They're still at it
Some of the so-called Conservatives out there are still whining about Iraq. As in my previous posts, Derbyshire along with CliffMay, Francis Fukuyama, and William F. Buckley, are continuing their rants against the Iraqi war, if only because they believe that the situation there is untenable, and, more to the point, they never signed on to nation building after deposing Saddam.
For the first part, they point to the issue of the potential for Civil War in Iraq, with the bombing of the Golden Mosque as the flashpoint. To this, I say: stop watching CNN, MSNBC, and reading the NY Times. Start readingBill Roggio's The Fourth Rail- http://billroggio.com/ and Threats Watch- http://threatswatch.org/. Both sites posit a far more complete view of what's going in in Iraq, Afghanistan, and beyond. There was no civil war- there was an attempt to create a civil war, but it's an attempt that by and large, failed. But those writers, editorialists, and pundits all screamed bloody murder the moment that the Mosque was blown up; they didn't bother to wait for follow up information that would vaildate their claims for a full-blown civil war; they didn't bother to read beyond the basic mainstream media (who do NOT have the ability to understand the GWOT with their media structuralization and ideologies); and they've never been to Iraq.
And yet, guys like Derbyshire get the chance to pontificate to people who HAVE been to Iraq- that they have less worth then the Derbyshires of the world. Ralph Peters was in Iraq recently, during the unrest that happened after the bombing of the Mosque. And yet, all Derbyshire and his ilk could do is say "he reported from a Humvee, that's not really visiting Iraq" (paraphrased). Um, well......that's more than you've done, Derbyshire. You get a free pass at bitching when you do exactly what Ralph Peters does, and nothing less. Oh, and now that things are calming down (to an extent) in Baghdad, what do these writers have to say for themselves? A simple "oops" won't suffice.
The second point irritates me even more: That they don't care one way or the other that Democracy should be exported to Iraq or the Middle East, and that their sole goal was to eliminate Hussein as a threat to the US and the West. To that, I have just this to say:
Why can't the Middle East become a democracy?
Their reponse is that Islam is not suitable for Democracy, and that that Arab people don't ultimately want Democracy. Well, as for Islam + Democracy, we just don't know. It's never really been tried before. To say that it won't work is an assuption without any facts behind it. But what we DO know, is that the people of the Middle East want prosperity and economic freedom. They've taken to that pretty effectively- when they've been allowed it. And the easiest way to ensure economic freedom is through democratic governments. Socialist, autocratic, or Tribal governments won't work in the globalized world of today. That effectively leaves them with democracy. And why shouldn't they get their chance at democracy? Because they're, well, not American? Or European? That they bow 5 times a day to Mecca? And don't drink wine? I hope you readers see where I'm going with this: I can't help but think that the simple, underlying reason that these writers don't want to see nation-building and democracy in the Middle East is because they are not American, Europeans, Judeo-Christians, and as such, are lower than the former, and deserve their lower stature. IE; I find it a fundamentally racist arguement. I want to hesitate from saying that, because it really veers into potential ad hominen territory, but I can't shake it. The whole "they're not us, and thus are not worthy" arguement that I'm seeing them make I just find utterly vile. And so goddamn stupid that it's the type of strategy that would make counter-insurgency operations in the overall GWOT virtually impossible. It's be a magnet for AQ and their sister organizations to rally anti-American rhetoric around.
All these writers want is to replace Hussein with another dictator who's just be "our son of a bitch". And what, pray tell, would that really accomplish? That we're only looking out for our own self-interests, and are willing to trample over everyone in order to get it? That once we depose Hussein, we leave, install a puppet regime, and leave them to their own devices? With Al Qaeda and other terror organizations inside and outside Iraq? That's really bright. I just find it irresponsible- on the left or the right- to want to pull out or just not STAY in the first place, when what we're really doing is waging an offensive struggle that will take decades to complete. Their strategy does nothing more than create a holding pattern throughout the world. That's like trying to fight WW2 from Britain, and never launching a sea/land/air invasion of the European mainland.
Oh, and speaking of WW2, wouldn't you say that the rebuilding of Germany and Japan into democracies went pretty well? What does that say about our potential for nation building? And, as for their commentary that "democracies don't necessarily not fight other democracies", other than the Hamas controlled PLO, when has that happened? Yes, terrorists can use democracies for underground organization and resources, but it's not like France, Britain, the US, Germany, the Czech Republic, and Italy on a governmental or mainstream societal level conspired with the terrorists to launch terror operations. That's nothing more than a straw man arguement that's just there to make the writers look good and goes nowhere. I'd rather spend more time arguing about the merits of our actual CI operational plan than theoretical conceptualizations that would even annoy most Wall Street brokers.
So, what else is there to say about these writers? Time will tell, but I for one, don't want to be associated with their increasingly unbalanced rhetoric and ad hominen attacks. Get in a HUMMV and go to Iraq. Or read from people who have. And learn.
For the first part, they point to the issue of the potential for Civil War in Iraq, with the bombing of the Golden Mosque as the flashpoint. To this, I say: stop watching CNN, MSNBC, and reading the NY Times. Start readingBill Roggio's The Fourth Rail- http://billroggio.com/ and Threats Watch- http://threatswatch.org/. Both sites posit a far more complete view of what's going in in Iraq, Afghanistan, and beyond. There was no civil war- there was an attempt to create a civil war, but it's an attempt that by and large, failed. But those writers, editorialists, and pundits all screamed bloody murder the moment that the Mosque was blown up; they didn't bother to wait for follow up information that would vaildate their claims for a full-blown civil war; they didn't bother to read beyond the basic mainstream media (who do NOT have the ability to understand the GWOT with their media structuralization and ideologies); and they've never been to Iraq.
And yet, guys like Derbyshire get the chance to pontificate to people who HAVE been to Iraq- that they have less worth then the Derbyshires of the world. Ralph Peters was in Iraq recently, during the unrest that happened after the bombing of the Mosque. And yet, all Derbyshire and his ilk could do is say "he reported from a Humvee, that's not really visiting Iraq" (paraphrased). Um, well......that's more than you've done, Derbyshire. You get a free pass at bitching when you do exactly what Ralph Peters does, and nothing less. Oh, and now that things are calming down (to an extent) in Baghdad, what do these writers have to say for themselves? A simple "oops" won't suffice.
The second point irritates me even more: That they don't care one way or the other that Democracy should be exported to Iraq or the Middle East, and that their sole goal was to eliminate Hussein as a threat to the US and the West. To that, I have just this to say:
Why can't the Middle East become a democracy?
Their reponse is that Islam is not suitable for Democracy, and that that Arab people don't ultimately want Democracy. Well, as for Islam + Democracy, we just don't know. It's never really been tried before. To say that it won't work is an assuption without any facts behind it. But what we DO know, is that the people of the Middle East want prosperity and economic freedom. They've taken to that pretty effectively- when they've been allowed it. And the easiest way to ensure economic freedom is through democratic governments. Socialist, autocratic, or Tribal governments won't work in the globalized world of today. That effectively leaves them with democracy. And why shouldn't they get their chance at democracy? Because they're, well, not American? Or European? That they bow 5 times a day to Mecca? And don't drink wine? I hope you readers see where I'm going with this: I can't help but think that the simple, underlying reason that these writers don't want to see nation-building and democracy in the Middle East is because they are not American, Europeans, Judeo-Christians, and as such, are lower than the former, and deserve their lower stature. IE; I find it a fundamentally racist arguement. I want to hesitate from saying that, because it really veers into potential ad hominen territory, but I can't shake it. The whole "they're not us, and thus are not worthy" arguement that I'm seeing them make I just find utterly vile. And so goddamn stupid that it's the type of strategy that would make counter-insurgency operations in the overall GWOT virtually impossible. It's be a magnet for AQ and their sister organizations to rally anti-American rhetoric around.
All these writers want is to replace Hussein with another dictator who's just be "our son of a bitch". And what, pray tell, would that really accomplish? That we're only looking out for our own self-interests, and are willing to trample over everyone in order to get it? That once we depose Hussein, we leave, install a puppet regime, and leave them to their own devices? With Al Qaeda and other terror organizations inside and outside Iraq? That's really bright. I just find it irresponsible- on the left or the right- to want to pull out or just not STAY in the first place, when what we're really doing is waging an offensive struggle that will take decades to complete. Their strategy does nothing more than create a holding pattern throughout the world. That's like trying to fight WW2 from Britain, and never launching a sea/land/air invasion of the European mainland.
Oh, and speaking of WW2, wouldn't you say that the rebuilding of Germany and Japan into democracies went pretty well? What does that say about our potential for nation building? And, as for their commentary that "democracies don't necessarily not fight other democracies", other than the Hamas controlled PLO, when has that happened? Yes, terrorists can use democracies for underground organization and resources, but it's not like France, Britain, the US, Germany, the Czech Republic, and Italy on a governmental or mainstream societal level conspired with the terrorists to launch terror operations. That's nothing more than a straw man arguement that's just there to make the writers look good and goes nowhere. I'd rather spend more time arguing about the merits of our actual CI operational plan than theoretical conceptualizations that would even annoy most Wall Street brokers.
So, what else is there to say about these writers? Time will tell, but I for one, don't want to be associated with their increasingly unbalanced rhetoric and ad hominen attacks. Get in a HUMMV and go to Iraq. Or read from people who have. And learn.
posted by Fafhrd1 | 11:18 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home