An ugly narrative
Over at Commentary Magazine, in their Contentions section is a fascinating article on why the a narrative that the Democrats would be seen as cowardly, short-sighted, fools that lost Iraq, if they continue their present course, accurate. The question: is the phrase "ugly narrative" in Mr. Rauch's column in the National Journal, actually code for "accurate?" Here is a just one comment by the author, Peter Wehner:
Mr. Rauch doesn’t explain (perhaps because he can’t) why he considers this narrative “ugly”—a word clearly meant to suggest partisan political strategy—rather than accurate. The reality is that we know, from their own past words, that weakness emboldens jihadists.
The comments by readers are even better. This one by Fat Man deserves its own column. I hope he writes elsewhere.
Fat Man Says:
“Isn’t cowardice a pretty nasty charge? Aren’t there reasons other than “because we have been bloodied” (as he puts it in his post above) to think a change of strategy might be warranted?”
Since I am an anonymous dog on the internet. I can slime with impunity, or if you agree with me, tell the truth without fear or favor.
The core groups of the Democrat party, are, and have been since 1972, committed to the destruction of American power in world affairs. Some of them, because they believe that they are doing the rest of the world a favor, some of them, because they sought to protect Communism around the world, and some of them because they are fools or cowards.
In any event, I do not question their patriotism, there is no question about it — they hate the United States of America. They have no patriotism towards it, they never have and never will. They believe that patriotism is, like religion, a sign of defective mental development, probably associated with iodine deficiency, like goiter.
The War in Iraq, in its post 2003 invasion phase, was overdetermined to provoke these people. First, their formative political experience was defeating the United States in South Vietnam. For many of them it was the most important thing that they ever did. Second, in the aftermath of the close election in 2000, they had accumulated an almost psychotic hatred of George Bush, largely for cultural and partisan reasons.
If there had been no 9/11, these Democrats, would have poured all of their venom into the No Child Left Behind Act and Medicare Prescription Drug Benefits. The rest of the country would have passed out in front of their television sets, drooling, eyes rolled up in their sockets.
But 9/11 did happen, and Michael Moore contextualized it for the Democrat mentality best. Why, he asked did they attack New York, didn’t they know that Bush had lost in New York. The resident useful idiots, like Susan Sontag (may her name be blotted out) and Stanley Fish wrote op-eds in the NYTimes explaining why it was all our fault.
The Democrats in Congress, save for a handful of diehards, voted to approve the war in Iraq, based on their courageous assessment of the polling data. What has changed since then is the polling, which gave heart to the ideological core of Democrats.
Among Democrats, it is now Bush’s War. Hillary demanded that he end it before she is coronated. The problem with this approach is that wars do not belong to Presidents, they belong to countries. The United States will loose the Iraq War only if it retreats. A retreat that is simply unwarranted by any state of facts.
The facts are that no American unit has been defeated in any battle by any enemy unit. The only thing the enemy has been able to do is blow up mines and suicide bomb civilians. The cost of this war in American casualties has been very low, far lower than any previous war the United States has fought. The monetary cost is trivial — less than one percent of GDP.
We may well need more more money and more soldiers, and we will certainly need more time to win this war, but it must be won. The consequences of loosing are far too dire. They include a victorious nuclear Iran, and a steroid infused jihadist movement. It will be a maxim of world affairs that the United States betrays its allies and quakes before its enemies. The world will be a vastly more dangerous place, where any adventurer will believe that the United States is a pitiful helpless giant, and who will act accordingly.
The only legitimate subject of public discourse in this situation is how to win. The Democrats who want to talk about how to retreat are cowards, and worse than that — traitors.
Truth hurts, don’t it?
Mr. Rauch doesn’t explain (perhaps because he can’t) why he considers this narrative “ugly”—a word clearly meant to suggest partisan political strategy—rather than accurate. The reality is that we know, from their own past words, that weakness emboldens jihadists.
The comments by readers are even better. This one by Fat Man deserves its own column. I hope he writes elsewhere.
Fat Man Says:
“Isn’t cowardice a pretty nasty charge? Aren’t there reasons other than “because we have been bloodied” (as he puts it in his post above) to think a change of strategy might be warranted?”
Since I am an anonymous dog on the internet. I can slime with impunity, or if you agree with me, tell the truth without fear or favor.
The core groups of the Democrat party, are, and have been since 1972, committed to the destruction of American power in world affairs. Some of them, because they believe that they are doing the rest of the world a favor, some of them, because they sought to protect Communism around the world, and some of them because they are fools or cowards.
In any event, I do not question their patriotism, there is no question about it — they hate the United States of America. They have no patriotism towards it, they never have and never will. They believe that patriotism is, like religion, a sign of defective mental development, probably associated with iodine deficiency, like goiter.
The War in Iraq, in its post 2003 invasion phase, was overdetermined to provoke these people. First, their formative political experience was defeating the United States in South Vietnam. For many of them it was the most important thing that they ever did. Second, in the aftermath of the close election in 2000, they had accumulated an almost psychotic hatred of George Bush, largely for cultural and partisan reasons.
If there had been no 9/11, these Democrats, would have poured all of their venom into the No Child Left Behind Act and Medicare Prescription Drug Benefits. The rest of the country would have passed out in front of their television sets, drooling, eyes rolled up in their sockets.
But 9/11 did happen, and Michael Moore contextualized it for the Democrat mentality best. Why, he asked did they attack New York, didn’t they know that Bush had lost in New York. The resident useful idiots, like Susan Sontag (may her name be blotted out) and Stanley Fish wrote op-eds in the NYTimes explaining why it was all our fault.
The Democrats in Congress, save for a handful of diehards, voted to approve the war in Iraq, based on their courageous assessment of the polling data. What has changed since then is the polling, which gave heart to the ideological core of Democrats.
Among Democrats, it is now Bush’s War. Hillary demanded that he end it before she is coronated. The problem with this approach is that wars do not belong to Presidents, they belong to countries. The United States will loose the Iraq War only if it retreats. A retreat that is simply unwarranted by any state of facts.
The facts are that no American unit has been defeated in any battle by any enemy unit. The only thing the enemy has been able to do is blow up mines and suicide bomb civilians. The cost of this war in American casualties has been very low, far lower than any previous war the United States has fought. The monetary cost is trivial — less than one percent of GDP.
We may well need more more money and more soldiers, and we will certainly need more time to win this war, but it must be won. The consequences of loosing are far too dire. They include a victorious nuclear Iran, and a steroid infused jihadist movement. It will be a maxim of world affairs that the United States betrays its allies and quakes before its enemies. The world will be a vastly more dangerous place, where any adventurer will believe that the United States is a pitiful helpless giant, and who will act accordingly.
The only legitimate subject of public discourse in this situation is how to win. The Democrats who want to talk about how to retreat are cowards, and worse than that — traitors.
Truth hurts, don’t it?
Labels: democrat "support", iraq campaign, media
posted by Cargosquid at 8:41 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home