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
Thursday, August 09, 2007
Austin Bay :: Townhall.com Columnist
Strategic Patience
by Austin Bay
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Was the Copenhagen Global Warming Summit Walk-Out a Win for the U.S.?


According to major media, America's "surge in Iraq" is suddenly working.

In an op-ed that appeared in The New York Times on July 30, Michael O'Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack of the left-leaning Brookings Institution called Iraq "a war we just might win." A week later, Robert Burns, who covers military issues for The Associated Press, wrote: "The new U.S. military strategy in Iraq, unveiled six months ago to little acclaim, is working. In two weeks of observing the U.S. military on the ground ... it's apparent that the war has entered a new phase in its fifth year."

Anthony Cordesman, in an essay titled "The Tenuous Case for Strategic Patience in Iraq," remains circumspect, warning, "It is important to note in this regard that while Americans are still concerned with finding ways to define 'victory' in Iraq, virtually the entire world already perceives the U.S. as having decisively lost."

Perhaps the "rest of the world" relies on U.S. Sen. Harry Reid. Months ago, Reid declared Iraq a defeat. For the rest of his political career, Reid will have to live with his declaration.

Is the surge working?

Militarily, the surge represents a change in operational emphasis and in tactical employment of U.S. and coalition troops. The United States has increased the "level of presence" in Iraqi neighborhoods.

Statistics suggest attacks have declined since April, but short-term statistics are subject to debate.

An observation in Robert Burns' report may be more telling than the numbers: "Commanders (in Iraq) are encouraged by signs that more Iraqis are growing fed up with violence."

A sign of war fatigue? Possibly -- but murder fatigue is more apt.

In Iraq, al-Qaida and Saddam's remnant supporters have spent the last four years murdering Muslims en masse. (The same can be said for the Taliban in Afghanistan.) For all the strategic and operational mistakes Washington has made, our tyrant and terrorist enemies' mistakes have been worse. StrategyPage.com, among others, noted in 2004 that while the "murder en masse" strategy seeded fear in Iraq and grabbed international headlines, al-Qaida was paying a huge political price in the Muslim world. In late 2006, several key Sunni tribes in Iraq's Anbar province began turning on al-Qaida -- al-Qaida's war on America had proved to be a bigger threat to them.

Cordesman notes that a number of tribes still align with al-Qaida. Still, there is a trend-line with roots three years deep -- and that trend-line has finally become a headline.

According to President Bush's speech in January, development and reconstruction would be key elements of "the surge," with new emphasis placed on provincial reconstruction and improving local and municipal governments.

Strengthening local and municipal governments has been a U.S. and Iraqi government development objective since 2004, however. A "bottom up" model for consensus-building in Iraq may be another "deep trend." However, this is a slow process. Much of it is learn-by-doing, and learning by doing means accepting setbacks and failures. And that takes patience.

In mid-July, the London Daily Telegraph asked a "senior British official" to assess NATO's commitment to Afghanistan. He replied that he "feared that NATO might not have the "strategic patience" to fight for 10 years -- whereas the Taliban would fight on for 20 or 30 years."

Perhaps "strategic patience" is the phrase du jour -- but it describes an absolutely vital moral, intellectual and political virtue. The anonymous British official's 10-year estimate for sustaining the fight against the Taliban is a rough guess. No matter the numbers, what the official described is a fight spanning a generation.

Make no mistake -- it is a fight for the future, for the conditions of modernity.

Toppling the Taliban in Afghanistan and Saddam in Iraq created the opportunity for significant, positive, long-term change throughout the region. Now, the challenge is twofold: nurturing and supporting the incremental cultural, political and personal changes that make for societal change, and sustaining America's will to maintain that support.

For the surge to really work, the effort must be sustained.

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
Why is it ?

Fine, we all agree that the Anbar situation, where former insurgents that you were calling terrorists a year ago are now allying with us to fight foreign jihadists, is very positive. This scenario could play out similiarly in Diyala province as well.

However, this occurence of optimism in no way deletes the basic problem of sectarian divisions that are in play in Iraq. If anything, it shows that success in Iraq depends on the sects being allowed to provide their own security, free from the farce of a national security(read Shiite/Kurd) force. When you add Sunni tribes provide for their own security with Sunni politicians walk out on government, tell me, what do you get?

Now, on the other side of Arab Street in Baghada, let's see what PM Al-Maliki is doing. Can't, he's in Tehran holding hands with Ahamadinejad. Meanwhile, in Baghdad, his police and government officials are claiming our airstrike, intended to attack a sect of the Mahdi Army breaking away from Al-Sadr, instead killed numerous Iraqi civilians including women and children. Ooops. Well, it's all Iran's fault. Funny though, couple days ago, Afghani president Karzai was telling Bush that Iran was a force for good in his country. Maybe Al-Maliki will tell Bush the same thing when he gets back from wining and dining in Tehran.

And just so you don't think I'm leaving out our friends the Kurds, Turkey and Iraq agreed to try to root out a Kurdish rebel group from Southern Kurdistan, but Iraq's prime minister said he could not sign an agreement implementing the promise until it was put to his parliament.
Since there are only Kurds and Shiites in the Iraqi parliament, this vote will be as hard to predict as votes for Tom Tancredo from La Raza or CAIR.

So keep talking up the successes in Iraq. But please don't insult out intelligence by thinking we're not paying attention.

Was there a staff meeting.
Where all the TH columnists were told to write about
Mssrs. O'Hanlon and Pollack's Op-ed? I mean, it was a well written and researched article but it seems like thats all that TH is covering right now.

As far as Mr. Bay's article is concerned my worry isn't that we as a society don't have the "strategic patience" to succeed but that our military can sustain this operational tempo for the decade or so that it might take.

Fighting the Hippies at Home
Those people who are ready to run screaming into the night (or convert to Islam in hopes of not being gruesomely murdered) are the same people who complain regularly that we are still fighting the Sixties Hippies at home and that it is taking an unconscionably long time to extract ourselves from their clutches.

Contrary to what you see on teevee and what the marching, chanting, sign-waving Hippies tell you, just screaming STOP IT NOW! no matter how regularly you do so is not going to wrap up a war that has been going on for 1200 years more or less, in under an hour with time for previews of "The Bachelor" and commercials for Viagara.

And for those bawling about our not finding Osama yet, remember how long it took to find the Unabomer [sic]? And he was here in our own country!

The war in Iraq will be over
as soon as one of the 3 sects manages to exert its control and brutally suppress the other 2. This time it will likely be the shiites(persians) and not the sunnis(arabs)who end up on top.
So, once the new Saddam is in power all will be as it was before with the small exception that iraq will now be a fundamentalist muslim regime rather than secular. They can call that a victory if they want but I doubt many will believe it.

What does 'win' mean?
What does 'Win' mean?

The problem with selling the 'success' of the surge to the people is that defining 'success' has changed so many times, no one knows.

At one time it was Democracy.

At one time it was elections.

At one time it was "we'll stand down when they stand up." Bush actually had a press conference where he recanted that definition. Now 'success' is just an acceptable level of violence.

It seems like success is now defined as temporary stability, but for how long?

Americans know one thing. Winners and losers. Americans don't like losers, they don't like being portrayed as losers and they certainly don't like "winning" by constantly lowering the bar defining 'win'.

It's not whether the surge is "working" or successful. It's whether Americans see themselves as victors in Iraq.




The usual
negative posters always come out when there is an article supporting the war. Most of us who don't have such negative feelings just can't bother to respond any more, but we are out there. Oh for the days of the patriotism and working together spirit of WWII.

We are not the same nation anymore. In fact we are so balkanized in spirit we are weaker and the enemy knows it.

The Political Side
Talk about the surge enables writers to avoid talking about the Iraqi government. Maliki just promised the Irani's to get rid of the Mujahideen in Diyala province (an anti-Irani group now under our protection) the Shia's strongly oppose our arming of the Sunnis, the south has two strong groups (one led by the SIC and Hakim, a second by 45 tribal leaders) moving to create an autonomous zone from Najaf south, the sectarian cleansing in the Baghdad region has driven out over 1/2 of the Christians and Sunni's, ensuring that it will now be controlled by the Shia's, and the secularists and sunni's have decided the "unity government" is not a unity government. It's a Shia-Kurd government that was responsible for writing and passing the constitution granting autonomous regions that they oppose, and it has deliberately frustrated any attempts by them, or the US, to reverse this course. And while we walked the unity government line - the Shia's and their militia's were and are systematically separating the sects in order to ensure their control, and Maliki and his Dawa party, Hakim and the SIC and Badr militia, and Sadr and his militia, continued to strengthen their ties with Iran, who funds their parties and arms their militia's.

We can knock down the violence - but the purpose of the surge was to buy "breathing room" to assist in political compromise.

Even as the surge advances, the political compromise it was supposed to generate is receding.

The writers failure to connect his strategic patience to a goal that would describe how we can overcome this with the effort we're now making, is the glaring weakness.

The issue is not the surge - it's what will we leave behind that improves our strategic position?


You are right, Loco!
loco writes: Thursday, August, 09, 2007 9:47 AM

The best thing I can think of is this quote from James Madison:

"America united with a handful of troops, or without a single soldier, exhibits a more forbidding posture to foreign ambition than America disunited, with a hundred thousand veterans ready for combat."

If only we had the same mentality as a country these days. But, the other side would say it is Bush's fault ;-)

Democracy In Iraq
Will not come about overnight. In America’s early history, Texas was a sovereign nation and Brigham Young’s Utah was nearly so. Hostile enemies held territory inside our borders. The Whiskey Rebellion, The Civil War and 100+ years of warfare with American Indians occurred as our Democracy matured.

Mistakes have/will be made, it will be long & arduous. But a Functioning Democracy is the best hope for a Stable Iraq and The Middle East.

Loco
Setting aside the 35% who never supported Bush, the only reason there's another side is that Bush moved to that side, not the other way around. He lost the economic conservatives in the Republican party, and he lost those who were not enthusiastic about nation building. No one asked him to invade Iraq, but they did support him based on the expectation that the war would be executed with some degree of competence, and that we would come out of it with an ally in the Middle East. Bush made the mistake of rallying public opinion around a series of assertions that were wildly optimistic. This has not been a $50 or $100 billion war, we have not had a few thousand casualties, and Iraq is not going to be some reliable ally.

We have been there over 4 years, every estimate includes several more, spending has climbed over 1/2 trillion and is rising, we're now well over 25,000 casualties and counting, we've substituted a Shia clerical state allied more closely to Iran than to us, and we've strengthend Iran's position in the ME.

So tell me. Which poison do you prefer. A Saddam which our invasion showed to be weak, or a much more powerful Iran?


The desire for an American defeat
I used to refer to the Bush-haters as "left-wing loonies." I no longer see them as crazy. I could say I now perceive them as evil, but they are convinced anyone who uses that word is religious, and I am not. Nevertheless, for anyone who is grounded in a devotion to America, the word "evil" in this context does resonate.

For those people it's not really about Bush. If we had some other president, a "President Smith," they would be called "Smith-haters." What they really hate is America. Not their America, which actually exists in their minds, in some form that is all but incomprehensible to the rest of us—but our America, the America of the people they deride as "patriots." They want that America to take a beating.

That America, to them, is arrogant, rich, racist, xenophobic and pompous. That is their false conception of us, and therefore of our America.

That is why they come up with a thousand reasons for us to lose in Iraq. We are incompetent, the Iraq government is incompetent, those people don't really want freedom and a decent life, it's a "civil war," it's all about oil, etc. The surge will never work. Any other idea you have for victory will never work. They have a compelling, an overriding desire for an American defeat.

Those who are on our side must remember that those people are not. They never will be. They are the enemy of America, and they must be defeated.

Democracy
For those who think democracy is not happening in Iraq you are just plain wrong and do not understand what true democracy is. They have had elections, they have a duly elected govt. Even the fact that you have different factors fighting is a form of democracy. Are they capitulating and giving in willingly to those that disagree with them? No. In it's rudimentary form that is democracy. Democracy also comes easy to us because we were not raised to think any other way, but in the beginning of this great democratic society that was not the case. It took eight years to form a stable democratic govt. and many arguments in ensuing years to put that democratic govt. into action and define it's role. You do not know what it is like to start from scratch but the Iraqi's do and are doing in the middle of a war zone.

Georgetwin & Lolo
You are both correct.

Come now
The Iraqi democracy has changed into a clerical society inside of a sectarian war, and that alliance they wish is not with us, but increasingly with Iran. In turn, the country has splintered. Of course, if one dares to mention this, they are the enemy. Democracy is not something you worship. Elections can lead directly to totalitarian states, to clerical states, or to any number of forms of government that are as likely to be hostile to our interests, as to support them. Personally, I'm interested in creating strategic alliances that serve my self interest as an American. Some say these people must want America to be defeated. How naive. They love and worship the idea that we should sell democracy. Of course, tell me what Sistani and the clerics have to do with democracy. And then tell me what they will have to do with us once they don't need our forces. If you believe conservative clerics will serve us, you are completely naive as to the nature of Islam, and the source of terror. You cannot call Iran a terrorist state, for example, and then go to bed at night and pretend that the clerics in Iraq, who have precisely the same views as those in Iran, will not someday mirror the perceptions of their religious brothers in Iran.

We will have to confront a clerical society here, just as we have to confront one in Iran.

Certainly serves our interests - wouldn't you say?

I don't recall everyone worshipping the democracy in Iran, which we got for a few choppers. But they do love the one emerging in Iraq. And Iran, like Iraq is, with all of its flaws, a democracy.

So much for democracy.

I'll take a dictator allied with American interests over a clerical state allied with Islamic Interests anyday.



Lolo
With all due respect democracies do NOT create freedom.

Constitutional democracies create freedom. There is a HUGE difference.

Elections do NOT create constitutional democracy. There is not one stable constitutional democracy in existence today that was created by elections.

Constitutional orders create constitutional democracy and constitutional orders lead to elections within a constitutional framework.

Sadly, this is something the neocons never understood.

SunSword
THANK YOU!

the negativism is amazing
Wow, I can't believe there are that many people posting here who seem to take great joy in pointing out everything wrong in Iraq.

Do any of you actually believe in your hearts that an american defeat in the middle east is in our best interest? I really doubt it, most of the "the war is lost, let's go home" crowd only see an american defeat as a pathway to a democrat in the WH.

Can you really be so shallow and partisan that you are willing to throw away our nation's future for temporary political gain???

Yes, the democrats gained control of the WH by beating on our troops in vietnam and forcing the military to desert their SV allies. What good did it do you?

Our country's reputation around the world plummeted, and we became the laughing stock of the globe! Not to mention that Jimmy Carter gutted our military, and brought us dangerously close to defeat at the hands of the soviet union.

Chances are, most of these posts are coming from people sitting in their jammies in mommy's basement, and are too young to remember the aftermath of vietnam. I remember those days, and I'll do all I can to prevent a return to those days.

Are you so invested in defeat that you plug your ears and yell "lalalalala" whenever you hear any good news coming from Iraq?

When I was a teenager in the mid 70s, I thought all the anit-war idiots were cool too. But then I grew up and realised that they were actively assisting the soviet union in our eventual defeat. Thank God america grew up in 1980 and put a Grownup in the WH. We need another Grownup now.







The Long War Continues
First off, Anthony Cordesman telling us the entire world perceives U.S. has lost is total bull. I just wonder if Anthony has any idea why he thinks that way. Could it be he believes the MSM and network news? I could care less what the entire world thinks anyway.

Austin Bay has put together a good story mentioned many times the past few days. However, I've see the "change" mentioned in my home town liberal newspaper. The story must be repeated time and time again so the drive by media will eventually have to notice, or they will continue to lose viewers who are tired of their nonsense in leftist slanted news.

Startegic Patience is P.C. for Long War. I have lived and believed in America for over 2/3 of a century, and we will win this war.

FrankC
Pure baloney since you live in a democratic society. thankyou for proving my point about those who do not underatand democracy in a lower form.

JackpineSavage dsmack
You know it would be nice if you guys could tell me exactly what the goal is.

You know....the "mission"?

Is it to prop up the current phony government that will fall when we leave?

Is it to rid the country of foreign fighters? Because a Shiite dictator is going to be far more efficient at doing that than the current phony government.

Is it to train the "Iraqi" army? Because the people in the "Iraqi" army are not loyal to the "Iraqi" army. They are loyal to their own militias who are fighting each other and shooting at our soldiers. You train and arm them, you train and arm the militias and you create more bloddshed.

Just exactly what is it that you think is being accomplished?

Lolo
What kind of a response is that?

First of all, I do not live in just any kind of democracy. I live in a constitutional democracy.

The fact that you do not realize what kind of a democracy you live in is something that you share with the neocons.

Venezuela is a democracy. Would you say that living under Chavez thumb is the same as living in this great country.

I don't think so.


FrankC
No I wouldn't say living in Chavez's democracy is the same. There isn't just one single kind of democracy. Just like there isn't just one single kind of communication. Now there are more preferential forms of democracy, that is totally true. But that doesn't mean democracy does not come in at different forms or levels. The fact that fighting is taking place at all is a form of democracy. The fact that protests took place in Venezuala is a form of democracy. Whether any form of democracy can be maintained at all is another question entireley.


FrankC
Tisk, tisk! I thought you believed in democracy? Calling the elected parlimentary style of democracy in Iraq a phony democracy tends to make one think that you don't believe in it and have communist tendacies since it is govt. that you disagree with and didn't require your vote or participation to get elected. Just because you disagree with the Iraq govt. does not mean it is an illegitimate govt.

So how do the surrender monkeys respond?
--
Has anyone an idea of the likelihood that the mujahideen will try a "surge" of their own - a sort of "Tet Offensive" sequence of attacks - literally on the eve of General Petraeus' report to Congress?

Both the Democrat faction (of America's "bipartisan" Permanent Institutional Incumbent Party) and the root weevils of the mainstream media are waiting and hoping desperately for some sort of flamboyant woggish bloodletting to use as an excuse to devalue any possible message of success that might be advanced as the result of the "surge" they howled so horribly against.

What's the prospect of "salvation" for the white flag brigade from their allies in al-Qaida?
--

SJ_Doc
That is a good question. don't forget though that when Abizaid was in charge they were demanding more troops and a strategy change.

Not everyone in this country has a short term memory problem. Just the libs. To them the end will always justify the means!

Lolo
Once again, the disconnect seems to be on.

I believe in constitutional democracy.

I agree with you that there is not one single kind of democracy. But there is only one kind of democracy I know of which provides freedom for its people -- and that is constitutional democracy.

And the kinds of constitutional orders that lead to that kind of democracy have never formed in just 10 or even 20 years. And they don't come about as the result of elections. In fact, quite the contrary. Elections outside of a real constitutional orders framework PREVENT constitutional democracy. They PREVENT freedom.

They lead to illiberal democracies such as Venezuela and Indonesia -- governments which are no better than authoritarian dictatorships. (I would add Iraq to the list, but is there really a government there at all?) And there is NO eveidence that illiberal democracies lead to constitutional democracies. In fact, quite the contrary.

FrankC talking about a disconnect?
--
Son, what the hell gives you to think that *WE* have a "constitutional democracy" here?

About the only issue upon which both "Liberals" and conservatives agree is that the limitations imposed by Article 1, Section 9, and the first ten of the Amendments (the Bill of Rights) are nothing more than a buncha frustrating legalistic impediments retarding the progress to which they've dedicated their lives.

How about a presidential candidate whose platform for 2008 consists of nothing more than a pledge to *ENFORCE* the Bill of Rights?

After all, it's the law of the land.
--


FrankC
You are in over your head and way off base from what I originally posted that you were commenting on. I never ever said that there wasn't one form of democracy that was better than another. I simply said that democracy in a base form is taking place. And it is. Your comparing our so called democracy which is actually a republic to theirs. Really as to whether ours is better than theirs is a matter of opinion. I happen to think so but there may be some Middle Easterners that disagree with you or me. That is a different debate isn't it? For instance they chose a parlimentary style democracy of which we don't practice. Furthermore although democracy came into this country much quicker the circumstances were much much different. Geography makes a difference whether you realize it or not.

FrankC
One other thing. Constitutional Democracies do not create freedom. Freedom creates Constitutional Democracies.

Lolo
Illiberal democracy, like dictatorship, is not good for anybody. And it is illiberal democracy that is forming in Iraq -- if anything is forming at all.

Parliamentary systems, such as the one that exists in England, along with our form of government, are both forms of constitutional democracy.

Thus, they both bring about freedom. They both have constitutions that are based on long histories of constitutional orders created by both societies.

Illiberal democracies, like the ones in Venezuela, Indonesia and Iraq, are not constitutional democracies, and they do not bring about freedom.

These governments have a piece of paper on which is written a constitution, but only a liberal would argue that a piece of paper makes them constitutional democracies for purposes of any reasonable discussion of the topic.

The piece of paper on which our Bill of Rights is written DID NOT create constitutional orders. Rather, constitutional orders developed in our society over SEVERAL decades, and are described on a piece of paper called the Bill of Rights.

I don’t know where you get the idea that our government developed “suddenly“. The first settlement occurred at Jamestown in the 1600s. And even those people had several decades of constitutional development from Britain on which to build.

Only a liberal would argue that a piece of paper creates the intangible organic evolution that we call constitutional orders. So it is not surprising that I would find such an argument on this web cite.

The neocons came from the democrat party. And that is where they should return.



SJ_Doc
I can't really disagree with you that the Bill of Rights has been receiving a lot of puncture marks lately.

I would assume, therefore, that you are not a gung ho supporter of the Bush regime.

What?
"One other thing. Constitutional Democracies do not create freedom. Freedom creates Constitutional Democracies."

Freedom is created by a group of people -- a civil society -- who create constitutional orders. It doesn't grow on trees. I mean, it's not some prime mover that's always been around.

FrankC
Once again you way in over your head! And once again you ascribing things to me that I did not say or post. Your cherry picking and then twisting. You lack reading comprehension. First gain some comprehension then take some philosophy courses. Then and only then may you debate me. Do you even know what a neo-con is? I am not now nor have I ever been a Democrat or neo-con.

FrankC
Your the one that said constitutional democracies create freedom in your 3:02 pm post, not me. You have managed to confuse even yourself.

Lolo
If you wish to tote the neocon line, then you are a neocon for purposes of this topic.

I havn't cherry-picked anything. You claim that there is some sort of "base" democracy in Iraq that will lead to freedom. The only type of democracy that I know of that leads to freedom is some form of constitutional democracy.

I know of no real conservative who believes that any type of constitutional democracy is forming in Iraq.

Illiberal democracy is forming in Iraq -- if anything is forming at all.

Finally, the fact that a civil socity forms constitutional orders that create freedom is basic. I think its taught in high school civics class.

FrankC
Once again you are not comprehending what I am saying. Secondly that is not what is taught in civics class and your the one who posted "Constitutional Democracies create freedom." Not me. You seem to want to ignore that fact. I never ever said that I agree with the govt. in Iraq. You assumed it along with a whole lot of other things.
You obviously do not know what a neo-con is, but you just love to use the label because you don't want to admit that you are wrong. So if I am such a neo-con as you so blatantly think, what does that make you? Socialist Democrat? Communist? Must be since you did not even know that there are different levels of democracy. The irony here is my original post was never meant for you.

Lolo
You seem to be hung up on the fact that I stated in one sentence that constituional orders created freedom and in another sentence stated that constitutional democracy created freedom.

I happen to think the latter is more accurate, but it is the former that is often used.

Contitutional orders lead to elections within a contitutional framework -- which is constitutional democracy. Freedom results. There are some who believe that constitutional orders are all that is necessary and that freedom could exist under a non-democratic governmnet in such a circumstance. So the two have been used interchangeably.

It's certainly nothing to have a cow over.

You are certainly trying to imply that "some level" of democracy in Iraq is better than nothing. That is not the case if the "level" is leading to illiberal democracy -- which it is -- if anything is forming there at all.

FrankC
No I didn't imply anything of a sort. You assumed. As to your democracy statements it is just plain wrong. Our own history proves that.

Have a nice night.

Ending the Iraq War
I do not understand why we cannot withdraw out troops from Iraq now. After all, Bush declared in the early summer of 2003 "Mission Accomplished". Then we had a couple "successful" elections so we must have established a democracy there. And despite what the MSM has told us the war has gone just wonderfully. We have removed Saddam his sons, several leaders of Al Qaida in Iraq and killed lots of people. It is only the leftist and MSM that thinks things have gone badly.

With so much success in a war that was only supposed to take at maximun about 100 days, I do not understand the conservative demand that we must stay.
We cannot stand any more successes such as have been trumpeted on this site.

The proponents of this war have been wrong so many times that they have no credibility left.

Lolo
"No I didn't imply anything of a sort. You assumed."

Your 1:04 P.M. post clearly shows otherwise.

"As to your democracy statements it is just plain wrong. Our own history proves that."

Now that's just about pricesless.

You mean our hundreds of years of developing constitutional orders, which are enumerated in the Bill of Rights shows otherwise?

Our Bill of Rights has NOTHING to do with elections or the will of the majority. And holding elections without it would have been pointless.


FrankC
No it doesn't. Where did I say that it was preferable to our democracy. You assumed it. You did it because you read the post out of context to another post.
What hundreds of years? I can only assume that maybe you are including the original settlements. I also posted that we over time have fine tuned our democracy. You must of missed that or ignored it completely.
Furthermore as to your goofy Constiutional arguments, we did not have a Constitution until eight years AFTER we won our freedom! We won our FREEDOM FIRST! Freedom to create a constitution or a govt. must come first. Govt. limits freedom. If it didn't I would be able to murder without impunity. Get it? While we have specific rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights and The Constitution we do not have the freedom to do what ever, when ever we please. If we did we would not have laws would we? So one must conclude that freedom creates the type of govt. of our choosing and govt. by it's very nature limits freedom.

Lolo
Your 1:04 post does not say their democracy is preferable to our own.

It implies that the "base" democracy over there is a postitive development which it is not since it is the formation of illiberal democracy -- if anything is forming over there at all.

The constitutional orders enumberated in our Bill of Rights became fully developed long before the Bill of Rights was actually written. They became fully developed during the 1700s.

Constitutional democracy cannot form without the development of constitutional orders.

You keep calling this stuff nutty. It's pretty much right out of the columns of William F. Buckley, George F. Will and just about every other sensible conservatvie on the planet.

Lolo
Perhaps fully developed is not as good a term for constitutional orders as highly developed.

I do not want to imply that constitutional orders are static. They are organic. They are part of our constitutional society.

And they are certainly NOT highly developed in Iraq.

Nor is there any evidence that constitutional orders become highly developed after elections. Rather, highly developed constitutional orders lead to elections within a constitutional framework.

Holding elections outside of a constituional orders framework creates illiberal democracies. And there is no evidence that illiberal democracies turn into constitutional democracies. In fact, quite the contrary.

loco & abu daboo...
you have both struck the right chord...how I wish that these people who live in this country and hate it so would just up and leave!

America was a wonderful place until the hippies decided that screaming as loud as they can (as exhibited ever since Chicago and as recently as Columbia University) was the only was they could command attention...and it appears they have succeeded as far as the mainstream media is concerned. The left wing does NOT represent the ordinary, law-abiding, hard-working, personally responsible American.

Please leave and start your own socialistic society on some faraway island. Let the patriotic citizen regain his/her country where personal responsibility and the opportunity to realize your potential takes precedence over the touchy-feely, take care of all the poor victims, have government care for your every need...blah blah blah.

Liberals, YOUR are the poison in the well of freedom and liberty and justice for all. We'll get along just fine without you! Please don't let the door hit your behind on your way out.

Jackpine Savage
writes: Thursday, August, 09, 2007 3:07 PM
"the negativism is amazing
Wow, I can't believe there are that many people posting here who seem to take great joy in pointing out everything wrong in Iraq.

Do any of you actually believe in your hearts that an american defeat in the middle east is in our best interest? I really doubt it, most of the "the war is lost, let's go home" crowd only see an american defeat as a pathway to a democrat in the WH.

Can you really be so shallow and partisan that you are willing to throw away our nation's future for temporary political gain???"
============
my sentiments exactly! How anyone can abuse our freedom of speech by supporting the enemy and then say they are "Americans" is beyond me. Hatred of our president is no excuse for such statements and actions. LOVE OF - AND SUPPORT FOR - OUR COUNTRY should come first!!!




asesino writes:
Thursday, August, 09, 2007 12:29 PM
"The desire for an American defeat
I used to refer to the Bush-haters as "left-wing loonies." I no longer see them as crazy. I could say I now perceive them as evil, but they are convinced anyone who uses that word is religious, and I am not. Nevertheless, for anyone who is grounded in a devotion to America, the word "evil" in this context does resonate.

For those people it's not really about Bush. If we had some other president, a "President Smith," they would be called "Smith-haters." What they really hate is America. Not their America, which actually exists in their minds, in some form that is all but incomprehensible to the rest of us—but our America, the America of the people they deride as "patriots." They want that America to take a beating.

That America, to them, is arrogant, rich, racist, xenophobic and pompous. That is their false conception of us, and therefore of our America.

That is why they come up with a thousand reasons for us to lose in Iraq. We are incompetent, the Iraq government is incompetent, those people don't really want freedom and a decent life, it's a "civil war," it's all about oil, etc. The surge will never work. Any other idea you have for victory will never work. They have a compelling, an overriding desire for an American defeat.

Those who are on our side must remember that those people are not. They never will be. They are the enemy of America, and they must be defeated."
===========
Forgive me, but your post was so insightful I copied it in its entirety.

And you made me question my "hate Bush" theory - your "hate America" reasoning is much clearer and I will use it from now on.

I guess the hardest thing for some of us to accept is that many of our fellow Americans are really our enemy's best friends - as you stated, they are NOT on our side!

CapeConservative
One of Al Qaeda's main strategies is to take credit for instbility wherever it exists.

To that end, they are delighted to take credit for the civil war in Iraq.

Why we have a Commander-in Chief willing to disseminate one of their talking-points is beyond me.

CapeConservative
I cannot take credit for the following post.

I can say, that as a life-long Republican, it represent my views to a tee:

Why is it that web sites like this think it is only the left who realizes the Iraq debacle is the farce that it is?

I realize the lefts rational is not very substantive -- they hate Bush.

But real conservatives, who built the Republican Party, never signed onto the neocon drivel. And until the neocons are sent their packing orders, I might have to sit out a few elections.


FrankC
My original implies nothing of a sort. It is simply a reply to someone who thinks that there is no democracy in Iraq. That is not true. There are all kinds of democracy in Iraq. Some of it very cave man like but still deomcratic in a rudimentary sense. I never said that it was preferable because it isn't. As to a better form of democracy forming it is still possible in my view. But as time goes on the chances decrease. Maliki is right on the cusp of losing his majority and getting ousted. However you must remember culture influences govt. Therefore a democratic Iraq will never be like a Western Democracy. As one who lived and worked in the ME, they simply put, are not wired that way, but don't take that to mean that they are any less worthy of a free and stable life.

As to your Bill of Rights comment it still does not matter since we had to win our freedom before we could ever implement it. Of course the concepts were there prior since the Magna Carta was from the 1200's. We did after all need a rallying cry. Concepts such as those that were later enumerated in the Bill of Rights along with other publications provided that.

As to Buckley and others you post about. So? Just because Buckley is a fellow conservative does not mean I swallow everything he says or does as the gospel. I am allowed to disagree, and yes I do receive the National Review weekly.

Lolo
Winning the Revolutionary War would not have allowed us to form a constitutional democracy had we not formed mature constitutional orders before the war ever started.

I sure got the feeling from your post that you felt that the elections in Iraq were a positive development.

However, that was my opinion and you claim that you were not making that point. If so, I read your comment incorrectly and have apparently wasted your entire evening.

We may not be that far apart.

I can't see how elections in the current environment are a positive force that will help develop constitutional orders in Iraq.

In other words, I do not see constitutional democracy forming in Iraq. (I suspect that the person you were responding to should have used the words constitutional democracy.) I see an unhelpful kind of democracy forming there -- if anything is forming at all.

Lolo
I just have to tell you, not every point I make in a post means that I am claiming that you made the contrary point.

I am simply bringing up an additional point I wish to make.

To claim that by doing so I ascribe the contrary point to you is unfair.

I suppose you can claim it is not clear when I am responding to you and when I am introducing a new point. I think that's more due to this format than my ambiguity.

And you mentioned philosophy courses in one of your previous posts.

With all do respect, Socrates was not in the habit by preprefacing his points with the phrase “you are in over your head.”

What he knew for certain was that he knew nothing, and could learn from just about anybody.

FrankC (lolo)
Dude, I’ve caught some of your conversation. And I noted your reference to an earlier post by this lolo.

She is responding to someone who says democracy is not forming in Iraq. An by that he means a good kind of democracy such as the one you and I live in.

Lolo tries to refute this by bringing up Iraq’s national elections. Lolo is therefore claiming that these elections have some productive value. She is speaking of the elections in a favorable light. There is no other way to read the post.

Her claim that “she inferred no such thing” is a bunch of hogwash.

You certainly didn’t ruin my evening. Cheers.

Chuck

Chuck (lolo)
Ah yes, Lolo’s 1:04 p.m. post. She only uses the word democracy but it is clear she means some kind of beneficial democracy and she is addressing “someone” who has pointed out that Iraq is not forming a beneficial democracy. And Lolo tried to refute this claim by bringing up the national elections. By the way, nobody is saying this beneficial democracy has to be like the one you and I live in (and I realize you were not saying that in your post).

The national elections have not helped Iraq form a beneficial democracy. And there is ample historical evidence to show that they were not going to do so. And so her effort to refute failed.

And I have to agree with you upon reviewing the post. I did not misread it. She is trying to frame the national elections in a positive light. For her to claim she “implied no such thing” is pathetic.

Of course, I was being utterly facetious about ruining her evening. But based on her previous posts, she doesn’t seem to have a sense of humor and I think she might have taken it seriously.

Frankc
Do you forget or just overlook the fact that the Iraq government HAS a constitution.
Will it be the final draft---no. The Sunnis have to get with it first..

BTW. The Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist Papers were published during the 8 year period. That is where the Bill of Rights came from..

Nightowl 872
Venezuela and Indonesia have pieces of paper they call constitutions. But they are hardly constitutional democracies for purposes of any sensible discussion about the topic.

Only a liberal would argue that a piece of paper creates the intangible organic evolution that we call constitutional orders. So it is not surprising that I would find such an argument on this web cite. You see the neocons came from the democrat party, and that is where they should return.

The piece of paper on which our Bill of Rights is written DID NOT create constitutional orders. Rather, constitutional orders developed in our society over SEVERAL decades, and are described on a piece of paper called the Bill of Rights.

Holding elections without mature constitutional orders would have been pointless.

In EVERY case where a country has held national elections without mature constitutional orders, the result has been an authoritarian regime or chaos.
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.