guys are real morons, no doubt.
Saint Brian the Godless at 10:31PM on Jul 9th 2009
10849. 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
Amen and Amen
MI just had a burr under her saddle, I don't know what ther burr is, but I recognize the saddle, organized religion.
Jerry Brown at 10:30PM on Jul 9th 2009
10850. If you are interested There is a Pew quiz/survey on science. I took the quiz with trepidation expecing harder questions, but I got all the answers right.
http://pewresearch.org/sciencequiz/
JefFlyingV at 10:45PM on Jul 9th 2009
10851. Ryan, @ # 10778:
"Nice to see the band back together. I wish MI would get back on her meds though."
She's off her meds??? I never knew precisely what was wrong with her (remembering her requests for us to pray for her during her surgeries). Not that I'm asking now, but were they sectioning her cerebrum? It would explain a LOT of things I've read recently...
LOL
GearHedEd at 11:05PM on Jul 9th 2009
10852. I think MerryIrony said something about a partial lobotomy to make herself more loving and knowledgeable about humanity and the world.
JefFlyingV at 11:12PM on Jul 9th 2009
10853.
Well, Ed, I might be the one to make the call on consistency or rationality. But, it seems fine to me :-)
mac at 11:21PM on Jul 9th 2009
10854. I was serious, mac.
I dare anyone (MI, Observant, MIW, Botts; feel free to take a crack here) to find that anything I've posted in the last year (going back to Dinesh's "An Absentee God" ~ # 195) has deviated in any way from where I started. Or to show me how it's not rational (religion is not rational-it's emotional, based on wishful thinking, NOT reality).
Hint: It's a waste of time, but knock yourselves out.
GearHedEd at 11:32PM on Jul 9th 2009
10855. dare anyone (MI, Observant, MIW, Botts; feel free to take a crack here) to find that anything I've posted in the last year (going back to Dinesh's "An Absentee God" ~ # 195) has deviated in any way from where I started. Or to show me how it's not rational (religion is not rational-it's emotional, based on wishful thinking, NOT reality).
Hint: It's a waste of time, but knock yourselves out.
GearHedEd at 11:32PM on Jul 9th 2009
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Religion is based upon faith. The Bible said without faith it is impossible to please God.
How can one rationalize religion to an atheist. That in it self is not rational.
God is spiritual, salvation is spiritual His kingdom is spiritual, and the sin that Adam committed against God caused his[ Adam] spiritual soul to be dead spiritually ,which means separated from the life of God.
The Bible said a man must first believe that God is.
After a person is regenerated ”born again” then it begins to make since.
Ed ,you have been quite consistent in you endeavor to discredit God and the Christian faith with your logic and reason. Are you willing to wager the eternal destiny of your soul on what little you know of God?
Jesus was speaking to his disciples and said unto them it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the Kingdom of Heaven, but understanding it is not given to the unbelievers.
You read the Bible yet you cannot understand it’s teachings.
Observant at 12:37AM on Jul 10th 2009
10856. In primitive societies brain damaged people were revered as windows to the spirit world, that is if they weren't violent towards members within the society. Was Jesus or Saul/Paul brain damaged?
JefFlyingV at 12:46AM on Jul 10th 2009
10857. So, fanman, I liked your story about your son who just cannot handle money.
Did you teach him that? Did you teach him that he can do what he likes and Daddy will bail him out and now you're cutting him off?
Seems like you're willing to let yourself off the hook about who is to blame for your kid's attitude towards money.
Hell, one could imagine that you believe that some kind of spirit or ghost is responsible for what your son is like and not you yourself at all.
So, it's down to the old tough love now that 'caving in' to his demands isn't going that well?
Whose fault is it that your son grew up to be a spendthrift again, fanman, who?
On a different subject, I loved how you, as a father, equated yourself to God! Just like a mortal God with total control over your children, right? But, as a loving father, you'd never let a very young child out of your sight, he/she might harm him/herself, right?
How does this reconcile with the Garden of Eden story again? I guess we can imagine Adam and Eve formed as adults, and as adults must take full responsibility for their actions?
That must be a lost Commandment, "Thou shalt not be naive!"? No, not 'lost', just implied in the story.
Apparently you were a better dad to your kid when he was a naive, as naive as Adam and Eve, than God was, according to that story!
But, when dealing with your adult son, having taught him nothing about money except maybe that you'll give it to him, now you're willing to act like God did in the story and deny any responsibility for how things turned out.
Still, I forgive you, you can't help not having a clue, you are looking for clues in a book of old stories about early man's invisible friend.
not-pboyfloyd at 2:20AM on Jul 10th 2009
10858. Ed:
"10846. mac,
Does any of the stuff I've said make sense? Is it consistent and coherent? Rational?"
"Religion is based upon faith. The Bible said without faith it is impossible to please God.
How can one rationalize religion to an atheist. That in it self is not rational." Observant
Observant has made a clear statement recognizing that believers and non-believers can never "convince" each other by referring to rationality. He is quite correct that religion is entirely a matter of faith, or, at least, that rational issues can only be applied to religion if, and only if, the individual has "found" at least a small kernel of faith. St Thomas Aquinas, probably the greatest of Christian apologists, said (I paraphrase) that if one had just a smidgeon of faith, he could then show them the reason and logic to all of the major tenets of Christianity. Without it, nothing he could say would have the least meaning to a non-believer.
It seems to me that this blog demonstrates the truth of these statements. Even Botts, in my opinion among the most rational beleivers I have encountered, cannot explain some of his points without reference to his underlying faith. To us non-believers, even though we lack this faith, none of the postings of our religious colleagues can ever make any sense at all unless we at least recognize that they have found this necessary modicum of faith and that it is the central driving force of their lives and all of their opinions.
Harvey at 8:08AM on Jul 10th 2009
10859. not-pboyfloyd
I like the point you make in 10857. However it does sound like an argument for the blank slate idea, is that correct?
Jerry Brown at 8:29AM on Jul 10th 2009
10860. An additional piece from Meyers' Pharyngula blog that may interest many of you on "Unscientific America and Those Atheists":
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/07/unscientific_america_and_those.php#comments
JefFlyingV at 8:32AM on Jul 10th 2009