Monday, December 11, 2006

Iraq Study Group

My two cents, concisely: the consensus of fools is poor advice.
I am a little pissed at this whole debacle. The situation in Iraq is difficult, to no ones surprise and we had better rise to this challenge or start driving around in a white VW Cabriolet and calling ourselves Nancy. Let me toss some words out there and see if you can spot the difference between this fecklessness that is so au courant and the determination that made this country the gentle colossus astride the globe. Omaha Beach, Antietam, Guadalcanal. These too were tough, only the generations before the baby boomers didn't have the luxury or the inclination to be pussies. If we are going to dabble in world affairs we owe it to ourselves, to our soldiers and our allies and yes even our enemies to finish what we start or stay home and keep our mouths and our borders shut. This reluctant hegemon who's afraid of a nose bleed act is getting old.


Dexter said...

Iraq is not the same as World War II but i will give you Antietam as this quagmire is cleary veering towards a civil war. The difference in Omaha BEach and Guadal Canal is clear. The free world was on our side to rid occupied territories of fascist aggressors. We clearly did not need to go into Iraq and our continued prescence there seems to be causing more harm than good. I say if we are going to commit than go all out and bring over the divisions we need to do the job right or pack it up and go home and not pretend that there is a solution that can reached by the current Iraqi leadership.

Anonymous said...

I agree with this statement:

"Iraq is far from lost, but in fact, despite the negative coverage, has a viable elected government that slogs on through the worst assaults imaginable. The coalition government includes all voices in the country. And that explains why, at least so far, there really is not a classic civil war in which one faction, with clearly defined goals of governance, tries to assume power, backed by substantial military force and broad public support.

The present strategy of Iraqization is the correct one, both for ethical and practical reasons. If we don’t withdraw precipitously, there is a good chance that Iraqi forces, and government flexibility, will eventually pacify Baghdad and its environs — where almost all the violence in the country is confined. Along with the stabilization of Afghanistan, and positive democratic developments in Lebanon, the Middle East is in flux, but with at least a chance of broad-based reform not seen in a half century.

Withdrawals from Lebanon and Gaza, while strategically and politically understandable, brought little commensurate peace to Israel. And while negotiations about borders are vital to a lasting peace between Israel and the Palestinians, a large number of the latter group believe that Israel itself can be unraveled through a mixture of terrorism, rocketry, and on-again-off-again diplomacy. Their real grievance against Israel is not so much its post-1967 retention of conquered land — there were 20 years of war prior to then — but its Westernized presence and daily example of success in a sea of failure. The pathologies of the Middle East were there prior to Israel, and will probably be enhanced rather than ameliorated by a sense of Israeli appeasement and American-induced concessions."

The article's summary of opposing positions is well done. Worth the read no matter which "side" you're on.

PS El D, have you recently changed your blog security? Had a hell of a time posting - CultMan