Neo-Conservatives

The thing is, what do we do about the Iraq mess NOW?

We could argue the war right or wrong forever. But what are we going to do NOW to move forward in a positive direction on it?

I haven't really seen a great plan from liberals or conservatives for moving forward, yet. Everyone is too busy pointing fingers at one another.

We will have to be very careful in Iraq. Although there is no reason to believe that it is a magnet for international terrorists wanting to get a crack at killing the U.S. Army, i don't for a moment doubt that there are plenty of Muslim "country boys" from Syria, Jordan and other parts of the region who want to go play bang-bang there. The view that "it's better to fight them there than here" is a failure to recognize that for as long as terrorism has been a problem, from the days of Carlos, through Abu-Nidal up to Al Qaeda, the truly dangerous boys aren't into a shoot out with heavily armed men in body armor. They want spectacular results, and while able to recruit suicide volunteers, they don't want to risk their plans going astray.

Iraq is now faced mostly with neutralizing and disarming its native insurgents. The success of the new government will only be meaningfully measured in terms of how well they do that job. We have thrust ourselves into the situation, and we can't cut and run now, even if the only issue were our honor--but there's much more at stake. We got very lucky with the Shi'ite mess earlier this year. Had we been seen in the Muslim world as willfully and cavalierly descrating the sacred shrines of Shi'ism, the recruiting pool for those willing to attack the Army specifically or Americans in general would have grown dramatically. Fortunately, the Iraqi Shi'ites did not respond as Sadr apparently hoped they would, and he was first politically marginalized, and then Sistani brokered an arrangement to largely defuse the situation.

So long as we can avoid looking the bully boys, so long as we are not seen as desecrating Islam, we can do some damage control for our international image. We will have to stay until the Iraqi government, in whatever form they choose, is able to field a police force and a national guard which can deal with the insurgency in whatever vigor it is able to retain. That is likely to be considerable, as the fall of the Ba'atists basically disenfranchises the large Sunni minority around and to the west and northwest of Baghdad. Even if we come out clean, the future of Iraq has a great potential for horror and sorrow. No one before 1920 was ever stupid enough to believe these people could live together in peace--it will be a magnificent tribute to the Iraqi people, if Kurd, Sunni and Shi'ite can form a stable government. We at least owe it to them not to pull out until they have a fighting chance.

Seemed uncivil to me, as was Pdiddies post that started this tempest.

My first post above was intended to extend the olive branch, as plea for us to come together in a time when a determined, fanatical enemy is willing to die to destroy Western civilization and the United States. What I seem to have done is provide myself as a target for those who seem to believe that the United States, and its leadership, is somehow to blame for a group a fanatical idealists who want to destroy the humanistic and materialistic values of the West.

What are you folks going to do if George Bush is again reelected President of the United States. You personally may believe that he is evil-incarnate, but a good share of Americans do not agree with you.

Good post, Set.


Its all Balfour's fault.

Yes, Setanta, that last post is worthy of you and your reputation for historical objectivity.

Well, it would not be unfair to say that Arthur Balfour was nearing or already was senescent. Personally, I blame Winston Churchill. As First Lord before the Great War, he decided that the fleet needed to go to oil-fired turbines, either instructing or being incited by Jackie Fisher to that end. It does not mystify me in the least that when carving up the middle east with Clemenceau's good wishes, the French got Syria, Jordan and the Lebanon, while the British sphere was Arabia and the Tigris-Euphrates valley. The original plans from 1920 show two roughly equal arcs through those former Turkish territories, which would have left Mosul under French influence. Then Winston went to work on it, and created "Mesopotamia." Emphasis on the Mess.

from gopusa



click... link

45/46/48/49 <shrug> It's not chicken counting time yet for anyone.

Thank you gentlemen, for your courtesy.

I had never heard of FreeRepublic.com until it was mentioned in the posting above. I just visited the site, and didn't find anything there that was a problem. Seemed to be mostly a compilation of newstories slanted toward the GOP point of view. The editorials looked like Republican editorials. I didn't see any rabid attacks on Kerry, the Democratic Party, or even "liberals" in general. I suppose I might find myself comfortable visiting the site, if I visited politically motivated sites at all. Thanks for the citation, though like I said, I doubt I'll go there much.

Yeah - that'll be because the AMERICAN conservatives (in most other places liberal is considered a mildly right wing position) have succeeded - with the politically naive, or with the right and in hand with a general political backlash - in associating the word "liberal" (and many other words) with a whole raft of things which they have (in a debate which has moved far to the right in recent years) managed to sell as undesirable. I would actually see this trend as having begun under Nixon - some of you will recall Agnew's diatribes against the "liberal intelligentsia".

I would never use the word liberal to describe myself - but, since it seems to be the term which centrists and mildly left wing folk use to describe themselves in the USA - I would very much doubt that any American liberals are in the least ashamed of the term.

They probably do, however, recognize the effectiveness of the right's campaign to associate the word with undesirable things in many people's minds, and hence have practical concerns about the use of the label.

Such journeys towards the pejorative are frequently made by words - in adversarial political discourse, (especially when the contendors are not well versed in the more precise academic definitions of the words in question) and when they describe things which we find undesirable in other ways.

Lol - that is what I get for not reading the second page before posting - a post which is way behind where the debate has got to!

Happens t'me alla time, bunny. Frequently I'll labor over a carefully crafted and link-rich reply, hit "submit", and find the discussion in the meanwhile has moved way, way on without me

Nah - the BEST replies - the REALLY clever ones - where all the best of one's wisdom and knowledge are displayed - are lost by posting when the site goes down, or somesuch.

Yup ... that too. Dontchya just hate it when that happens :wink:

Er - um - actually - I have to confess it has never happened to me.

I was just trying to create a good impression.....teehee...

I think I would be ashamed to be called a liberal now, simply because I wouldn't want to be associated with pedantic PDiddie.

Ya might not like PDiddie's style, but it would be an error to take him lightly. One problem is, conservatives like to say, "Oh, such and such is a wimpy liberal." So, when a liberal demonstrates he/she is not going to lie down like a wimp they seek the character flaw. I have never met PDid away from the site, but I know he is very organized and capable. His grasp of a situation is usually right on, if the rhetoric is confrontational.

(psssst, Sofia: there you are. You win. :wink: )

pedantic

Pronunciation: pi-'dan-tik
Function: adjective
1 : of, relating to, or being a pedant
2 : narrowly, stodgily, and often ostentatiously learned
3 : UNIMAGINATIVE, PEDESTRIAN
- pe·dan·ti·cal·ly /-'dan-ti-k(&-)lE/ adverb

'Pedantic PDiddie' makes a nice alliteration, but it ain't accurate. :wink:

Yes it is

Mornin', PDiddie ... You're up early.