Wednesday, August 29, 2007
|
|
Debating Dr. Barnett
|
|
Posted by:
Hugh Hewitt at
2:12 PM
|
Dr. Barnett responds to our conversation yesterday and my post below with two entries at his blog, here and here. He asserts that "Hugh wants to pre-emptively tag the Dems for future Sunni-v-Shia killings in the inevitable drawdown and pullback to follow,"and that I want "a number to pin on them now in advance of Petraeus' report. The stabbed-in-the-back storyline is being pro-actively weaved."
I am not trying to misrepresent Dr. Barnett's views, and point people to the transcript. Others drew even harsher conclusions than I did, but the reader can decide for himself what Dr. Barnett is advocating.
On the other hand, Dr. Barnett's characterization of my views is simply wrong. I believe there are excellent prospects for stability in Iraq, and I base that assessment on everything coming out of Iraq as well as interviews such as the one I conducted with Major General Simmons this morning which will play on the program today as well as on interviews with General Petraeus, John Burns, Michael O'Hanlon, General Keane, Fred Kagan, Max Boot and Bill Kristol (each of the six civilians have been in Iraq in the recent months.) I don't think the bloodletting that Dr. Barnett views as inevitable is in any real sense "inevitable," and those urging it --both Democrats and Republicans-- are playing with genocide as though that's just a consequence of the world in which we live. When Dr. Barnett admitted to there being at least a "small chance" of avoiding the sectarian slaughter he predicts will follow our withdrawal from the middle of the Sunni-Shia conflict in Iraq, he gives up the argument about morality. There's a lot of evidence that there is a great deal more than "some chance" of that happening, but even "some chance" of reducing loss of life and helping Iraq emerge as a stable democracy compels us to stay committed to the freely elected government of Iraq.
I also find it unpersuasive --indeed very unrealistic-- to assert against a great deal of evidence to the contrary that we can negotiate with the Iranians, and urge Kim Kagan's comprehensive report on Iranian interference on everyone who believes we are missing an opening with Iran.
I will ask Dr. Barnett back next week, but it seems to me that advocates of his strategy or of an even more comprehensive withdrawal have to begin their analysis by asking the people who are there or who have been there recently what they see happening in Iraq. What a folly and a terrible tragedy it would be if the U.S.abandoned Iraq to a paroxysm of sectarian killing far worse than that of 2006, and to another tyrant in the mold of Saddam if it could have been avoided. As long as there is a good, or even "some" chance of that result, we should be supporting the surge.
|
|
...after this exchange I had with him a few months ago:
http://tinyurl.com/2x5rln
I questioned him for insinuating that Zionist "influences" were dictating US policy toward Iran. Total mush. Weak logic. Avoided my points. I didn't even bother responding again.
I think his notoriety and the subsequent elitist, beltway plaudits have clouded his thinking, or he simply likes the fawning-overs he gets during those DC cocktail parties. Maybe he is working on having a position with Hillary once she is (so he thinks) inevitably elected. Whatever the reason, his thinking has become hackneyed and banal. |
|
|
This bag of wind, Barnett, (a closet liberal) is frequently wrong but never in doubt. He should stick to his leviatan-gap theories and stay out of geopolitical real-world issues he does not understand. |
|
|
This bag of wind, Barnett, (a closet liberal) is frequently wrong but never in doubt. He should stick to his leviatan-gap theories and stay out of geopolitical real-world issues he does not understand. |
|
|
|
Active-duty US troops become outspoken critics of Iraq war.
news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20070829/ts_csm/aspeakout
"When you are in uniform in Iraq and ask fellow soldiers other than the 19 year olds in their first tour what they think they tell you straight out this is a charily foxtrot. The same guys however have a different reply to those "not in the club."
- Someone who is in the know
|
|
is delusional if he interprets Bush's comments to be prepping Americans for an attack on Iran. He is utterly foolish or suicidial if he thinks that any meaningful negotiation can occur with Iran.
Remind me again why Hugh was pushing his book so strongly? |
|
What's the old saw about never negotiating with terrorists? Iran is the premier terrorist state.
Its getting lost in the Craig potty humor, but the rhetoric is really ramping up between Iran and the US, and it does not sound like they are ready to break out the peace pipe. |
|
the exchange with Dr. Barnett shows why the 2008 election will be Romneys..its all detailed in a Mormon in the White House..
(ok, its a joke..I just miss Huge peppering nearly every one of his posts with a tie into why something is really good for Romney and also a sales pitch for his book..) |
|
More and more I am amazed at the concept of diplomacy relative to terrorists and others who hold that any act, whether it be murder or lying, is justified for the purpose of advancing the Islamist cause, i.e. establishing Sharia rule. How can a thinking individual reason out a justification for the compromise of our own principles for a promise that is not worth the paper it is written on? Didn't Arafat demonstrate time and again that terrorists will not hold true to their promises? Can you really believe that the leadership of Iran has a higher level of integrity than Arafat, after all the violence they have advocated towards the US and our allies?
Peace through negotiations will melt like icecream in the summer sun. Peace through strength is a tried and true concept for an enduring solution. |
|
|
As was said of Apollo 13: failure is not an option. Regardless of the incompetence of Rumfeld and Bush in prosecutiong this necessary war, Sadaam was a bad actor who would have had to be dealt with eventually. It also allows for a more concerted focus on the Persians. The UN and Euro elites were bought off and Sadaam was merely wrapping up loose ends before firming up his WMD programs. Still no word on the Syrian/Russian freight forwarding project? Not a surprise. The fact that war is hard is also no surprise, especially in that area of the world. So before you exploit the blood of willing American soldiers consider the senseless destruction and loss of life every year in ratholes like Newark, Detroit and New Orleans. The sacrifice of our warriors is not waste it is investment in liberty. Too bad the rest of the western world will probably learn that truth when it is too late to make a difference. |
|
Hugh, I think you guys are talking past each other a bit. His argument is three-fold: 1) If we don't push the diplomacy side of things in conjunction with the surge, the killing is virtually inevitable. 2) President Bush is not inclined for whatever reason to push the diplomacy side of things. 3) Given (2), pulling back in the near-term to the Kurdish areas and Kuwait is preferable and will cost less lives in the long-run than continuing as we are. This is because the slow-motion Suni/Shiite war will eventually fatigue the American people's will to do anything in the Persian Gulf and the resulting total pullout will cost a lot more lives, both Iraqi and American.
If (2) were to change, we can avoid (3). I think his 'small chance' you refer to is more along the lines of Dumb and Dumber "so you're saying there's a chance...?!" If (2) doesn't change, the only options long-term are to partially pull back now and try to preserve some progress, or pull back completely down the road and face disaster.
I don't necessarily agree, but that's what he's saying. |
|
they can engage in meaningful dialogue with a Muslim is delusional at best.
http://hauns.com/~DCQu4E5g/koran5.html
An excerpt: "Al-taqiyya and dissimulation are words used for a practice of Muslims blatantly lying to non-Muslims. All but some of the most fundamental Muslims consider the act of Al-taqiyya or lying to non-Muslims to be a good work. This is very important when one remembers that, in Islam, salvation is determined by good works. This means that a Muslim lying to a non-Muslim is that Muslim doing a good work to earn salvation. It is almost equivalent to a Christian accepting Jesus as his savior. One of the big differences is that a Christian only needs to accept Jesus as his savior once to become saved forever but a Muslim must do his good works consistently and repeatedly to earn his salvation with the except of the greatest work of dying while fighting non-Muslims."
Therefore, the only "negotiation" needs to be from a position of strength. We need to be able to give them directives and enforce them. |
|
"(each of the six civilians have been in Iraq in the recent months.)"
And how many days of dog and pony shows did they have? How many of them were ever even in the Army themselves? How much time did they spend outside the green zone? How many troops were taken from other assignments to baby sit them? |
|
"I don't think the bloodletting that Dr. Barnett views as inevitable is in any real sense "inevitable," and those urging it --both Democrats and Republicans-- are playing with genocide as though that's just a consequence of the world in which we live."
Bloodletting not inevitable? It is happening right now and a whole lot of it.
Who is urging bloodletting? Which Democrats and Republicans are urging bloodletting?
Playing with genocide?
If there is a genocide in Iraq who will do the genocide? Al Qaeda in Iraq? There are not enough of them to do a genocide. Will Sunnis and/or Shiites do a genocide on the other? If they hate each other anything like enough to do that how will they ever be able to build that stable, democratic, rule-of-law nation of Bush's fantasy together? You have an extreme case of cognitive dissonance. |
|
I was in heavy traffic, so I'm not sure that I did not misunderstand Dr. Barnett, but it sounded to me as if he were criticizing current policy because we are not trying to work more with Iran.
If I heard and understood him correctly, I would disagree with that conclusion. I think Iran is untrustworthy. If we try compromising them and meeting them halfway, I am certain that they will take advantage of our concessions, and not live up to their agreements. |
|
Ask him if Iraq is such an important cause, the Army must hand out $20,000 pre-enlistment bonuses.
Hugh is not misrepresenting Barnett's views, but Barnett's characterization of Hugh's is simply wrong, according to Hugh.
Which of these guys you going to believe?
|
|
|
he's a hack. But, if you must, ask him why he repackages and claims as his own the work of scholars like Saul B. Cohen without attribution? |
|
|
|