Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
Austin Bay :: Townhall.com Columnist
The Real News Behind "The Surge"
by Austin Bay
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


"More troops" isn't the most significant aspect of the military "surge" in Iraq.

Since at least fall 2003, an increase of 5,000 to 10,000 troops over a three-month window has been an option for coalition forces. For example, deploying a "ready brigade" from the 82nd Airborne Division would quickly bump troop strength in the region by around 4,000 soldiers. On several occasions (spring 2004, for example), commanders have accelerating planned reinforcements and delayed pending unit withdrawals.

Adding 20,000 troops to Iraq in a five- to six-month window is a significant increase but in and of itself not decisive, and certainly not a "new strategy."

The relentless, focused targeting of Shia and Sunni extremist organizations is a far more important feature of what Iraqis are calling "the new security plan" than more U.S. troops. The coalition's effort to better integrate the economic and political development "lines of operation" with security operations could have greater long-term effects.

Attacks on Muqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army have been the most public examples of "focused targeting." Though Sadr's allies deny it, Iraqi and U.S. government spokesmen still claim that Sadr has left Iraq for Iran. Sadr bolted because the new offensive is indeed striking his militia.

In 2004, Iraqi Shia leaders, including Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, told coalition commanders that Sadr should be dealt with politically -- and by Iraqis. Sistani's preferred method was to either absorb Sadr into the emerging democratic system or slowly marginalize him. Either way, Iraqis would defang Sadr without making him a "martyr."

The "preferred method" produced mixed results. Sadr was certainly not absorbed, nor was he thrust to the political margins. Sadr's personal influence has clearly diminished, however. In the meantime, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki -- a Shia -- has become Iraq's leading political figure. Moreover, Maliki enjoys Sistani's support and Sadr Sistani's disdain.

Maliki understands the United States will no longer wait for Sadr's dissipation. The Hollywood marquee would read "Maliki or Muqtada" -- a facile headline, but one containing a gram of truth. As coalition and Iraqi forces crack down on the Mahdi Army, Maliki is getting a few welcome political breaks, which may be the pleasant residue of "the preferred method." Sadr's "Iran trip" may have been a practical necessity, but it was not politically astute. It reinforces Iraqi contentions that Sadr's organization acts on behalf of Iran and that Sadr, rather than being the voice of the disenfranchised, is a mouthpiece.

Perhaps the most encouraging aspect of the new security plan is the increased aggressiveness of the Iraqi Army as it conducts counterinsurgent operations. The Iraqi military defeat of the cultist "Soldiers of Heaven" planned attack on Najaf in late January provides a dramatic example. With coalition backup, Iraqi forces launched a spoiling attack and killed or captured several hundred militants.

Maliki's national reconciliation program remains the key Iraqi political endeavor. That program began well before "the new security plan," but no security plan will succeed unless reconciliation occurs.

The Office of National Reconciliation conducts "engagements" with the entire spectrum of ethnic, religious and political groups. Last week, in a phone interview with journalists and commentators, coalition spokesman U.S. Maj. Gen. William Caldwell discussed how his Strategic Effects Office works with the Iraqi government on this issue.

"In the last three months on any given day of week we're doing (numerous reconciliation) engagements," Caldwell said. His office has helped coordinate the meetings. Caldwell said that the reconciliation office had also been "talking to insurgent groups."

That makes sense. Maliki's "new security plan" includes a reformed "de-Baathification" program designed to permit former members of the Baath Party, on an individual basis, to integrate into the new, democratic Iraq.

Former Interim Prime Minister Iyad Allawi advocated a similar program in 2004, but Allawi's government was appointed, not elected. Saddam Hussein was also still alive. Maliki is an elected prime minister, and his government carried out Saddam's court-ordered death sentence. Maliki has the political capital to implement the program.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author

Austin Bay Austin Bay is author of three novels. His third novel, The Wrong Side of Brightness, was published by Putnam/Jove in June 2003. He has also co-authored four non-fiction books, to include A Quick and Dirty Guide to War: Third Edition (with James Dunnigan, Morrow, 1996).
 
Be the first to read Austin Bay's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.

©Creators Syndicate
Who funds the Sunni Insurgency?
Propagating terror
by Rachel Ehrenfeld
The Washington Times, February 21, 2007

...individual terrorist acts do not cost much; the World Trade Center attack on September 11 is estimated as al Qaeda's most costly, at $500,000, while the bombing of London's transit in July 2005, cost merely $2,000. Therefore, the report argues, the $140 million in terrorist assets, which the United States froze in 1,400 bank accounts worldwide during the last six years, is a great success.

But freezing $140 million did little to stop the fund flows to terrorists, especially when compared to the more than $90 BILLION that the SAUDIS spent since the 1970s to spread WAHHABISM, one of the world's most virulent forms of Islam, which also produced al Qaeda. This Saudi-sponsored propagation of Islamist extremism is described by former CIA Director James Woolsey as "the soil in which AL-QAEDA and its sister terrorist organizations are flourishing." The hundreds of millions of dollars that the Saudis donated to the Palestinian Liberation Organization and Hamas just to fuel the intifada is but one example.

...It boggles the mind that the Bush administration continues to ignore terrorism's need for, and access to, a strong, international funding base, with large pockets even in the United States. More disturbing is the administration's unwillingness to identify the funding sources. As long as the TERROR FINANCIERS remain unknown, we will not be able to sever the terrorists' lifeline.

http://washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20070220-091154-3785r.htm

Rachel Ehrenfeld is director of the American Center for Democracy.

Who funds the Sunni Insurgency? 2
Dangerous Knowledge In Academe
by Youssef Ibrahim
The New York Sun, February 16, 2007

...If you follow the money, you'll discover quickly that the intimidation continues. Oil-rich fundamentalist Arab regimes, including SAUDI ARABIA, the United Arab Emirates, and Qatar have put big money into spreading their version of Islamic history.

Take two donations to the Council on American-Islamic Relations, an organization that has participated in its share of sinister activities. In June 2006, it was announced that SAUDI PRINCE Alwaleed bin Talal --supposedly a friend of America who built his multibillion-dollar fortune partly through owning Citibank and Apple stocks -- will fund a $50 million CAIR project "to create a better understanding of Islam and Muslims" in America.

Surely the prince, who has scores of American advisers, knows how controversial CAIR is. Yet he is giving it $50 million to interpret Saudi militant WAHHABISM, making it "accessible" in America ... We cannot afford such hypocrisy. The West is engaged in a major confrontation with Islamic terror, in which much of the Islamists' ammunition is coming from the charities, schools, teachings, and treasuries of Saudi Arabia and the Arabian Gulf. There is no need to hold America's door open to them.

http://www.nysun.com/article/48806?page_no=2

Who funds the Sunni Insurgency? 3
All Iraq's neighbours 'are fuelling conflict'
by Guy Dinmore
The Financial Times, February 8, 2007

While the US is focusing public attention on Iran with accusations of its destabilising role in Iraq, analysts in Washington warn that all Iraq's neighbours are becoming more deeply involved in covert activities that fuel the sectarian conflict.

Funds and weapons originating in SAUDI ARABIA are still reaching SUNNI groups and AL-QAEDA, sometimes routed through Syria. Meanwhile, Turkey is becoming more active in north Iraq as it prepares to help the Turkmen minority in a looming confrontation over the future of the Kurdish-claimed, oil-rich city of Kirkuk.

The Bush administration, however, wants the spotlight focused on Iran and not on its allies in the region. The Sunni-dominated Gulf Arab states are being pushed by Washington to form a broad anti-Iranian alliance with the US, even -- as former officials point out -- at the risk of provoking a wider Sunni-Shia conflict in the Islamic world.

http://www.kurdishaspect.com/doc0208GD.html

The New Expanded IRAN
The Shia gov't of Iraq is growing closer everyday to Tehran, unthinkable during Saddam's grip on the country.

Will this ultimately be a disaster for U.S. interests? Too soon to tell. Remember how cozy Reagan became with Tehran during his Contra-support program? Enemies become allies at AliceinWonderland speed when opportunity and desperation collude.

500+Billion$ so far has reconfigured the map of influence in the M.E. and has taught the Bush team the Law of Unintended Consequences. The next president will have to make the best of a new(and always temporary) world order.

Assumptions
Bay makes two assumptions that are unconfirmed:

There is not one shred of proof that Al-Sadr is in Iran.
>The Iraqi military defeat of the cultist "Soldiers of Heaven" planned attack on Najaf< is an incident that is rife with contradiction, and there is evidence that the entire incident was instigated by the Iraqi military against nationalist Shiite tribes:

>according to Arab reports, the traveling Shi'ite pilgrims were not Mahdawiya, but were from the al-Hawatim tribe, which lives between Najaf and Diwaniyah. The chief of the tribe, Hajji Sa'ad Sa'ad Nayif al-Hatemi, was killed along with his wife and driver at the Zarga checkpoint near Najaf. So the tribe - fully armed of course, the only way to travel in "liberated" nighttime Iraq - revolted (that explains the weapons; the "Soldiers of Heaven", depicted as a scruffy bunch, could never have been so well armed).- Pepe Escobar ATO

According to Escobar, the incident was a localized beef between Arab Shiites and Persian Shiites, with the Iraqi Army(and US support) backing the Persian contingency that escalated into a massacre, so a plot was needed to justify the carnage.

Until more light is shed on this incident, using it as a positive example of Iraqi Army operations and loyalties is ludicrous.
Bay should do some more research before basing a column on rumours and unsubstantiated headlines.


Unbiased news
For those of you who are concerned about the media in the US being biased, have you ever though of using the internet to get news and perspectives from outside the US.

BBC, LeMonde, and many other news groups from around the world have English versions.

You still have to take things with a grain of salt, but there are other news sources out there for people who want to look.

SHOCK AND AWE -- BUMPING INTO REALITY
WE GET THE GOVERNMENT WE DESERVE… and, boy, we’ve really been getting it for the last 6 years! Truth, values, competence and results no longer matter in America.

THE PROBLEM: our President is not a rational thinker – his mind accepts information from only two sources: faith and experience. One notable example from Iraq, Bush learned the "the enemy will follow us here" from Vietnam and the Domino Theory: “If we don’t defeat the communists in Vietnam, then we’ll have to fight them here in America.” Now just insert “terrorists” and “Iraq” into the one lesson Bush learned from Vietnam. Of course, the real terrorists who will come to America are in Afghanistan and now the border regions of Pakistan.

Because George Bush is not rational (strictly empirical and subjective), objective facts and evidence such as the recent National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) that found this Iraq war has created more jihadists and terrorists and made America less safe are meaningless to this anachronistic man of several millennia ago. The reality of Iraq is what he thinks it is from the beautiful White House, and so our country and our precious soldiers are in for much more of this growing catastrophe, incompetence at the top from day one and continuing into the foreseeable future, and SPIN, SPIN, SPIN (from “shock and awe” to “surge,” everybody stand up for failed policies).

BBC and LeMonde??
You have to be kidding me. I wouldn't believe them any more than I believe the MSM here. They do not even try to hide their anti-American sentiment.

I stand with the Democrats
We don't need more troops. We simply need to implement real rules of engagement. Let them shoot, snipe, bomb, and target as they were trained.

Insurgency would be gone in 2 weeks.

BBC and LeMonde
You seem to miss the point.

If you don't like the MSM in the US, so elsewhere.

I'm not talking about editorials, I'm talking about news coverage for other areas. The Sudan, etc.

Surely, there's got to be something from outside the US, perhaps Canada, where you feel you'd get coverage on Iraq, etc. that would be more unbiased than what you're getting here.

There is peace and freedomm in Iraq!
Thanks to our brave military, 25 million Iraqis went about their business today and do so every day without hearing a gun shot or bomb going off. They also never again have to worry about Saddam's secret police!

The Democrats and their 4th estate/5th columnists will never tell us that side of the story!

Oh and Liberty Bob, just exactly how much collateral damage is OK with you and how is your insane thinking in line with Democrat surrenderism!

Can anyone answer the question of why Democrats always seem to want to surrender wars America is winning?

We were winning in Vietnam and are winning in Iraq. The enemy in both conflicts couldn't/cannot defeat us. We can only lose when Liberal/Democrats/Socialists that will not defend or fight for America complain that true Patriotic Americans are willing to defend or fight for America! The military fighting in Iraq has not lost their will to continue, those Americans that despise the Military have lost their will.

Actually I think the L/D/S just want to see Bush fail and are willing to undermine anybody and anything to do so. Undermining the Government and the Military that they despise, is just a bonus!

doomed to fail
This whole exercise of building a "democratic" state in Iraq is somethinng only someone educated to a high state of stupidity could conceive. It is doomed to fail on its own, just as the "democratic" government of Afganistan is doing, and it will fail to increase the safety of Americans by even the smallest of margins. A previous poster has pointed out correctly how the Saudis are funding the Sunni militias. They also funded the islamists and al qaeda in Somalia. The saudis are funding the wahabists madrasses all over the worlds and exporting radical wahabist clerics to the U.S.. Clerics that exhort ment to shoot americans in US shopping malls. The saudis are the only ones who will benefit from a more stable Iraq. Face it, American boys are dying for a bunch of fat, lazy wahabbist saudis. These saudis are the only ones who are directly threatened the shia and Iran. For all of the sabre rattling Iran does againsty Israel it is the Sauudis who are really scared. Americans know the score, they know what is going on. They klnow that would could have eliminated all threats from this region already. They know we could have taken the Saudi oil fields. They also know that the reason we didn't was that the Saudis own are politicians, especially bush. They know this whole convoluted nation building plan is a poor substitute for what we could have done. they know that our borders are wide open and our border agents are in jail. Those republicans who think that successfuly establishinhg a "democracy" in Iraq will impress the American people will be "B" slapped back to reality. They are impressing no one but themselves and their state department hacks. What they just don't get is that to sacrifice american boys to create such a state will result in huge and unreparable withdrawals from the emmotional bank account with conservative Americans. What they see as their great victory will turn out to be their biggest self delfeating blunder. It will be so because of the smallness of the whole plan to start out with. What the American people wanted after 911 was a huge crushing defeat of the Isalmic world not a patheic little islamic "democracy".

The Secret Media Police Theory
The MSM worldwide conspires against revealing the truth of Peace&Progress in Iraq. Neither the Prez nor the CIA can stop them. Not even Lynne Cheney can make them backoff....And We know how fierce the mother of an expectant lesbian can be.

But somehow, inexplicably(almost), BOBtheBLOGGER, silently sleuthing from his parent's basement has uncovered
'THE TRUTH'.

A real triumph of the little guy. Who needs the BBC?

Dogjudge
Vic did not miss the point. He correctly surmizes that if you are disgusted by the biased, agenda-driven "reporting" of our liberal MSM, expanding your horizons to include the foreign media you suggest will not solve your problem. They are far further to the left, far more biased and far more agenda-driven than even their American counterparts. In fact, the BBC makes the NY Times and CBS look like the WS Journal and Fox News.

The Strategy Change Is To Clear and Hold
With all due respect to Mr. Bay, the "surge' was not itself intended to be the new strategy. The change in strategy is from General Casey's "light foortpint" strategy to a "clear and hold" strategy that General Petraeus has already implemented. The surge is in aid of the new "clear and hold" strategy.

To JohnGalt and Dogjudge
No I didn’t miss the point.

No, I do what any self-respecting person does who doesn’t like what is there for news. I turn it OFF and do not watch it.

I have cancelled every MSM magazine and newspaper that I used to get and the only time the network news is on my TV is when I flip through the channels on the way to something else. That is not often.

I wish is that everyone else would quit watching the MSM news and it would go OUT of business.

To Barabbaberry
Your post 12;22 PM strikes me as reflecting someone who is educated to a high level of stupidity.

Do you not believe in democracy? Is that it? In contrast to your apparent disbelief, the Irqai people courageously, risking their lives, voted three times in the process of adopting a written Constitution and electing its government; the "purple finger" raised high was a sign that the Iraqi people do want democracy. Radical Islamists, who are killers and totalitarians, do not want that young democracy to succeed and are using violent means to undermine it. And your response? To say it is all futile and to run away! But it is not futile to help plant democracy there. To the contrary, democracy and life in a free economy are the long term antidote to radical Islam. It just takes courage and belief in the freedom that America stands for.

To Phil
Who said I think we should run away. Listen, you might have been impressed when bush had his "oprah" moment with the Iraqi woaman with the purple finger hugging the parents of the man who died for the great "election" but as for me I was sickened. My point is that to go into Iraq and build a "democracy" to defeat our enemy makes about as much sense at it would have to have invaded Spain in 1940 in order to establish a democracy, which by some miracle would cause shange to sweep through hitlers Europe. To make a fetish out of democracy is the mark of a moron. Democracy gave us a hitler and it gave us a terrorist government in the Palestinian territories. It also gave us a terrorist government in Iraq-a government that is in reality part of the Mahdi terrorist organization. But you don't hear "fearless Leader" telling you this do you? Your belief that democracy is the antidote to radical isam is assinine, I suspect you work in the state department you must stop drinking the cool aid from the water cooler.
The whole plan of building a democratic Iraq sprang out of nothing but cowardice. We were attacked. The Saudis and other governments have been funding those that attacked us for years. Ever since the early 70's, when they siezed the oil industry that we build, they have been using the money to grow a movement of hatred and violence in order to destroy us. The response of an uncompromised US leader to 911 would have been to destroy their cities and take their oil fields as well as Iraq's. THAT would have defeated the enemy, it would have bween a total and complete defeat. Building a democracy in the region in the HOPES that it may cause the region to change is the small minded, cowardly thinking of a policy wonk. Please sir, don't think anyone will be excited if this goal is achieved. most people in their hearts find it insulting that a real defeat of the enemy wasn't even considered.

Mr Clean
You really didn't get it, did you? I am not falling in line with the democratic surrenderism. I was proposing that we need to unleash the full potential of our military.

How much collateral damage is ok? As much as it takes for the enemy's will to be broken and surrender to happen.

Next time, try reading for the substance of the post rather than merely assuming it is wrong because I use a tagline to get people's attention...

Re: Office of National Reconciliation
I'm glad to hear the Army's attempting mediation - is this new? I haven't heard anything about this in the news - one of the reasons I like to check in to townhall from time to time.

Nevertheless it still seems to me that the situation in Iraq is not about Al-Maliki and the Iraqi security forces clamping down on 'extremists' - I think the overriding force working against democracy is the fact that nobody wants to share the oil revenues with people that they hate. Like there's no impetus to compel Sunnis and Shiites into a long-term relationship of cooperation and compromise if they in fact believe they can gain power and maintain dominance over the other once the US leaves. What incentive do the warring factions have to interact if history has taught them that getting along is not a necessary precursor to 'peace'.


Dogjudge, Vic et al
One alternative to the MSM is to check the websites of the US Department of Defense, US Central Command, and British Ministry of Defence, all of which provide daily updates on news of the Iraq war. (The CENTCOM website offers email updates to interested subscribers.)

I don't blame anyone for keeping the salt stock filled, for the taking of news from any source, including the military. But if you're smart enough to know that the MSM aren't giving you an unbiased story, I doubt you will find yourself sucker-punched by unclassified updates from the military.

One advantage of the military reporting is that it comes from sources who have actually set foot outside the bunkered-down Green Zone in Baghdad. Too much MSM reporting comes from reporters who did not personally witness anything they report, but are relying on local-hire stringers (who often have partisan axes to grind, or are in the pay of the fighting factions), and even on mere rumor.

Suspicion of media reporting is an excellent sense to develop. Use it wisely, and don't be afraid to seek updates from the military.

Barabbaberry
You say:

"Democracy gave us a hitler."

It did not. Germany's brief post-WWI experiment with representative government was unable to stand up against Hitler and his gang, even though the actual vote by Germans -- required several times in 1932, partly due to civil chaos fomented by Hitler -- denied the National Socialists either a majority, or enough of a plurality to establish an effective government.

Hitler was finally appointed Chancellor in Jan 1933, after President Hindenburg had tried appointing three other chancellors after the numerous elections of 1932. The National Socialists never had the votes for Hitler to merit appointment as Chancellor (their top take was 37%); and his consolidation of national power, and suspension of civil liberties, were undertaken by fiat, not by vote of the Reichstag. Hitler created the environment for this by fabricating allegations of a Communist plot to overthrow the German government.

Democracy in Germany was unable to withstand Hitler's assault on it, but he did not get himself elected to the power he wielded. A sounder analysis would be that in a nation without a long tradition of loyal losers and peaceful minorities, Germany's parliamentary system -- which made it nearly impossible to form a government in the absence of a majority party -- was too weak to stand against Hitler's extra-electoral approach.

Neither did democracy give us "a terrorist government in the Palestinian territories." There was already a terrorist government in the Palestinian territories. Democracy failed to eliminate it.

Democracy can be perverted, but it was not, in Hitler's Germany -- it was overridden by plots and force, and was susceptible to this fate because its foundations were weak in the first place.

Democracy can be too weak to fend for itself, but instances of voting populations deliberately using it for the initial installation of dictators are virtually non-existent -- and Hitler's Germany is not among them.

another advantage to official reporting
whether you agree with the official statments or not if you havent been to official government web sites you will be amazed at how different the statements are from what is being stated by those in the press and against U.S. efforts.

phxvet
to the enemy that offers us conversion or death we offer them conversion or death, what's so hard about that? Oh I see, you are one of the ball less wonders who think all this fancy footwork nation building is going to accomplish something. To dyerje, well what can I say, you are splitting hairs.

phxvet
It is brilliant logic, as brilliant today as it was in the 1940's. I guess you forgot that we totally destroyed both Germany and Japan, killed millions of them. By YOUR "brilliant logic" they should be forever our mortal enemies yet the opposite is true. Yet the "brilliant logic" of the coward in chief, who crafts a war stategy based on what is good for our enemies instead of basing it on the quickest way to destroy them, hasn't made anybody in the region like us at all, has it? The saudis, though they take the practical tactic of pretending to be our ally are in fact working day and night, covertly and overltly to destroy us. Yet I know the truth is wasted on a "true believer", drink your cool aid and follow your "fearless leader", jail our border guards and condemn our soldiers to death on charges of murder. You do know that "liberalism is a mental disorder"-(Savage), what you fail to realize that republicans are infected as well.

F.A. Hayek on Democracy
In a book that all conservatives worthy of the name should have read "The Road To Serfdom", Hayeck discusses the pitfalls of puting all ones faith in "Democracy".

"Democracy is essentially a means, a utilitarian device for safeguarding internal peace and individual freedom. As such it is by no means infallible or certain. Nor must we forget that there has often been much more cultural and spiritual freedom under an autocratic rule than under some democracies-- and it is at least conceivable tht under a government of a very homogenous and doctrinaire majority democratic governement might be as oppressive as the worst dictatorship.....
The fashinable concentration on democracy as the main value threatened is not without danger. It is largely responsible for the misleading and unfounded belief that, so laong as the ultimate source of power is the will of the majority, the power cannot be arbitrary. The false assurance which many people derive from this belief is an important cause of the general unawareness of the dangers which we face. There is no justification for the belief that, so long as power is conferred by democratic procedure, it cannot be arbitrary; the contrast suggested by this statement is altogether false: it is not the source but the limitation of power which prevents it from being arbitrary...."


Clearly, a person who is HALF intelligent would not put their faith in "democracy" to transform societies in the middle east. Iran has a democracy, yet we wish to overthrow it's ruler. We won't even let the Pakistanis have one because they would without a doubt remove Musharif and elect a Taliban government of their own. The Saudi population OVERWHELMINGLY support Al Qaeda and islamic fundamentalism. They hate their rulers because they think they are to accomodating with the west. The Maliki government is completley connected with the Mahdi army and both Iraq and Afganistan have declared that they are Islamic states based on Islamic law- which totally removes ANY and ALL limitations on arbitrary power.
The whole "brilliant" plan of fearless leader is not even worth a "C" grade in an elemtary school social studies paper, yet we are to look on this moron and his equally thick, school marmish secretarty of state as the originators of some "brilliant" stategery? They are so removed from reality and any knowledge of the world we live in it's frightening. It used to make me mad when the libs said that but, c'mon folks time to wake up!

barabberry
"there has often been much more spiritual and cultural freedom under autocratic rule..." oh my God
Barabberry you need to turn your face back to the shinning brilliance that is american freedom. Get your nose out of what....... you do whatever you want but you start talking about more freedom under autocracy and you can count me out i thought you might have been heading toward empire thought when you first spouted off about taking over oil fields and destroying cities...............You must be a satirist LD would be proud!!!!!!

Doug
That statement was by the Author, F A HAYEK. I agree with the statement. It is apparent to anyone who knows history that it is true. That there have been times under autrocratic rulers where the population ex[perienced a great deal of freedom-Elizabethan England being one, and that there have been democracies that have been brutal and repressive-Iran bein g the most recent. You yourself continually are losing freedoms under this "democracy" but like a frog being boiled in water it is happening so garadually that you just sit there as your end approaches. The POINT, that you obviously missed is that "democracy" does not guarante freedom. It is not "the end" but merely a means to an end. But alas, you are another "true believer", you will follow this president no matter how things deteriorate. A "democracy" may be set up in Iraq and it may last for a short period of time and this will be enough for bush to declare a victory. Meanwhile the terrorists will not lose one iota of funding, wahhabi imams will still be sent to this country to incite murder against americans. Muslim immigrants will be let in by the millions and america will die before our eyes. And you will smugly say that your side was right, that we won, as you are being led off to the head chopping block. Time for you to get your head ot of your you know what.

Some help for Barabbaberry
Now we're holding up Elizabethan England, where Catholics plotted in secret against the crown, because they had to worship in secret for fear of the Church of England, as a time when a population experienced a great deal of freedom?

Elizabeth was pretty enlightened for her time, but her autocracy was materially mitigated by parliament, which had the power to deny her funds, and by her Privy Council. Parliament was not in any sense elected by the universal suffrage we consider normal today, but it exerted checks and balances on the sovereign. She in turn exerted a check on powerful nobles who wanted to take her kingdom back to the days of her father and sister, when religious differences were acted out through burnings at the stake, and through torture, false confessions, and crown seizure of the lands of "heretics."

That's the key, really: checks and balances. And limited government. Your point is well taken that "democracy," per se, will not save a nation. Voters make a lot of stupid decisions, as witness November 2006.

But autocracy presents NO historical examples of affording citizens a better life, in any sense other than that some autocracies are not as bad as others. The inevitable tendency of all autocracies is to suppress what is good, and promote what is bad.

With representative self-government that is limited, and is subject to checks and balances, the good things have a chance. Under autocracy, it is evil that flourishes.

Elizabethan England was not as bad as its contemporaries on the Continent, or as bad as England under Elizabeth's older sister. But it was a place where declared religious affiliation meant the difference between independence and economic opportunity, on the one hand, and suspicion and economic exclusion, on the other. Merchants bought trade concessions directly through bribing the crown, and public officials; piracy on the high seas was encouraged by sovereigns; kings and nobles lived in constant fear of assassination; personal rivals attacked each other by making false allegations to the authorities that could lead to torture, death, and the destruction of whole families. Modern Americans have never experienced anything as bad as Elizabethan England -- we would be horrified by what was considered normal then, that we call criminal today.

Democracy IS a problem when we stop insisting that government be LIMITED in scope, and when we let the power of checks and balances erode. But ONLY democracy can accept limitations on government, and effective checks and balances. Autocracy can't. It suffers limitation, and checks and balances, only at the point of a sword -- as England's sovereigns, such as King John, and Charles I, would be the first to acknowledge.

It's a common human error, to think that autocracy is a solution to the shortcomings of democracy. But invariably, the voice that is silenced by autocracy is the voice of good, of reason, of the rule of law, of minimizing the impact of government on the individual. There is no contrary example. We cannot make government good; we can only make it small, and regularly set the dogs on it.




bad dyejob
I stand by Hayeks point. Glad to see you are slowly coming around.

Grow up
Hey, don't look a gift horse in the mouth. Your original argument is without merit -- I merely picked out of it what can be defended, and put it in better context.

Autocratic government is incompatible with government being limited, and hedged about by checks and balances. Democracy is, however, compatible with those qualities. It doesn't inevitably produce them, but unlike autocracy, it can coexist comfortably with them.

baraberry
Again "There has been much more spiritual and cultural freedom under autocracy""It is apparent to anyone who knows history that it is true."

Sir you really should put down whatever books you've had your nose in and take a good look at America.

No nation, no other form of government, no other time, then the American time have so many been so free and prosperous,.

It is totally amazing to see so many United States of America "conservatives" doubt the very freedom and history that has made us so great.

If we stand tall and firm up Iraqs institutions of Freedom I have no doubt we will have another good ally in the mideast.

As for your ww2 analogy we destroyed the enemy. We attacked until the resistence of the current governments ended we did not have the officers of the government abandon their post and then keep bombing till all germans bowed on their knees to us. You talk as if you would be king of the mideast.

You also totally ignore the fact that we had to occupy both "defeated" nations 7 years till they could have self rule. And they have had nearly 60 years of peaceful (relative) existence of which I might add was under democratic rule.

I missed no point about vigilence in government. The point you missed is that American style democracy is the best thing going and if done correctly will work every time it is tried.

Redeployment
This news won't keep Democrats in Congress from pushing for "redeployment" of the troops.

Maybe Bush should give in to these calls for "redeployment", and "redeploy" to Iran.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.