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 908 of 995)
13606. Ryan,
Hi, I am doing well. Have had some projects going on, and did not feel like writing for awhile. Hope all is well with you and family. I caught up on reading, some interesting comments. Wonder if we are on MI's things to do list.
Jerry Brown at 1:55AM on Nov 11th 2009
13607. http://refreshingnews9.blogspot.com/2009/11/baby-boy-gives-two-finger-salute-to.html
MI at 2:24AM on Nov 11th 2009
13608. Fanman; I've not read N. T. Wright's book and I probably won't. I did read the reviews on Amazon and some of the negative ones were entertaining, they were mostly by christians who didn't like that he used extra biblical sources, reminds me of Observant...
Ryan Anderson at 12:07PM on Nov 11th 2009
13609. MI @ 13586:
You might want to start looking into the accuracy of the chain-mail flooding into your inbox.
Not only was that very inaccurate in regards to who actually said what and what was really said, but it's been circulating for several years with alterations being made along the way. All the while becoming more ridiculous.
Most importantly, it does not espouse American values. I'm sure Australians would echo that sentiment.
Richelle at 1:13PM on Nov 11th 2009
13610. Richelle, it espouses white christian racist/dominionist values, and that's good enough for MI.
Saint Brian the Godless at 1:36PM on Nov 11th 2009
13611. Apparently "god's love" is not extended to foreigners or anyone with a difference of opinion.
I'm sure if Jesus were alive today he'd be insisting we make English our national language and that people could just leave if they have any complaints.
Yep... that's TOTALLY what he would do.
As absurd as I may think the viewpoints of some people are, e.g. MI, I don't think they should be told to leave the country.
Richelle at 1:59PM on Nov 11th 2009
13612. 13576. Evolution buffs:
It occurs to me that the trait of "Being a great liar and a self-centered evil prick who will do anything to get ahead" must be highly favored in nature. I would imagine it to be a huge survival-plus-factor. So there's a lot to overcome here. Our base nature is inherent and hard-wired.
Discuss. :-)
Saint Brian the Godless at 3:31PM on Nov 8th 2009
Of course, that is what makes being a human being so confusing at times. We are hard wired to procreate, and survive. I see most people trying to evolve as our spiritual nature calls us to, and at the same time mother nature puts demands on us that seem conflicting without the alignment of our ego with the spiritual urge. Most people are drawn to religion trying to satisfy this inner urge to evolve. I know it is hard to lay off these Christians because of their beliefs, but I see them struggling with the same issues in evolving as you or I. I do agree with you that they do not think about what they are embracing, but the inner struggle we all go though, one way or another, brings me to think all human beings are magnificent creatures. Trying to understand what life is all about with the lack of mental equipment to understand the vicissitudes we encounter in our lives, and to go forward into the unknown speaks to me of an inner courage that transcends words. I do not see human nature as being the enemy, I see ignorance as the real problem, and I see no way to overcome that problem as long as we are evolving. I think the day will come when people on this pkanet will become wise enough to have peace, one with another.
Jerry Brown at 3:33PM on Nov 11th 2009
13613. *I'm enjoying one right now entitled Simply Christian, by Bishop (Anglican, I think) N. T. Wright. If I had it handy, I'd copy a couple of paragraphs I read earlier today. As I read it, I was thinking, here's something Ryan, Brian, Botts and I could all agree on. Maybe I'll find time tomorrow.*
Here's the passage I was referring to - an excerpt from Simply Christian (Harper Collins) chapter 16 (New Creation Starting Now) subtitled Justice Revisited:
God does indeed intend to put the world to rights. There is a cry for justice which wells up from our hearts, not only when we are wronged, but when we see others being wronged. It is a response to the longing, and the demand, of the living God that his world should be a place not of moral anarchy, where the bullies always win in the end, but of fair and straight dealings, of honesty, truthfulness, and uprightness.
But to get from that longing and demand to anything that approaches God's intended justice, we must go by a route very different from the one which the world normally expects and even demands. The majority language of the world in this respect is violence. When people with power see things happen of which they disapprove, they drop bombs and send in tanks. When people without power see things happen of which they disapprove, they smash store windows, blow themselves up in crowded places, and fly planes into buildings. The fact that both methods have proved remarkably unsuccessful at changing things doesn't stop people from going on in the same way.
On the cross the living God took the fury and violence of the world unto himself, suffering massive injustice - the biblical stories are careful to highlight this - and yet refusing to lash out with threats or curses. Part of what Christians have called "Atonement Theology" is the belief that in some sense or other Jesus exhausted the underlying power of evil when he died under its weight, refusing to pass it on or keep it in circulation. Jesus' resurrection is the beginning of a world in which a new type of justice is possible. Through the hard work of prayer, persuasion and political action, it is possible to make governments on the one hand, and revolutionary groups on the other, see that there is a different approach than unremitting violence, than fighting force with force. The (mostly) quiet, prayerful revolutions that overturned eastern European Communism are a wonderful example. The extraordinary work of Desmond Tutu in South Africa is another. The attempts to initiate programs of "restorative justice" within police work and criminal justice systems offer yet another. In each case, onlookers have been tempted to suggest that the way of nonviolence appears weak and ineffectual. The results suggest otherwise.
fanman at 4:11PM on Nov 11th 2009
13614. Through the hard work of prayer, persuasion and political action, it is possible to make governments on the one hand, and revolutionary groups on the other, see that there is a different approach than unremitting violence, than fighting force with force.
---------------
Nice words, but it's the christians that are the staunchest supporters of violence in this country. They support the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Plus they are the ones killing health care for all, which is the same as killing babies in my book, because rest assured, babies and the elderly and even many in the middle class will die without it.
So if there's gonna be a nonviolent revolution in this country it'll be us people with consciences AGAINST the greedy christian warmongers.
Saint Brian the Godless at 4:31PM on Nov 11th 2009
13615. Fanman; the argument from morals (for god) is one that is very emotionally compelling (which is why they all us it!!!) but is one that's easily dismantled with sociology and evolutionary biology.
Ryan Anderson at 4:36PM on Nov 11th 2009
13616. It just seems to me Ryan, that if it were so easy to dismiss, then there would be far fewer seriously intelligent people defending it.
Brian, you may be right, though I think you grossly overstate the case you're typically trying to make. As I've always maintained, it is precisely because of our greed, lust, and hell-bent personalities that we need a Saviour. You and Ryan may have been born with halos but most of us weren't.
fanman at 5:18PM on Nov 11th 2009
13617. Fanman; out of one side of your mouth you use the concept of universal morals to support the idea of god, but then out of the other, you say that people need a savior because they don't know right from wrong.
Which is it?
Ryan Anderson at 5:39PM on Nov 11th 2009
13618. Ryan - I'm lookin' straight atcha pal; no sides. I've always maintained that mankind needs a Saviour; His name is Jesus. If there is anything close to a universal moral code, it originated with God and came to fullness with Christ's appearance. I didn't know it from 0 - 24, but at 25 the scales dropped off my eyes. People DO know right from wrong; that's not the issue. Christ died to atone for all those times when I CHOOSE wrong over right. That happens less and less, the longer I'm a Christian, until I get on here. Then I have to spend all that time repenting for things I've said, and particularly for things I've thought! I didn't start believing Christ was real because of some emotional experience; it was a result of immediate, and long lasting, changes in my life.
fanman at 6:24PM on Nov 11th 2009
13619. New Harvard survey out:
In 2008, guess how many US Military Veterans died from having NO HEALTH CARE?
2200. Read it and weep, America. In 2008 alone, that's how many of our veterans died from this problem.
We can DO this! And because of the fact that we can, it becomes a moral imperative that we DO!
Saint Brian the Godless at 6:35PM on Nov 11th 2009
13620. I've always maintained that mankind needs a Saviour
--------------------
His name is Superman.
If someone re-did 'the passion of the christ' with superman cast as the saviour, imagine how much cooler that would be!
Saint Brian the Godless at 7:32PM on Nov 11th 2009