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
Tuesday, January 16, 2007
Thomas Sowell :: Townhall.com Columnist
Another Vietnam?: Part II
by Thomas Sowell
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?


Critics of the Bush administration's conduct of the war in Iraq have long demanded that he admit his mistakes. But they have not admitted their own past mistakes, much less admit the potentially catastrophic mistake they will make in the future if they make it impossible to sustain military operations there.

Critics have been proved wrong repeatedly in their claims that elections could not be held in Iraq or a government formed there. Iraqi voter turnout, even in the face of terrorist threats, has exceeded voter turnout in the United States.

During the 2004 presidential election campaign, John Kerry warned that the Bush administration had plans to impose a military draft immediately after being re-elected.

Two years later, there is no sign of a military draft on the horizon. The only people who have been advocating a military draft have been Democrats like Charles Rangel -- transparently as part of their class warfare political strategy of claiming that "the poor" are fighting and dying while "the rich" stay home and enjoy life. No facts back up this claim.

Miscalculations have been the rule, not the exception, in wars going back through the centuries. The miscalculations in the Iraq war have not been military but political.

Saddam Hussein's army was defeated quickly, decisively, and with far lower American casualty rates than in previous wars. Clearly there were ample numbers of American troops to accomplish that mission.

President Bush was right to listen to the military as regards the conduct of the war. But perhaps he should have sought the advice of police chiefs as regards maintaining law and order.

For that we did not have enough troops in Iraq and -- more important -- the troops we did have were under too many politically imposed restrictions. Put bluntly, they needed to tell the many private militias in Iraq to drop their guns or get killed.

Far fewer people would have died if they had. Of course, hand-wringers around the world, beginning with the American media, would have denounced such "brutality" and claimed that "negotiations" could have prevented such bloodshed.

The Iraqi government has negotiated, if not collaborated, with some of these domestic terrorists -- and the net result has been escalating violence and mounting death tolls.

A very thoughtful article in the current issue of Foreign Affairs by Singapore's former prime minister Lee Kwan Yew explained the realities of maintaining order after a conquest. You do not do it by a wholesale banishing of those who maintained order before the conquest.

The most fundamental difference between President Bush and his critics has not been in who has made mistakes, because both have. The biggest difference has been that the President has taken a long-run view of the worldwide war on terror, while his critics are seeking a quick fix.

Critics claim that there is no connection between the war on terror and the war in Iraq. They don't seem to notice that the terrorists themselves obviously see a clear connection, which they express in both words and deeds.

Terrorists are pouring into Iraq, even at the cost of their lives, in order to prevent a free, democratic government from being established in the Middle East. They see victory or defeat in Iraq as having major and long-lasting repercussions throughout the region and even throughout the world.

Critics seem not to be concerned about anything beyond the 2008 elections.

Both individuals within Iraq and countries throughout the Middle East must make life-and-death choices, based on whether they are safer to cooperate with the United States or to align themselves with the terrorists.

If the United States is here today and gone tomorrow, while the terrorists have already demonstrated their staying power and tenacity, we can expect a catastrophic realignment of forces in a region whose oil is the lifeblood of economies around the world.

With fanatical extremists controlling both Middle East oil and nuclear weapons, what happens in the 2008 elections can look like small potatoes compared to the horrors we bequeath our children.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institute and author of The Housing Boom and Bust.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Sign up today and receive Thomas Sowell and Townhall.com's daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
 
©Creators Syndicate
Well said
Mr. Sowell:

Thanks! I've read much of your work (Basic Economics, The Vision of the Anointed, A Conflict of Visions, and Inside American Education) and as with them, this essay is clear and compelling.

I served in Vietnam from 1965 to 1966. To this day I still cringe when I think about the fall of Saigon in 1975. My memory is filled with images of South Vietnamese citizens desperately clinging to helicopters or setting off in overcrowded junks into the South China Sea. I still cry an inner tear any time I think of the millions who never were able to escape their "liberators."

We currently host a young Vietnamese woman who is attending college here in Emporia, Kansas. She loves her country, but she is painfully aware that political dissent and religious freedom have been effectively eliminated.

When we abandoned South Vietnam to communism, we abandoned 26 million people. That equates to 900 Emporias.

If we abandon our duty in Iraq we'll turn another 27 million over to terror and a new tyranny. And, that cancer will spread. The thugs and terrorists have made it clear. They have much more in their sights than Iraq. It's the Midle-East. It's also you and me and all Americans.

We cannot let that happen!

Not all mistakes are equal
"Critics claim that there is no connection between the war on terror and the war in Iraq."

No, critics claimed there was no connection between Iraq and 9/11. Terrorists are pouring into Iraq after we destabilized the country because Bush created an opportunity for them. Bush also gave Iran an opportunity to go nuclear while we are bogged down in a quagmire.

"Critics seem not to be concerned about anything beyond the 2008 elections."

No, war critics were saying the Iraq invasion was a blunder back in 2002, when it was not a political winner to oppose the war. Critics fear that the Iraqi blunder strengthens the terrorists and makes it impossible to erase the culture of Jihad. Critics are concerned that a President capable of such a blunder cannot be trusted with future national security decisions because he will blunder again.

How odd that the Right has now bought into the Democratic queasling argument that the war has just been 'badly managed', to cover their butts for voting for the war in 2002. Moving the goal posts again? The war was a fundamental mistake to begin with. No other president in recent history was capable of such an enormous blunder. Other war-time mistakes don't reach the magnitude of Iraq for the reasons you point out--al Queada nor Iran was never going to control Iraq as long as the Batthists did. Yes they were pigs, but they could be deterred by mutually assured destruction. And Iran wouldn't dare mess with us if we weren' bogged down in Iraq.


Sowell deranged!
I now confess that I think Mr. Sowell is fundamentally deranged. Mr. Sowell makes a rather stupid point but tries to make it seem profound: "Miscalculations have been the rule, not the exception, in wars going back through the centuries."

Yes, this is probably true, but Mr Sowell conveniently ingores those, many on the Right, who were against this war because they knew Iraq's sectarian divisions would prove too problematic after we removed Saddam Hussein. What about Pat Buchanan, who said if we invaded Iraq we would accomplish nothing and inherit our own West Bank? He was right. What about Scott Ritter who said all the intelligence regarding Iraq's WMD was rubbish? He was right.

So, Mr Sowell, why should anyone listen to idiots like you who got everything about Iraq wrong, and not those who got Iraq right?

"Critics claim that there is no connection between the war on terror and the war in Iraq. They don't seem to notice that the terrorists themselves obviously see a clear connection, which they express in both words and deeds."

Mr Sowell ignores the fact that Iraq only had a theoretical connection to the war on terror: if Iraq gives its WMD to a terrorist group the terrorist group might attack the United States. However, since Iraq had no WMD, and no connection to al-Qaida, the war in Iraq doesn't even have a theorectical connection to the war on terror.

The "war" in Iraq is just a quagmire that we continue to fight to save face.

If we "lose" the war in Iraq it's no big deal, because we Americans will still have our liberty, Constitution, and civilization. It won't be the end of America, just the end of a delusion.


Kanaan
How could a critic claim that the invasion was a blunder in 2002 when it didn't happen until 2003?

Iran wouldn't dare mess with us if we weren't bogged down in Iraq? Really?

We weren't bogged down in Iraq when they attacked our soil (big story - something about an Embassy Suites hotel I think, made news for over a year) in 1979. They have sponsored terrorist attacks against us for 27 years now. We've only been in Iraq for 4 of them. They fought a minor naval war in the Persian Gulf with us in the late 80's, and we weren't in Iraq then, either.

Sowell = Silly in Zulu?
It's fun to chart the antics of a Bush cultist like Mr Sowell.

Here is what Mr Sowell had to say in July of 2003 after it became apparent that Iraq had no WMD.

"The bottom line is whether we are better off or worse off for having removed the threat of Saddam Hussein? Does anyone doubt that our demonstration of resolve and power in Iraq is what has made other terrorist-supporting nations start to back off?"

In other words, even though Iraq didn't have any WMD our invasion of Iraq had its blessings because it caused other nations to back down. Really? So is that why Iran, according to Mr Sowell, is pursuing nuclear weapons and sending weapons to insurgents? Is this backing down?

As everyone can see, Mr Sowell is a Bush cultist who will simply concoct whatever explanation is needed to justify the war at the moment. When no WMD turn up, just concoct an argument that it made other nations back down. When that turns out to be rubbish, then say we're creating a democracy. When that idea crashes and burns, just say we need to kill people to create order.

Whatever,

Watch the birdie!
The only winners in this war will be the oil companies and military contractors. Funny how the President is the symbolic leader of one group and the Vice President of the other.

As far as troop numbers, Bush never had the balls for the Powell Doctrine and there's no way he will start now. Sowell slams Kerry, but Kerry was correct, assuming the President would follow his Generals and adopt the military doctrine named for his own Secretary of State. Given what we know today, he would have needed a draft to get the numbers of troops required. At least Kerry assumed the President would do the right thing and use the correct number of troops. Sowell must have been busy when Shinseki asked for hundreds of thousands of troops. He probably also missed Wolfowitz pegging the cost of the war at a few hundred million. Who was fired and who was promoted?

My Dittohead friends, whatever Democratic mistakes of the past float your boat, they shouldn't form your justification for sending your friends and neighbors to die in a foreign country. Test your intellect and explain how 21,000 troops are going to make the difference between winning and losing in a country of 26 million. Check your gut and explain how billions of missing US tax dollars is OK to put in the hands of those same people whom you want to bomb into the "stone age". If not in the hands of terrorists, then in the hands of the war profiteers who are as good as traitors and deserve the same fate.

Sowell can blame the media for losing Vietnam, and I'm sure the right and left will vainly argue that until the end of time. The reality of the aftermath however did not match the rhetoric. Communism did not spread throughout the region. In fact Asia experienced it's greatest economic growth after the war was over and the same economic growth promoted the rise of a middle class and the genesis of democracies throughout the region. The interesting part is that many of these countries arrived at a democratic system by way of an authoritarian one, and for some - like Thailand - the process is difficult and still developing.

Now before you explode, I'm not suggesting that the Middle East will enjoy an economic renaissance, only that the dire predictions are never as dire as they seem and the rosy ones are never as rosy. The reality usually falls somewhere in between and given that the President is not really interested in winning, it would seem to make sense to start developing a fallback strategy that will look beyond Bush's Iraq fiasco and respond to the aftermath. Now that might actually enable us to promote change in the region far more than the elusive Iraq Democracy virus.

This administration is the Peter Principle writ large and bloody and Right, nothing more.

It Must be Deliberate...
...this abject hate of President Bush is so overwhelming from tanabear, Yomama, Red Tooth and kaneen; it makes me wonder if there is a certified objective to destroy the United States. There is no military draft, fellas. It's not like we have to burn our draft cards and flee to canada (or Kent State for that matter, although I was at neighboring YSU) Lets turn loose the military and pull a Sherman on these ME thugs and make the world safer for Mom, baseball and hot apple pie! OK?

Red Tooth
In case you forgot (and apparently you have) Lybia specifically and publicly dropped their bid for nuclear weapons in mid 2003, in the wake of the invasion of Iraq. Qadhafi remembered all too well another "Cowboy" president who didn't hesitate to bomb Tripoli when they ticked him off. We've only heard from them once afterward, with the bombing of Pan Am 103 at the very end of Reagan's term. And, by the way, we didn't know who did that until after Reagan left office.

Iran is doing what they are doing because they see the media making a concerted effort to change everyone's opinion on the war. They follow the daily opinion polls that the Commie News Network puts out asking "Do you think the war in Iraq was (A) Only a minor mistake (B) A big mistake (C) A Huge mistake (C) A mistake of epic proportions (D) A Gi-normous mistake or (D) the worst mistake in the history of Western Civilization." They aren't idiots over there. They may be insane, but they aren't stupid. Because of the anti-America Left, who refuses to believe that anything good can possibly come out of a Republican administration, and their constant whining about us trying to take the fight to the enemy, they know the Left has no stomach for war, even a relatively clean war like this one (Did you know that in Vietnam, Korea, WWII, WWI, and the Civil War more Americans died every year than have died as a result of combat since September 12, 2001? That even the 1991 Gulf war, which the Left was whining about, too, would have had a much higher casualty rate than this one had it taken more than a month and a half?)

Tell me something (and the other liberals can chime in on this one as well) at what point, if any, is it OK for us (America) to enter into combat? To what lengths should we go to protect ourselves, or, more accurately, how far is too far? Do you actually believe that it's the 26 million Iraqis who are doing the fighting? Do you actually believe it's a domestic insurgency we're combatting in Iraq? Let's say we take the Pelosi plan and pack up and leave tomorrow. How will that be viewed by Ahmadinejad? by Al Sadr? by bin Laden? (Here's a hint: Bill Clinton, Somolia, 1993)

And finally, how would you handle the problem of approximately 100 million people who want to see us all dead because of what they see as the decadence of our society (you know: coddling gays, marketing porn, turning away from God. Trust me, it's not just our support for Israel, or our Christian heritage.)

Yomama opines:
"...Sowell slams Kerry, but Kerry was correct, assuming the President would follow his Generals and adopt the military doctrine named for his own Secretary of State."

Kerry was correct? With which opinion?

When a political opportunist like Kerry takes every position... it is kind of difficult to not be correct, isn't it?

Yomama discredits a well-worded comment the minute he/she brought up Jon Carry. Not even his own party takes him seriously out of his earshot.

And, by the way... to all you thoughtful & intelligent lefties... it is "DR. Sowell", NOT "MR. Sowell".

CULTURE
Thomas Sowell

Any reference to Vietnam is a diversion from the problem.

Culture is the basic problem.

We are trying to Democratize a 6th century imperialist,murderous cult of a terror organization, called Islam. It is an ideology like Communism was an ideology.

This is not like Vietnam because the Islamic Ideology is GLOBAL. Unlike anything we have fought before. They literally live next door to us.

It does little good to fight for Democracy and Freedom of Religion if their culture requires them to kill Christians and Jews,Muslims(Apostates) and Non-Muslims after you leave.

Is their such a thing as tyrannical Democracy? Are not Britain, France Germany and even us losing to Islam in our multicultural Democracy which is really a contradiction of Democracy as it permits intolerant political ideologies.


Happy Jake
Great post!

I, for one, am truly sick and tired of these leftists/socialists who a) hate Bush, and b) have devolved into a gang that puts party and power above the best interests of this great nation (and in the process, have duped themselves into believing they ARE doing what's best for the country).

It would be so much easier if they just got on here and wrote: "I hate Bush" and saved my eyesight for thoughtful discourse.

Primus54
If I could get some honest answers to my questions from Liberals, especially those in power (and I stress HONEST answers) I'd be happy. Shocked and amazed, but happy none the less.

Kanaan
Kanaan:
""Critics claim that there is no connection between the war on terror and the war in Iraq."

No, critics claimed there was no connection between Iraq and 9/11."

This is just nitpicking. Essentially, the two points are the same. I would have drawn YOUR conclusion from what Mr. Sowell had SAID.

Kanaan
""Critics seem not to be concerned about anything beyond the 2008 elections."

No, war critics were saying the Iraq invasion was a blunder back in 2002, when it was not a political winner to oppose the war."

When Mr. Sowell refers to "critics" he is obviously referring to SOME critics. And in this he is correct. Your point does NOT contradict his, because you use critics in this sense too. SOME critics. Because obviously not ALL critics were saying "the Iraq invasion was a blunder back in 2002." SOME of today's critics SUPPORTED the invasion.

The Heart Of The Matter
This national disaster of a man and his mis-administration has taken our Republic into a strategic military blunder of epic proportions. All is else side dressing.

Libya seems nothing but a blip unless it was in fact a Trojan horse. Iran didn't drag us into Iraq. The MSM did not leave Afghanistan, the evil 'base' of our true enemies unfinished and half baked.

This incompetent administration bears the full responsibility of its dismal failures but we, all Americans, will bear its full weight.

Al-Qaeda could not have even dreamed of the national security nightmare we Americans face, imposed on us by this executive branch.

Red Tooth
"Sowell = Silly in Zulu?"

Are you kidding me???

Has anyone noticed that the only overt expressions of real, mean-spirited racism we see anymore come from Leftists attacking uppity blacks, Asians, etc., who dare to leave the Leftist plantation?

Why are you people (Tanabear, you too) incapable of dealing with Sowell's ideas just on their own merit; why must his race come into play?

You reveal your own intellectual poverty for all the world to see...

Red Tooth
Red Tooth:
"I now confess that I think Dr. Sowell is fundamentally deranged. Dr. Sowell makes a rather stupid point but tries to make it seem profound: "Miscalculations have been the rule, not the exception, in wars going back through the centuries."

Well, rather than address the argument, you address the man, getting in your personal attack before making ANY argument by describing Mr. Sowell offensively. NOR is the above point "stupid." It's - ahem - true.

And so now Pat Buchanan is the "right's" standard bearer? Since when did you become an admirer? Apart from his views on abortion, I find it difficult to see how he can be viewed as truly on the right - given his extreme protectionist and job-destroying leftist views.

Red Tooth:
"So, Mr Sowell, why should anyone listen to idiots like you who got everything about Iraq wrong, and not those who got Iraq right?"

Again, the personal attack. Oh. And who in fact DID get "Iraq right"? I dont know a single one.

"However, since Iraq had no WMD, and no connection to al-Qaida, the war in Iraq doesn't even have a theorectical connection to the war on terror."

This is complete nonsense, if I may use that word. I dont mind using it, since you have been so free with your denigration of Dr. Sowell, so you should be able to live with it. The fact is that it was WIDELY BELIEVED - and not just on the so-called "right" that Saddam DID have WMDs. He was acting as if he had, which was REALLY REALLY stupid given the context of the time.

Red Tooth II
So now Dr. Sowell is a "Bush cultist"? What on EARTH is that? Whatever it is, this is yet anOTHER personal attack on a man who is now doubt YOUR superior in intellect and character.

I say intellect based on what you have BOTH written. I say character in the sure certainty that Dr Sowell is incapable of posting the personal attacks you launched simply because you disagree with a MAN's views.

tanabear
tanabear: "Uncle Tom's Cabin" (!!!!???????)

This is surreal. What on EARTH has this reference to do with a SINGLE argument presented by Dr. Sowell?????????????

I have to reluctantly conclude that FergusMacLennan (2 posts up) has probably struck on the answer. So racist that should a black man make an argument you dont like, you throw racist remarks and images out there at the drop of a hat.

war and media
the fact is that the media and the left want and insist on a surgically accurate war where only the bad guys get hurt and every shot made by a US soldier is questioned and second guessed. the constant media barrage about losses and quagmire are silly. we have lost 3000 troops. sure that is bad but let's compare it to everybody's favorite war, vietnam where we lost over 50000.
we are no where near that number.
we need to fight this war as a war. we need to brief that there WILL BE CIVILIAN CASUALTIES. if attacked in any way we will respond with overwhelming force. we are not going to sacrifice a single soldier and have him hold back if he feels threatened in any way. it is time to give the soldiers the benefit of the doubt instead of the terrorists.
we have been letting media like al jazeera and cnn dictate the way this war should be fought for too long

Dr. Sowell - what about economics?
Dr. Sowell,

Can you (and other right thinking economists) put forward an ECONOMIC policy that unites Iraqis and drives them towards investing and trading rather than ethnic cleansing?

Our Govt bureaucrats (both parties) are singularly inept in this area, and could benefit from your suggestions.

Not surprisingly, all their solutions have a 'New Deal in Iraq' ring to them. Those solutions are likely to create more squabbling between gangs, that seek to gain influence through the 'jobs' programs. What is needed is a policy that catalyzes the creation of a responsible, forward-looking individual investor class.

I'm not an economist - but I've put together a couple of 'off the wall' suggestions on my blog at http://voice.townhall.com/

Note: scroll down until you see the topic "Two off the wall suggestions".

Comments are welcome - either on my blog, or in this forum.




And again...
Just to reinforce those who say the leftists alone are incredibly racist, Gaylord comes up with "the crotch obsessed, petty pundit of the late 90s."

So, we have Zulu, Uncle Tom's Cabin, and "crotch obsessed". Wonder if they could work in the Secretary Rice==Aunt Jemima trope of the left as well?

I shouldn't be surprised
After all, the left delved into those "black men only think about sex" stereotypes to disparage Justice Thomas as well. The Left does seem to have a nasty little racist streak, don't they?

Here's some some stats
on other wars we've fought so the libs can see how many wounded and deaths there were in other conflicts.
While we all mourn the deaths of our soldiers killed in Iraq, the losses have been much less than other wars.
As you can see the deaths during our own civil war were quite high at 191,963.

WAR NUMBER SERVING WOUNDED BATTLE DEATHS

Revolutionary War 217,0003 6,188 4,435
War of 1812 286,730 4,505 2,260
Mexican War 78,718 4,152 1,733
Civil War (Both Sides) 3,213,363 354,805 191,963
Spanish American War 306,760 1,662 385
World War I 4,734,991 204,002 53,402
World War II 16,112,566 671,846 291,557
Korean Conflict 5,720,000 103,284 33,741
Vietnam Conflict 8,744,000 153,303 47,424
Persian Gulf War 2,225,000 467 147

In addition, I'd like to add that the racism displayed by the liberals on this thread is appalling. Shame on those of you for it. You are an embarrassment to our country.


Grammar problem
I should have written:

Those on the Left does seem to have a nasty little racist streak, don't they?

Instead of:

The Left does seem to have a nasty little racist streak, don't they?

Gaylord
What is it with Dr. Sowell and his critics who seem to be lining up to launch nothing but PETTY personal attacks on him? Attack his arguments, and keep the personal to your little self.

Crotch Obsessed
Clinton's boxers was his obsession, not matters of state. The man wrote those articles about sex repeatedly. The repub party, the true party of closet racists are grasping for diversions from their disasters.

The twig has wrecked our national security, raped our Constitution and I don't hate him a whit more or less than repubs hated and still hate the Clintons.

"In the rear-view mirror of history, Clinton looks better and better." David Gergen

Andrews and Peppermint
I concur. It is mind blowing. I mean, these attacks arent even condescendingly racist. They are OPENLY so.

Lee Atwater...
would be proud of his Rovian minions of diversion and obsfucation. Except he repented before he died.

Sordid Sowell..
should have kept the personal to his little self.

Gaylord
You seem to have inverted the situation. Clinton was the one obsessed with his own crotch. It was no one's fault but his own that it became a topic in the news. If he had been able to exercise any restraint, he would be remembered for something other than a stained blue dress.

One last comment
You call the Republicans the party of racists? How many klansmen from the republican party serve now in the senate? And how many Democrats from the klan? I think the numbers there argue against you.

It's not Vietnam, but parallels exist
Iraq is a different time, a different enemy and a different struggle than Vietnam. Yet each time I persuade myself that it is different, I cannot escape the many eerie parallels between Iraq and Vietnam, at least from the American perspective.

Like Vietnam, the Iraq war was essentially sold to the public on trumped up charges. The comparisons between the Gulf of Tonkin incident, an alleged attack on U.S. ships that later turned out to be bogus, and the hyped intelligence surrounding Saddam’s alleged WMDs and links to al Qaeda, are certainly unmistakable.

The Johnson administration justified its involvement to Americans with the unproven “domino theory,” which presumed that if Vietnam was taken over by the communist North, the rest of the states of Southeast Asia would tumble into the communist camp like so many dominos. If anything, exactly the opposite has come to pass. Now the countries of Southeast Asia are scrambling to modernize and embrace capitalism, becoming bigger economic threats to America than they ever would have been military threats.

Likewise, the Iraq conflict was based on the unproven theory that by liberating Iraq from Saddam, we could create a bastion of democracy that would help turn the tide against Islamic radicals in the Middle East. History may prove differently but at least in the short term, it appears that this one is being flipped on its head as well. Instead of creating a democracy that is an example to the region, we have unleashed sectarian strife that has further radicalized Arab youth, emboldened our enemies and threatens to become a broader regional conflict.

Of course this could turn out differently in the long run. Yet today it appears both conflicts went bad because those who launched them did not understand the history and politics of the region, leading them into mistakes that doomed their efforts to failure.

Unlike Iraq, we entered Vietnam in the midst of a longstanding civil war between the North, supported by China and the Soviet Union, and the South, previously supported by the French. Iraq began as a war of liberation but has now degenerated into sectarian civil war. In both cases, our response was to escalate our involvement. It doesn’t appear to be working any better in Iraq than it did in Vietnam.

The one place where President Bush is right is that the stakes have become too large for us to simply walk away. Of course, coming from him, this is a little like the boy who killed both his parents, then appealed to the judge for mercy because he was an orphan. It is because of our mistakes, misjudgments and mismanagement of the conflict that we find Iraq near chaos, creating a situation much worse than we found it.

In a country where there were no terrorists before, we now find al Qaeda entrenched in the Sunni al Anbar province, actively recruiting the next generation of sectarian fighters and, possibly, anti-American terrorists. Left to their own devices, the Shiite militias would undertake open warfare against the Sunnis in an effort to drive them out of Shiite-controlled areas or, perhaps, out of Iraq entirely. There is already a huge Iraqi refugee crisis, with more than a million people having fled the nation and hundreds of thousands more being displaced by the religious strife. Other Arab states and Iran are becoming more involved in the conflict. There is truly a danger of this becoming a regional war.

I frankly had more confidence in Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger to handle the situation that I have in our current civilian leaders. After a stumbling start, they finally found that they key to allowing America an honorable exit from Vietnam was to deal directly with the sponsors of North Vietnam, the Soviet Union and China. By making it clear to them that their interests were best served by pressuring North Vietnam to reach an accord, they created a situation that let America save face and many American lives. Of course, the North Vietnamese were treacherous, using the exit of American combat troops to launch a new offensive that resulted in the visuals we all remembers of the last Americans fleeing the rooftop of the American Embassy by helicopter. It was a bad end to a bad war, but at least it was ended.

But Nixon and Kissinger recognized the need to pressure the sponsors of the insurgency, not just the insurgents. Despite advice from the Joint Chiefs, the Iraq Study Group, our intelligence community and generals in the field, among many others, our administration has refused to engage Iran and Syria, who are increasingly sponsoring the Shiite radicals. Granted we have grave differences with both states, just as we had with China and the Soviet Union during the Vietnam era. But just as we finally recognized that it was in the best interest of America to engage North Vietnam’s sponsors, we must recognize that it is in America’s interest to talk with the sponsors of the Iraq insurgency. If we are serious about leaving the Iraqis free to solve their own problems, we cannot do it without finding a way to disengage both ourselves and the sponsors of the insurgency. The discussions with them need to be tough. We must make it clear that it is also in their interest to disengage or they will suffer great consequences. But the first step is to talk, which we have not shown a willingness to do.

Wait to go Gaylord! Keep them in their !
I am so glad you brave souls are outing our evil administration and there minions such as Dr. Sowell without fear, Keep those uppity minorities in there place. They got to know who takes care of them by now! They can't survive without US! and they need to keep there ideas and opinions to there selves!

Ever since I discovered what Rove and Bush did with the hurricanes I have been in fear for my well being. Bush and Rove sent all those hurricanes into Florida in 2005 to punish them for not allowing the OIL drilling off their coast and Katrina was just because they hate African Americans. Carl Rove knows now that we are onto them so he held off all the hurricanes in 2006 to throw everyone off, but those Evil Rovian Hurricanes will be back

I have discovered their next plot to steel the elections in 08; They are going to create an earth quake just strong enough to make everyone run out of the voting sites then when everyone is gone the Halliburton secret agents will run in and vote a bunch times for who they want.

P.S. For those in the know, we need to add some foil to block the mind control beam, they have turned up the power now.

I have to go now.... I have a headache

Peppermint
Your stats dont do the situation justice. In all cases you fail to take into account the number of contractors killed.

The ONLY reason we are able to deploy like we have is with the dependance on contractors and sub contractors. While KBR is the best known, there are hundreds of them in theather.

These people are doing soliders jobs for the US government. They may be politically cheaper, but this is also one of the reasons this war has gotten so expensive.


Diversion, Diversions, Diversions
From the strategic catastrophe the neo-cons conceived and birthed. Race has nothing to do with abject failure. Rice is no more, no less a loser than Cheney because of race. It is because of blinded ideology they are truly equal, culpable and responsible for disaster.

The repub party has been the party of coded racism since the Tricky Dicky daze. The GOPers didn't make Kumbaya the song of the south to turn it red.

On both counts the repub party of today is traitorous to its roots and principles. What would Mr. Republican, Barry Goldwater, think of this duplicitous and adventurist party?

Gaylord
I repeat, which party has more klansmen in the senate? That's not some undefined "coded racism"; the continuing presence of Senator Byrd is a blatant racism. Or is the Klan ok if you have a D after your name?

Sen Byrd is not a
"blatant racism". That doesn't make sense.

Gaylord
Really?

So, saying "Our party supports a former klansman who has used the word n*gger within the past few years" is not in any way racist? But somehow the Republicans have a secret "coded racism".

What are you smoking?

Gaylord
And if you are picking on grammar, my sentence is correct, but uses elipsis.

By saying "the continued presence of Byrd is a blatant racism" is tied to the previous clause which used "a coded racism". Thus to have a parallel sentence structure I used "a blatant racism". I also omitted the "a sign of" instead assuming the reader could fill that in for the sake of brevity.

andrews
Dont worry about "Gaylord". It's obvious from his last post that he cant even read...

One more
And Gaylord, you actually object to something I did not say. I never said Byrd was a blatant racism, I said his continuing presence was.

I am sure you criticized republicans as racists when David Duke ran for office, based solely (at that time) on his former Klan membership (he has since proven himself a total racist, but that evidence did not exist when he first ran). So, if Duke's klan membership tainted the republicans, why does Byrd's much longer and deeper involvement with the klan not taint the democrats?

Oh, I forgot, it is because you are a simple-minded partisan who accepts anything done by a democrat.

typo
I wrote:

By saying "the continued presence of Byrd is a blatant racism" is tied to the previous clause which used "a coded racism".

It should read:

My statement, "the continued presence of Byrd is a blatant racism", is tied to the previous clause which used "a coded racism".

I changed the sentence but forgot to proofread my edits.

'Ol man Byrd
is of the era when essentially all southern politicians were members of the Klan. It was a prerequisite. Surely you know that, well maybe you don't because you might be a Yankee. I know that and I'm a proud southerner.

The fact remains the repub party stole the south by using coded, racist appeal, starting with Tricky Dicky. Under the guidance of the southerner Lee Atwater, that closet racism was perfected to an art form. Down here we all know that. If that shocks you, you GOT to be a Yankee.


Gaylord
So, did you defend Trent Lott? After all he was only (supposedly) endorsing Strom Thurmond's segregationist policies, and at the time all Good Ol' Boys supported segregation.

And, again, did you defend David Duke? After all, as you say, all politicians were in the Klan.

Or, do you only accept Democrats with a history of segregation and klan membership?

Wait a minute
Um, did you just say that all democrats in the south were in the klan, but Nixon stole the south by using coded racism? So, his coded racism was opposed by outright racism of klansmen in the south? Or are you arguing that southern politicians all joined the klan as an alternative to the Masons or Elks, that it was just a civic group... that sometimes lynched someone.

Don't recall any Elks or Rotarians lynching folks, so I think you may be whitewashing the klan a little bit, don't you?

Then again
As you were one of those flinging stereotypes at Dr. Sowell (yours was "crotch obsessed", I believe), then maybe you do harbor a secret fondness for the klan after all.


Bigots Have No Party Loyalty
They beat feet to the party that coddles them. Ol' Strom was the first in a very long line of Dixiecrats that became born again Republicans. Mr. Truman nudged the old boy out of his party, just a bit. But that little nudge sent Strom running as if he'd been hit by a gale force wind, straight into the arms of a party that sanctioned his ways.

Are you also saying...
Are you also saying the south is full of racists? Or are you calling them morons?

You say "everyone down here" knew Nixon and Atwater were manipulating them, but they voted republican anyway.

So, are southerners all racists or morons?

You must not like the south much, given how you speak about it: a place where everyone supports the klan and where they are willingly manipulated by transparent republican "coded racism".

Gaylord
I love how you keep yammering about "coded racism," and completely ignore the blatant, uncoded, out-there-in-your-face racism of Jesse Jackson ("Hymies from Hymietown"), Robert Byrd (who not only was a KKK member but voted AGAINST the Civil Rights Act of 1968), Ted Rall (who portrayed Condi Rice as Butterfly McQueen from "Gone With the Wind"), and so many others. Keep in mind as well that Billy Drop-Trou had a cabinet FAR MORE dominated by "old white men" than our current president.

The racism of the Left is manifest, it is out there, and it is embedded in all of their thinking, from the "soft racism of low expectations" inherent in quotas, to the more egregious forms. Leftists don't respect blacks, or Asians, or any other minority; they seek only to exploit them politically, and continually try to enact measures on the Federal level to keep these minorities as dependent as possible on the Democratic plantation masters.

Fergus
But don't you see, he starts speaking in his Hee-Haw hick patois about "Ol' Man Byrd" and thinks it makes everything all right.

Ok, let me try: Why don't yall pay no nevermind to that thar Gaylord, he been simple since the day he were birthed...

Did that lend me any credibility?

You Yankees Are So Confused
I didn't fling anything at Sowell, I just know what he wrote about, repeatedly, obsessively because he was nothing but a repub, partisan hack out to get Clinton over a blow job.

The Kluckers flocked to the GOP when they realized the "big tent" of the Democratic Party had no room for them.

And David Duke was just a pup when most of this was taking place.

Wow, you people ought to lay off the keyboard for a spell and read some southern history.

Actually...
Gaylord reminds me a little of President Bubba. When things got tough, Bubba suddenly broke out a bible and started sounding like Jethro Clampett. And when I ask Gaylord about the Senator-in-a-sheet, he gets all "folksy" and tells us that's just the way it is in the south. I don't buy it from either one.

I am not a yankee
Uh, Gaylord, I am not a yankee. I am a southerner who doesn't excuse Byrd for having been a klansman. Nor do I excuse David Duke. Unlike you, I place ethics above party loyalty. A shame you will sell your soul for anyone labelled D.

Either that or you believe the klan was OK.

That is not a southern position, by the way, that is a southern racist position.

andrews
DON'T forget the tear in the eye and the puffed out lips that The Impeached One used to do in order to show us that he felt "our pain."

Mr. Republican,
Mr. Goldwater also voted against the Civil Rights Act, out of pricipal. Dixiecrats voted against it for the sake of Jim Crow.

Gaylord
Again, you show your mindless partisanship. All D's voted for pragmatic reasons, all R's voted because of racism...

You really are the epitome of a democrat kool-aid drinker, aren't you?

Banishing the old order?
While short term stability might have been attained in Iraq by retaining the old army (the old police force was largely retained...largely to the country's detriment), we may have sacrificed long term stability in the process. The old army was largely commanded and manned in a sectarian fashion (predominately sunni arab), politicized and regularly intervened in domestic affairs. In other words, we would be maintaining law and order with an army that had no credibility with 85% of the population. This was the army that ruthlessly suppressed kurdish and shia uprisings. We would have been aligning ourselves with the very maintainers of the previous regime who would promptly execute another coup as soon as we left.

Iranian influence in Iraq has always been there but it goes both directions. Since the invasion, the arabs of iran have been heavily agitating for greater political freedom after having witnessed the freedoms enjoyed by the shia arabs of Iraq. Similar rumblings have also burn heard from other non-persian minorities in Iran. The Iranians are concerned about this and moving to influence shia arabs in Iraq. If the shia arabs sense that the US is not committed to the region who else are they going to turn to aside from Iran to help them while their government develops?

"In the rear-view mirror of history...
Clinton looks better and better." Republican David Gargen

Wow!
Wow! I must now change my mind, if David Gergen said it!

Sorry for my blindness. I should have consulted Gergen before I formed my opion.

Just call me Mr. Clintonista from now on!

Its not the numbers
Fellow conservatives, you undermine your own position every time you use the argument that "only 3000 people have died, lets compare that to any other war. See? It must be ok then!"
Same thing with the argument "we haven't been attacked since 9/11."
What happens if we are hit tomorrow? Should we stop our efforts since they have been futile? What happens if a suitcase nuke hits a major base and casualties rise? Does that mean that we should now leave since our casualties are above the surrender number?
Those opposed to the Iraq war won't ever be swayed by such logic, as useful as it is for putting things in perspective. The real thing to ask as Happy Jake pointed out is "at what point can we defend ourselves?" War isn't about measuring casualty statistics to find out if it is justified or not. Would lefties support the war if only 2000 had died at this point? 1000? Of course not, because they oppose it for different reasons.
As Dr. Sowell stated, and everyone seems to be ignoring, the terrorists are proving their fear of Democracy with words and deeds. Conservatives are looking at the long term consequences of actions or inactions, whereas leftists tend to look at the short term consequences.

War Piggin' Repubs
The Ballad of the Yellow Berets
(to the tune of "The Ballad of the Green Berets")


We are tough, young Republicans
We fight with words (but never guns)
We show support by drinking beer.
But since we're rich we'll stay right here.


(chorus)
Chicken wings suit me just fine
They go so well with my yellow spine
I'll ply my trade while you're overseas
When you return, your job will speak Chinese


I'm like my grandpop and my dad,
Those terrorist bastards make me mad;
But I'm a Stanford B-school grad;
So I'll not be going to Baghdad


(Chorus)
Chicken wings suit me just fine
They go so well with my yellow spine
The poor man's born to join the fray
I was born rich, I'll get an MBA


I just can't share the poor man's fate
Cause at the Frat House hot babes wait
Just like Dubya I get "C's",
And like Dick, I got "Priorities"


(Chorus)
Chicken wings suit me just fine
They go so well with my yellow spine
We strut like cocks in our "Old School" halls
We're really hens, we're lacking balls



One thing I've noticed..
about the twiggies of the Kool-Aid brigade. They'll turn on any Republican no matter the stature, discard any Republican principal, even kick to the curb the Constitutional Republic to be lap dog apologists for this criminal enterprise in the White House.

So what?
Let us assume for the sake of argument that all the following claims of the critics are valid:

(a)"Bush bungled" [he as well as his advisors, our allies, and the Iraqi allies],

(b)"there were/are no WMDs" [the man who served as the no. 2 official in Saddam Hussein's air force says Iraq moved weapons of mass destruction into Syria before the war by loading the weapons into civilian aircraft in which the passenger seats were removed AND over 500 chemical weapons have so far been found IN Iraq]

or

(c) that "no other president in recent history was capable of such an enormous blunder" [Carter's inflation crisis with interest rates above 20%; the wimpy, completely ineffective response to Iran's 444-day hostage-taking, a response that set the stage for Iran's view of the USA as a paper tiger; and the worst president in American history continues to run his mouth in a state of perpetual verbal diarrhea]

Assume that all those claims are true (though as you can see, I tend to disagree).

So what?

We are still there in Iraq; Iran and Syria continue to sabotage our efforts; Iran is still pursuing nuclear weapons; Iran still promises to wipe out both the Little Satan and the Big Satan (Israel and the USA for the less than knowledgeable); terrorists are still making war on our troops; terrorists are still making plans within our own borders.

What in the world do you think will happen if/when we "redeploy", to use Murtha's euphemism for "surrender"? That the Islamists will say, "Oh, well. That's done. Think I'll go home now." ????

As my students would say, NOT!

They will look at Somalia and Iraq and have a dandy recruiting poster - WE DEFEATED THE USA.
And you know what? They will have. Not by defeating the brave men and women in uniform, but by enlisting the assistance of our uniformly ultra-liberal mainstream media - you know the ones, the ones who began coverage of this war with the word "quagmire" and "VietNam" and have been repeating it on a daily basis ever since. Sometimes, guys, expectations really do result in being met.

And for those whose rabid hatred of all things "wascally Wepublican" and whose vitriol against Bush has affected their eyesight so that they simply cannot see what is happening and what will happen, put on your glasses! We really, truly are at war. And unless you are willing to live under sharia law in an I-Slamist caliphate, perhaps you'd better start acting/talking like an American (remember those? We grew them in the millions during WWII) instead of a party hack.

Libertybob
Well said. I myself have fallen into that particular trap, and it is a good reminder. Many thanks for your much-needed clarity.

Critics left and right
Maybe the soothsayers back in 2003 before the Iraq invasion were right. Maybe we shouldn't have tried to instill democratic values in Iraqis. However, that is neither here nor there. What is important TODAY is finishing what we started. We HAVE to fight thru to victory one way or another and how you define "victory" is important. America can not climb back up the cliff that was the decision to invade Iraq. Our only way out is to go forward. Should we redefine what victory in Iraq is? Maybe. What we definately should NOT do is tuck our tail between our legs and run. If you care about America and your fellow Americans I don't see how you can advocate any policy that weakens America's standing in the world.

America is a special place. One that deserves to be not only preserved, but enhanced. Is America perfect? Not by any means, but it is a far sight better than any other country I've ever visited. And it could be even better if everybody would just stop whining and criticizing and start living up to the ideals set forth in our founding documents. Roll up your sleeves, get behind the huge sled that is America and help push forward. Too many so-called Americans are either just enjoying a free ride while others do the pushing, or they're actively hindering forward progress. Which one are you?

This Republic..
waged a world-wide war on two world-wide fronts and won showing just a mere shawdow of the fear compared to the unbridled fear that pervades today among the twiggie ranks. Those fraidy holes will not defeat 'the base', neither will mindless assaults on Constitutional law.

Wow, a continuation of the same tactics
...from the first article...

namecalling (though with a new twist, the racial namecalling) and subject diversions.

It's pointless to discuss things with people who are stuck in the 3rd grade.



So, it looks like another good article. Plain, simple and to the point.

3 questions


1. Do we need to surrender in Iraq and pull our troops out. Discuss why, and give a brief discussion on the possible outcomes

2. If mistakes are made do we just quit altogether and scream about the mistakes made and thump our chests and let others suffer for those mistakes?

3. Is it really accurate to call this a 'quagmire'? If so explain WHY it is a quagmire and HOW to make it NOT be a quagmire.

3 easy questions for all of those who are crying vehemently against our very existance in the Middle East.

GAYLORD
How about abolishing the armed forces, enacting free health care, free education, and a guaranteed job when turning 18? Will you then troll away in to the shadows?

Kanaan, Iraq did cause 9/11
regardless of whether or not Saddam had an active hand in perpatrating the attacks, Al Qiada stated main reason they attacked us was because our infedal troops were stationed on the sacred Islamic soil of Saudi Arabia.

O' but what were they doing there? Well they were the only thing that was keeping Saddam Hussain in check. If it were not for Saddam our forces would not have been there no would they?

therefore it can be said that Saddam wasa indeed responsible for 9/11.

Trolls
You good folks might notice that some of the morons who've engaged in some very nasty name-calling have not returned to defend their lack of positions?

Measly little drive-by one-shot wonders. Cowards, each of them.

Don't waste your energies on them. They're not worth the phosphors lighting your monitor -- indeed, there's no illumination there at all.

.

Gay lord
That was funny.

Where did you get that song?

Code Pink?

moveon.org?

Thanks for proving our long held belief that you libsquirts can't think past the end of your eyelids without a party hack to give you your talking points.

response to Gaylord's ballad
use the same tune! (a ballad to the very first action of the first Hillary presidency)

Falling fairies from the sky;
I broke a nail, oh I could cry!
Don't you like how my tush sways?
We are the F@gs of the Queen Berets!

Bill Clinton's words upon our ears,
"You guys have rights, be proud you're que*rs!"
I once was scared, now I'm Okay,
Cause I'm a f@g in the Queen Berets.

Put silver earclips on our nuts;
We love the pain, now spank our butts!
The way you walk is awfully cute;
I sure would love to pack your chute!

Back at home, a young wife awaits,
Her Queen Beret just won't go straight;
For his team he stays undressed,
Spreads his legs, and lies on his chest.

This Army stuff is really slick;
Free clothes, bunk beds, and lots of dicks.
When we retire, we'll still get paid;
We thank you, Bill, from the Queen Berets!


Ken in Tenn
Just wanted to say that I really enjoyed your comment/analysis of the Iraq/Vietnam comparison.

Slug
Wow, civilized debate...I cant stand it!!

1. Do we need to surrender in Iraq and pull our troops out. Discuss why, and give a brief discussion on the possible outcomes
Iraq is a sovergien nation in charge of its own destiny. IT has its military and police. They dont need us to do a job they have the rescources to do themselves. Our involvment there is costing too much for too little return, and not making our country any safer. We achieved our goals, no need.
Of course, this would then result in years to decades of civil war that would be funded by other arab nations, keeping them too busy in fighting to worry about the US. IF worse comes to worse, the world community under the UN could always return and do what the US is doing now.

2. If mistakes are made do we just quit altogether and scream about the mistakes made and thump our chests and let others suffer for those mistakes?
People are already suffering for these mistakes. We need to correct what we can, which I dont think is possible, but also, we should go making things worse,espically by making the same mistake over and over again.

3. Is it really accurate to call this a 'quagmire'? If so explain WHY it is a quagmire and HOW to make it NOT be a quagmire.
Inspite of throwing all our available miltary rescorces at the problem, there as been little change in the level of civil unrest in years. I believe the current Iraqi government has their own hidden agenda which we are fighting, and there is little we can do to oppose it. I would suggest declaring victory and going home.

Kanaan's rhetoric.
On Tuesday, January, 16, 2007 7:06 PM, Kanaan wrote:

"'Critics claim that there is no connection between the war on terror and the war in Iraq.' No, critics claimed there was no connection between Iraq and 9/11. Terrorists are pouring into Iraq after we destabilized the country because Bush created an opportunity for them. Bush also gave Iran an opportunity to go nuclear while we are bogged down in a quagmire."

Bush created an opportunity for them to do *what*? Without finishing that line of thought, you are just spouting partisan rhetoric.

Acknowledging the intent of the enemy during a war campaign is something that too many people (almost exclusively on the left) can't or won't do (usually because doing so is soon followed by the realization that the military action supported by their political opponents is justified).

Allied forces stormed the beaches of Normandy during World War II. That amounted to a destabilization of those beaches, creating an opportunity for German forces to shoot at them. Does that invalidate the Allied objectives of D-Day?

*Why* are terrorists ("insurgents" to the politically correct or Bush-haters) pouring into Iraq to kill as many American soldiers and Iraqi civilians as they can? What are their motivations? Is it simply because Bush "destabilized" the country, as you put it (to a leftist, consistent oppression or a reliable threat is always preferable to a tumultuous pathway to freedom)? Are they seeking to re-establish stability in the region? (As Dr. Sowell has pointed out elsewhere, the quickest way to make Iraq stable would be for them to *cease* their murderous activities.) Or is their aim to fend off the stability that America is attempting to instill, to create deadly havoc in order to keep a rival ideology of democracy and freedom from taking root in their midst?

"'Critics seem not to be concerned about anything beyond the 2008 elections.' No, war critics were saying the Iraq invasion was a blunder back in 2002, when it was not a political winner to oppose the war. Critics fear that the Iraqi blunder strengthens the terrorists and makes it impossible to erase the culture of Jihad. Critics are concerned that a President capable of such a blunder cannot be trusted with future national security decisions because he will blunder again. How odd that the Right has now bought into the Democratic queasling argument that the war has just been 'badly managed', to cover their butts for voting for the war in 2002. Moving the goal posts again?"

What "covering our butts"? As a leftist, you are projecting. Unlike you, we on the right don't typically "cover our butts" -- we simply acknowledge when things don't turn out exactly as we'd planned (which in itself says nothing about the rightness of the plan).

To focus solely on Al Qaeda in reaction to the events of 9/11 is the most provincial and non-holistic position imaginable of that situation. It was eminently insightful of Bush to recognize 9/11 as an *ideological* threat, not an *organizational* one. Sowell's observation that "critics seem not to be concerned about anything beyond the 2008 elections" alludes to the leftist tendency to seek quick, short-term solutions to problems, which is evinced both in their preoccupation with that impending scenario and their insistence that America should be concerned solely with the executors (grim pun intended) of 9/11 instead of their ideological bedrock.

"The war was a fundamental mistake to begin with. No other president in recent history was capable of such an enormous blunder. Other war-time mistakes don't reach the magnitude of Iraq for the reasons you point out--al Queada nor Iran was never going to control Iraq as long as the Batthists did. Yes they were pigs, but they could be deterred by mutually assured destruction. And Iran wouldn't dare mess with us if we weren' bogged down in Iraq."

Again, the point of going into Iraq was not simply the retention of the long-standing aim of keeping this or that enemy in check; the point was to plant the seed of a rival ideology. (It is surprising how many leftists fail to recognize this, given the evident use of similar tactics by the left in America's educational system.) The massacre and large-scale destruction of 9/11 commanded nothing less than this break from the status quo of mere deterrence.


-- Milo

A reasoned response!! *faint*
1. Yes and no. I disagree on the long-term impacts. The Middle east controls roughly half of the world's oil supply inuse IIRC. Even though here in the USA we could drop to reserves and tell ME to take a flying leap, Japan and China, whose economies also depend on ME oil would soon start dragging...since our economy is tied inexorably to the world economy ours wouldn't be too far behind. Right now we ARE doing the UN's dirty work, since it was their resolutions circa 1991 and 1992 that we were attempting to enforce. As far as them having or not having hte resources to take care of their own police work, i'd say that until THEY decide that we need to leave and state that they have it, we would be doing an injustice to those whose lives depend on what law and order exists. Also realize that not all of Iraq is in utter chaos, and life in many areas is back to normal, with school building, economic growth and normal life in progress.

2. no argument on the suffering, though i disagree with the assessment that they cannot be corrected. Though more troops sounds nice, i doubt that alone is going to do anything except make the bases even more crowded.

3. We have not thrown the full might of the US Military machine at this problem. In fact, not even close to the full might. Had we gone in and continued with the full force of weaponry and "barbaric" tactics available this would have been over at least by 2005. Probably earlier. As quickly as the initial thrust was prosecuted, the rest would have fallen just as well. However once the media embeds made it clear they were going to cause as much trouble as they could get away with.... Declaring victory right now would just be called a lie (and rightfully so) and wouldn't really IMO do anything. Because the stated goals were to turn over security to the Iraqi government when IT could maintain the law & order. Anything short of that would be failure.

When my step-brother or cousin have to second guess their actions there, and try to decide whether taking the available shot at someone shooting at him or his company will result in a courts martial or a medal, there are serious problems with the execution of the war.

But new questions, and i would prefer answers from those who have previous military experience. Though any working knowledge of the real people fighting the ground war would be ok.

4. IS our military physically capable of eradicating the terrorist threat inside of Iraq? Do they have the training and weaponry available to mechanically do the job? Do they have air and sea support which can 'soften' ground targets prior to ground invasion, and do we have sufficient weaponry in the field to shoot and destroy any military targets that present themselves to our troops?

5. If #4 is a no, then what do they need?
If yes, then are there any other hindrances to them getting their job done, and what are they?


6. Does anyone with first-hand knowledge know if we have active security along the iraq/iran and iraq/syria border? First-hand, as in seen it themselves. Or not seen it themselves.

Sowell was critical of the neocons'...
push to invade Iraq. He's always been critical of so-called nation-building -- from the left or the right. It's well-documented. He's never changed his tune.

Sowell is simply (a) revealing parts of the picture that the left would rather ignore, and (b) accepting the fact that, regardless of how we got there, we're there, and we need to try to make the best of a bad situation.

If politics is forcing our soldiers to fight with one hand tied behind their backs, we should reconsider the way we do politics. That's a fair point.

Yawn, a leftist parrot on my shoulder.
On Wednesday, January, 17, 2007 4:19 PM, naked pagan wrote:

"Iraq is a sovergien nation in charge of its own destiny. IT has its military and police. They dont need us to do a job they have the rescources to do themselves. Our involvment there is costing too much for too little return, and not making our country any safer. We achieved our goals, no need. Of course, this would then result in years to decades of civil war that would be funded by other arab nations, keeping them too busy in fighting to worry about the US. IF worse comes to worse, the world community under the UN could always return and do what the US is doing now."

On the contrary, Iraq is rather *not* in charge -- not with respect to the most basic function that any government can serve, that is. (That would be the defense of its citizens from aggression, for those of you on theleft.) That is much of the whole point at issue, and largely why American troops are still there.

"People are already suffering for these mistakes. We need to correct what we can, which I dont think is possible, but also, we should go making things worse,espically by making the same mistake over and over again."

Again, the notion held dear by leftists everywhere, that the group with the most power is responsible for everything. (Well, at least that makes it easier to fake political analysis and point fingers.)

People are suffering because (1) rival groups in Iraq don't know how to settle their differences without killing each other, and (2) a bunch of angry Arabs don't want freedom springing up in Iraq. It isn't American soldiers who are going about targeting women and children.

"Inspite of throwing all our available miltary rescorces at the problem, there as been little change in the level of civil unrest in years. I believe the current Iraqi government has their own hidden agenda which we are fighting, and there is little we can do to oppose it. I would suggest declaring victory and going home."

Except that we *haven't* thrown all of our military resources at the problem. If we did that, Baghdad would now be renamed Parking Lot City.

I won't argue that the Iraqi government might have their own hidden agenda, but I'm sure that the Bush administration has taken that into account.

-- Milo

Kanaan's rhetoric (addendum).
I wrote: "Bush created an opportunity for them to do *what*? Without finishing that line of thought, you are just spouting partisan rhetoric."

I will add that the American invasion of Iraq also gave the terrorists the opportunity to simply back down and let democracy take root (just as the coming of Allied forces to Normandy gave German troops the opportunity to surrender).

The point is that you might want to reconsider the leftist position that people in positions of lesser power (which can't even be determined without hindsight, anyway) never make choices.

-- Milo

Another Vietnam
Agree that the problems in Iraq are political with our very own constrained to political correctness. Americans want us to succeed in Iraq and Americans need to demand we see more evidence of it through economic development in the north and the killing of terrorists. The only evidence of peace is after a victory. No where and at no time has peace been negotiated. Just like socialism fails every time it is tried, so do negotiations as evidenced in history. Just like socialism, proponents respond to the failures by saying, "It just wasn't implemented right."

Too bad people believe what they are told without looking for evidence. They blindly think the news and scientists are reporting the facts without testing these facts. We need more critical thinkers in the world who point to solid evidence.

The evidence is that terrorists are in Iraq. It is indisputable. Bush did not create them, their belief systems do. Are armed forces are in Iraq... Hey, what a coincidence. Perhaps we should take the kid gloves off and engage them once and for all!

Terrorism In Iraq
First, let me say that I enjoy your columns and look forward to reading them. I am wondering what happened to the foreign terrorists in Iraq? Our media have completely ignored them for months since they became enthralled with "sectarian warfare". I have a strong suspicion that many of the Baghdad car bombings and other spectacular acts of violence toward civilians may well be their work rather than that of Iraqi's against Iraqi's. How could we Know or have any perspective about conditions in that country given the truly unprofessional coverage provided by our media.

Happy Jake's nonsense
"In case you forgot (and apparently you have) Lybia specifically and publicly dropped their bid for nuclear weapons in mid 2003, in the wake of the invasion of Iraq."

This is another Bush fairy-tale. Libya had been making overtures to Europe and the United States before war in Iraq was even on radar screen, and they promised not to develop any biological and chemical weapons -- they had no nuclear weapons program.

But you keep ignoring Sowell's fundamental dishonesty. After it was established that Iraq did not possess WMD -- the sole casus belli for the war -- Sowell said it didn't matter because our show of force made other nations back down. Here is Sowell in a column in 2004:

"Would Libya have revealed and dismantled its weapons of mass destruction if the Qaddafi regime had not seen what happened in Iraq? Would Syria and Iran have taken a more conciliatory attitude if they had not seen what happened in Iraq?"

The answer to his first question is: Yes. And what "conciliatory" attitude has been shown by Syria and Iran?

So Mr Sowell is just a shifty-eyed devil: when no WMD are found he makes the argument that our display of force made Iran and Syria back down, when that turns out not to be true does he re-evaluate his support for the war? No, he just makes up something else to support it.

He's a Bush culist.


All Neo-CON Twiggies
Sorry I couldn't stay longer for the gutterfest but I had this prior commitment that is known as a 'job' which I have to return to after lunch. I spent way too much time on this wing nut board this morn anyway. At this time I have no time or desire to try further to oil the rusty wheels of the mindless. Yet I will return another day to another thread to remind y'all repeatedly....

THIS NATIONAL DISASTER OF A MAN AND HIS MIS-ADMINISTRATION HAS DAMNED THIS REPUBLIC IN A STRATEGIC MILITARY BLUNDER OF EPIC MAGNITUDE.

Be sure and watch Senator James Webb give his reply to the Twig's State Of Confusion speech.

Impeach & Convict!

"Sovereign" Nation Iraq
One of the things that has to be remembered is that the only reason there's a "sovereign" nation of Iraq is because such was carved out in negotiations between the US, Britain and Russia at the end of WWII.

In particular, the Kurds feel absolutely no political or cultural ties to Baghdad whatsoever. That's one of the reasons they're used as a "success story." They have their own military, their own police, and they use it. Iranians and other insurgents can not sneak over the border to cause problems, because if you can't speak Kurdish, or aren't with a Kurdish guide, they kick you out immediately.

There's an interesting article about them in Reason magazine. They're just biding their time, waiting for the time to be right. When it's right, they're going to jump ship so fast it'll make heads spin.

It's my guess that sooner or later they're going to become Kurdistan, an independent nation, which is what they want. I honestly can't think of any real good reason why they shouldn't.

Jimmy Joe
"Again, the personal attack. Oh. And who in fact DID get 'Iraq right'? I dont know a single one."

http://www.radaronline.com/features/2007/01/betting_on_iraq_1.php

Read the above. Discusses those who got Iraq right and those who got Iraq wrong.

Of particular interest is the case of William Lind, head of the Center for Cultural Conservatism and a member of the American Conservative Union. He was always an opponent of the war and made the correct prognosis:

"When American forces capture Baghdad and take down Saddam Hussein, the real war will not end but begin ... as an array of non-state elements begin to fight America and each other."

Scott Ritter was also right about Iraq's WMD -- he said Iraq had been disarmed when president Bush was warning about mushroom clouds.


true conservatism?
These debates remind of the time of Teddy Roosevelt and his policy of international adventurism ... but the neo-cons are abandonng their roots?

Why Sowell is a charlatan
In his book _Vision of the Anointed_ Mr Sowell gives many case studies that examine the failure of liberalism. His conclusion is that liberals have insulated themselves from reality -- from the emprical consequences of the policies they support -- while conservatives (tragic vision) are responsive to empirical reality.

However, I now see what his real purpose is. When liberal policies fail and when liberals fail to re examine their assumptions even in the light of contravening empirical evidence, he cites this as a feature of those with the "anointed" vision.

However, now that the war in Iraq has failed -- Iraq's democracy isn't spreading throughout the Middle East -- he just says mistakes are common in wars. So when Republican presidents produce failed policies then that's just how things are. But when Democratic presidents produce failed policies, then it's proof they've disconnected from reality.

It's an unbeatable gig.

Not just WMD
If you read Wooward's Plan of Attack you will see that Bush was concerned about more than WMD.

Ken in Tennessee
Good post. I agree with just about everything you said.

I would add that in regard to Vietnam, Elsberg's book about the Pentagon papers has a small paragraph in it that stated something like "No one in the Administration, NO ONE, knew anything about the history of Vietnam, and very few could even find it on the map." I may have overstated the case, but not by much.

The history of Vietnam, political, military, religious and cultural, was well-known long before 1965, but we didn't read any of the books or even watch the movie. (The Quiet American)

In Iraq, we have another problem. We let go of Afghanistan and went after Iraq and I can't for the life of me fathom why.

But we shouldn't fear, for we have Kissinger and Baker and all the "adults" back in charge now.

It's time for some new blood in Washington before we get blood in the streets, but all we get from either party is retreads or cool nicknames.

Barry

"Stay the Course" considered Dangerous
We need to face the fact that the current strategy in Iraq is not working for reasons inherent to the current situation. More troops by themselves will not make a difference simply because our strategy is to defer the big decisions to those who don't want to make a difference.

This is not Vietnam all over again. It is worse.

As in Vietnam, our greatest liability is the government we claim to protect. The Iraqi government maintains close ties to Iran, and actively protects individuals involved in sectarian violence.

The only answer in my view at this point is to use every leverage we have to create a political solution in Iraq. This is why I support Sen. Clinton's idea of tying aid tothe Iraqi government to political reforms regardless of what we do militarily on the ground.

Milo
> Iraq is rather *not* in charge -- not with respect to the most basic function that any government can serve, that is.
(That would be the defense of its citizens from aggression, for those of you on theleft.)
They have soliders, they have police. They have had plenty of time to learn their job, years as a matter of fact. They arent going to learn to take care of themselves if we treat them like children.

>that the group with the most power isresponsible for everything.
My point was no matter what we do people have and will suffer.

>(1) rival groups in Iraq don't know how to settle their differences without killing each other
>(2) a bunch of angry Arabs don't want freedom springing up in Iraq.
Yes, and inspite of years of our best efforts, we havent been able to prevent them from suffering. Would they suffer any more if we werent there? Would they suffer any less? If we cant control it, why are we tring

>Except that we *haven't* thrown all of our military resources at the problem.
Okay, we could just indiscriminately kill people, but that would make us as bad as the people we are fighting, and in the end, if would turn those who survive against us...oh sure, you may use WWII as some sort of analogy, but these are not japanese

Maybe there isnt a military solution to this

>I won't argue that the Iraqi government might have their own hidden agenda, but I'm sure that the Bush administration has taken that into account.
Well, he has been right about everything else.
But think, you have heard that the police have death squads in their ranks, and they operate with ease, and the hanging of Saddam shows a cruel vengful attitude rather than one of reconcilliation...Maikli is responsible for this
simply because he is incharge of the country. If he cant stop it, if he is more a hiderance than help, then working with him for peace would be futile.

Tell it like it is.
Right on Dr Sowell.

.
Reading such nonsense I find myself looking for the 'wink', like 'OK, no intelligent person could read this without laughing. So what is he really getting at?'


Another Vietnam?: Part II
By Thomas Sowell
Tuesday, January 16, 2007

Critics of the Bush administration's conduct of the war in Iraq have long demanded that he admit his mistakes. But they have not admitted their own past mistakes, much less admit the potentially catastrophic mistake they will make in the future if they make it impossible to sustain military operations there.

Sophmoric argument unworthy of serious contemplation. Critics number in the thousands. Some have good ideas, some don't. None affect any policy decisions. Not critics nor the media are capable of 'making it impossible' to do anything. Why should we "sustain military operations"? What would the definition of a "victory" in Iraq be?

Critics have been proved wrong repeatedly in their claims that elections could not be held in Iraq or a government formed there. Iraqi voter turnout, even in the face of terrorist threats, has exceeded voter turnout in the United States.

Lots of people voted. So what: "The US has made clear that the transfer of sovereignty to a provisional Iraqi government on 30 June will be a limited affair, and that ultimate authority will reside at a gigantic new US embassy in Baghdad and with the military occupation force. Asked what would happen if the temporary government acted at variance with US foreign policy - such as by seeking closer ties with Iran - Mr Grossman implied that would not be tolerated. "That is why we want to have an American ambassador in Iraq," he noted cryptically. ...some Security Council members may now balk at conferring UN legitimacy on a new Iraqi government whose powers are so limited."


Bush once reportedly told lawmakers he was determined to stick with the Iraq war even if his wife and his dog were the only ones left at his side - and he's getting close. Americans were already angry over the war before Bush said Wednesday night he would try to bring shattered, unrelentingly violent Iraq back from the brink, but even with the steps announced in tandem - Bush is nearly alone.

During the 2004 presidential election campaign, John Kerry warned that the Bush administration had plans to impose a military draft immediately after being re-elected.
Two years later, there is no sign of a military draft on the horizon.

"December 22, 2006: The Selective Service System is planning a comprehensive test of the military draft machinery, which hasn't been run since 1998. "


The only people who have been advocating a military draft have been Democrats like Charles Rangel -- transparently as part of their class warfare political strategy of claiming that "the poor" are fighting and dying while "the rich" stay home and enjoy life. No facts back up this claim.

Please...no facts back up this claim? Its common sense. It requires very little investigation to realize this is a fact. We need the draft to remind the nation that we share responsibility for our wars equally. Reinstate the draft, scare the privideleged with a thought of actually backing up their hawkish words with ACTION, like a stint in the Army? Rioting in the streets and the war is over.

Miscalculations have been the rule, not the exception, in wars going back through the centuries. The miscalculations in the Iraq war have not been military but political.

WRONG!!! Here's a few military mistakes, not miscalculations: wrong about WMD, wrong about needed troop levels, wrong about the length of the war, wrong about the cost of the war, wrong about the financing of the war, wrong about the level of sectarian violence, wrong about being greeted as liberators.

Saddam Hussein's army was defeated quickly, decisively, and with far lower American casualty rates than in previous wars. Clearly there were ample numbers of American troops to accomplish that mission.


Oh, THAT mission. The one thats "Complete", right. Moron.

President Bush was right to listen to the military as regards the conduct of the war. But perhaps he should have sought the advice of police chiefs as regards maintaining law and order.

For that we did not have enough troops in Iraq and -- more important -- the troops we did have were under too many politically imposed restrictions. Put bluntly, they needed to tell the many private militias in Iraq to drop their guns or get killed.

Far fewer people would have died if they had. Of course, hand-wringers around the world, beginning with the American media, would have denounced such "brutality" and claimed that "negotiations" could have prevented such bloodshed.

The Iraqi government has negotiated, if not collaborated, with some of these domestic terrorists -- and the net result has been escalating violence and mounting death tolls.

A very thoughtful article in the current issue of Foreign Affairs by Singapore's former prime minister Lee Kwan Yew explained the realities of maintaining order after a conquest. You do not do it by a wholesale banishing of those who maintained order before the conquest.


Oh, you mean like the de-Baathification of the government and the disbanding of the Iraqi army that Rumsfield did.

The most fundamental difference between President Bush and his critics has not been in who has made mistakes, because both have. The biggest difference has been that the President has taken a long-run view of the worldwide war on terror, while his critics are seeking a quick fix.

No the BIGGEST difference is that the critics alleged mistakes matter not one iota, while the President's mistakes affect the entire globe deeply.

Critics claim that there is no connection between the war on terror and the war in Iraq. They don't seem to notice that the terrorists themselves obviously see a clear connection, which they express in both words and deeds.

Critics argue that there is no connestion between the Twin Tower attacks and Iraq. Explain how Iraqis posed a threat to the continental United States and the people there? Long range missles? HOW WERE THEY A THREAT?? The "connection" the terrorists see is that they now have a target to attack which they would not have if we were not there. "WASHINGTON, Sept. 23 — A stark assessment of terrorism trends by American intelligence agencies has found that the American invasion and occupation of Iraq has helped spawn a new generation of Islamic radicalism and that the overall terrorist threat has grown since the Sept. 11 attacks."


Bush once reportedly told lawmakers he was determined to stick with the Iraq war even if his wife and his dog were the only ones left at his side - and he's getting close.


Americans were already angry over the war before Bush said Wednesday night he would try to bring shattered, unrelentingly violent Iraq back from the brink, but even with the steps announced in tandem - Bush is nearly alone.

Terrorists are pouring into Iraq, even at the cost of their lives, in order to prevent a free, democratic government from being established in the Middle East. They see victory or defeat in Iraq as having major and long-lasting repercussions throughout the region and even throughout the world.

Critics seem not to be concerned about anything beyond the 2008 elections.

Anti war critics are not playing politics. They have been against the war even when that was a political liability. They are concerend about our soldiers and the innocent civillians who are dying every day. That this shmuck Sowell can only see things throught the 'political concequences' is very revealing about him.

Both individuals within Iraq and countries throughout the Middle East must make life-and-death choices, based on whether they are safer to cooperate with the United States or to align themselves with the terrorists.

If the United States is here today and gone tomorrow, while the terrorists have already demonstrated their staying power and tenacity, we can expect a catastrophic realignment of forces in a region whose oil is the lifeblood of economies around the world.

We've been there over 4 years. That is not 'here today gone tomorrow'. The United States has been in Iraq longer than we were in all of World War II when this country defeated Nazi Germany, Mussolini and the entire Japanese empire. So what you're saying is that it IS all about oil and greed.

With fanatical extremists controlling both Middle East oil and nuclear weapons, what happens in the 2008 elections can look like small potatoes compared to the horrors we bequeath our children.

What nuclear weapons? Where? Yea, Way to go Bush! Way to screw up the globe for generations to come. Lets get MORE soldiers over there. That will solve the problem.


Here is how Iraq is NOT Vietnam
In Vietnam, you had a majority of a population that wanted us out. Not the case in Iraq. The Kurds, Christians, Assyrians, and most Shiites want us there. The Sunis and SOME shites want us out. Basically, 80% say in, 20% say out.

There was aid pouring in from two of the three most powerful nations on Earth in Vietnam. Not the case in Iraq.

We are constraining ourselves to the hilt in Iraq. If we wanted to we could wipe out every insurgent. We do not because of Political Correctness. Eventually, say after another 9/11, we will throw political correctness out the window.

Red Tooth
Sorry, but this link you posted isnt good enough to prove your point. As I stated I dont know of a SINGLE one who got Iraq right, including those sited in that linked article. I know many who were against the war, for similar reasons to the ones you mentioned, but that does NOT mean they were "right."

The war could have turned out differently at ANY stage, and nobody could know in advance how it would go. Because it turned out AFTER the fact to be more difficult than anticipated, does NOT mean it was wrong to begin with. Nor does it mean that it is predestinated to fail.

WMDs? That was only ONE reason for which the war was justified. Ritter being "right" on this does not make the war "wrong."

As for your second posting above. Again, you are comparing apples and oranges, by comparing the progress of a PARTICULAR war with the failure of "liberalism" in GENERAL. Additionally, you are ascribing motives to Dr. Sowell that you cannot KNOW him to have.

Eg. Many "liberals" believe in the minimum wage. Empirically, minimum wages tend to destroy jobs, making the poor WORSE off. But this doesnt impact the "liberal's" support for minimum wages. It SHOULD.

Eg. War going badly. Does NOT mean it is a "failed" war. NOR does it mean that it wasnt worth fighting. The Civil War looked VERY much like a "failed" war before Gettysburg and the fall of Georgia. The D-Day landings COULD have ended in catastrophe. And so on.

And my OWN position on the war? I doubt I would have voted FOR it, but I didnt cry when Saddam was despatched to hell where he belongs.

Red Tooth II again...
Finally, it IS possible to DISAGREE with a columnist withOUT character assassination you know. OR imputing false motives. On the war, my OWN knowledge isnt enough to have a strong conviction either way. I ASSUME those who do hold pro- or con- views do so for the highest motives. Your name-calling and disrespect for Dr. Sowell is the main reason I responded to your post. Completely unwarranted.

Response to naked pagan.
Me: "Iraq is rather *not* in charge -- not with respect to the most basic function that any government can serve, that is.
(That would be the defense of its citizens from aggression, for those of you on theleft.)"

naked pagan: "They have soliders, they have police. They have had plenty of time to learn their job, years as a matter of fact. They arent going to learn to take care of themselves if we treat them like children."

Did I read that right? A leftist advocating self-sufficiency as opposed to government hand-holding?

Too bad it's misplaced, in this case. What you have to keep in mind is that we aren't attempting to liberate Iraq solely for the sake of her citizenry; our primary goal is our own national security. The severity of the threat posed by the Islamofascist ideology fully demonstrated itself in September of 2001; Bush and company have wisely determined that the best and most humane way to fight that threat is by countering it with the antitheses of democracy and freedom.

naked pagan: "My point was no matter what we do people have and will suffer."

Most assuredly, that is so. Kudos to you for citing that truth, as it is one that most leftists fail to acknowledge (which failure manifests itself in their ongoing attempts to solve everyone's problems via state intervention).

The question is, how do we best mitigate the suffering? Or rather (as Thomas Sowell himself might say), how do we distinguish between what we can do that works (the position of the right) and what we can do that doesnt' work but that nevertheless makes us feel morally superior when we try it (the position of the left)?

Me: "(1) rival groups in Iraq don't know how to settle their differences without killing each other, and (2) a bunch of angry Arabs don't want freedom springing up in Iraq."

naked pagan: "Yes, and inspite of years of our best efforts, we havent been able to prevent them from suffering. Would they suffer any more if we werent there? Would they suffer any less? If we cant control it, why are we tring"

As I've already written, you're not seeing the whole picture. The suffering of Iraqi citizens must be dealt with as a means to our own national security. Both objectives are important, not just the first one.

Me: "Except that we *haven't* thrown all of our military resources at the problem."

naked pagan: "Okay, we could just indiscriminately kill people, but that would make us as bad as the people we are fighting, and in the end, if would turn those who survive against us...oh sure, you may use WWII as some sort of analogy, but these are not japanese"

Well, I've not heard anyone on the right advocate the full-on bombing of Baghdad. It's precisely our concern for Iraq's citizens that makes that option unfeasible. (The typical leftist response to this is that they would be out of danger if we simply picked up and left, but again, there is the other matter of America's national security -- which the left continues to ignore, probably because that isn't a priority for them).

Besides, I doubt that our pulling a Hiroshima on some city in Iraq would make much difference. The Islamofascist network have not only demonstrated, but openly declared, their love for violent conflict, for death. War is a way of life for them; they wouldn't know what to do with themselves if they couldn't rationalize killing women and children. They've got enough fiery indignation and ideological backup to keep deliberately killing innocent people in the name of Allah for the next one-thousand years; a nuclear strike on our part would simply be seen as par for The Great Satan's course. The only way to combat their desperate and murderous belief system is by making it far less attractive than some other system.


-- Milo

Ingman
The last poll I saw indicated that for the first time, a majority of Iraqis wanted us out.

The question however, is what we do now. Iraqi public opinion, while important, should only be one factor. The larger one IMO, is our obligation to help ensure that Iraq has a government capable of providing security for *all* Iraqis as soon as possible.

I supported the President's plan because I thought it was the best way to plan for a withdrawal. I figured that Bush was going to be put soon in the position of being forced to withdraw the troops if his plan was adopted and so I saw it fit to give him a last chance in the hope that some progress would be made towards a political end to the civil war (yes, when John Bolton calls it a civil war, I think we can stop arguing about whether it is or not). Bush's plan is already being heavily undermined by Maliki who, I think it is fair to say, is not our friend.

However, I think that Senator Clinton has provided an alternative that, while it likely means longer military involvement in Iraq, also provides additional pressure on the Iraqi government to make room for a political settlement. Interestingly, I think that Clinton's plan provides a possible avenue toward victory where Bush's plan does not. It also avoids the temptation to transfer troops from Afghanistan (where we are also losing a war of attrition) into Iraq. I now support her plan instead because I see it as the best way to ensure that there is a stable Iraqi government which can provide security to all Iraqis.

Milo
It isn't a matter of military resources and don't forget we have other commitments elsewhere in the world. We cannot just move our troops stationed in, say, South Korea over to Iraq (well, we could but it would not be adviseable if we want South Korea to remain independant). For reasons like these, 21000 troops are all the additional ones that Bush could come up with absent, say, a draft.

The real problem is not the lack of troops on the ground. It is a political problem. Bush is unwilling to risk destabilizing and further deligitimizing the Iraqi government by going after, say, the Madhi Army because that would undermine any apparent progress in the development of a government in Iraq. Hence our soldiers have become human shields for Shiite death squads which we cannot touch because if we attack them, the Maliki government falls apart.

This is what makes the current course unwinnable, and not the lack of ground pounders.

Also, the sabre rattling against Iran is very counter-productive because two of the largest political parties in the Iraqi government have strong ties with Iran. So we will be under political pressure from Iraq not to go after Iran.

noneyobiznez frothing at the mouth.
Sowell: "Critics of the Bush administration's conduct of the war in Iraq have long demanded that he admit his mistakes. But they have not admitted their own past mistakes, much less admit the potentially catastrophic mistake they will make in the future if they make it impossible to sustain military operations there."

noneyobiznez: "Sophmoric argument unworthy of serious contemplation. Critics number in the thousands. Some have good ideas, some don't. None affect any policy decisions. Not critics nor the media are capable of 'making it impossible' to do anything. Why should we 'sustain military operations'? What would the definition of a 'victory' in Iraq be?"

(1) America isn't an autocracy. Some of the critics *can* affect policy decisions, by shaping public opinion (the media banks on this, as they did during the Vietnam War).

(2) Mr. Sowell explicitly mentioned the future, which will involve leftist ideals if Hillary and/or Obama are voted in.

Sowell: "Critics have been proved wrong repeatedly in their claims that elections could not be held in Iraq or a government formed there. Iraqi voter turnout, even in the face of terrorist threats, has exceeded voter turnout in the United States."

noneyobiznez: "Lots of people voted. So what"

Um, so the critics were (a) wrong, and (b) forever defined as not always right.

Sowell: "During the 2004 presidential election campaign, John Kerry warned that the Bush administration had plans to impose a military draft immediately after being re-elected.
Two years later, there is no sign of a military draft on the horizon.

noneyobiznez: "December 22, 2006: The Selective Service System is planning a comprehensive test of the military draft machinery, which hasn't been run since 1998."

LOL! Typical leftist ignorance (or, more likely, outright disingenuousness). That *test* (i.e. the government has no plans to draft anyone) isn't even scheduled to take place for at least another two years. Go read http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/politics/16293558.htm and educate yourself.

Sowell: "Miscalculations have been the rule, not the exception, in wars going back through the centuries. The miscalculations in the Iraq war have not been military but political."

noneyobiznez: "WRONG!!! Here's a few military mistakes, not miscalculations: wrong about WMD, wrong about needed troop levels, wrong about the length of the war, wrong about the cost of the war, wrong about the financing of the war, wrong about the level of sectarian violence, wrong about being greeted as liberators."

As Sowell wrote, those are all political mistakes. Regarding us being greeted as liberators, that *did* take place and *continues* to take place (see http://links.streamingwizard.com/1stuk/theotheriraq/ustvspot1m.asx and , for starters) -- you just won't read or hear of it in the Old Media, who have an ideological interest in seeing America defeated (i.e. the right looks bad resulting in more power for the left, leading in turn to the propagation of the socialist/secularist visions that they espouse).

Sowell: "Saddam Hussein's army was defeated quickly, decisively, and with far lower American casualty rates than in previous wars. Clearly there were ample numbers of American troops to accomplish that mission."

noneyobiznez: "Oh, THAT mission. The one thats 'Complete', right. Moron."

Pout and name-call all you like, the objective of invading Iraq and deposing Hussein *was* completed with unprecedented success, eventually leading to that dictator's demise.

Sowell: "President Bush was right to listen to the military as regards the conduct of the war. But perhaps he should have sought the advice of police chiefs as regards maintaining law and order. For that we did not have enough troops in Iraq and -- more important -- the troops we did have were under too many politically imposed restrictions. Put bluntly, they needed to tell the many private militias in Iraq to drop their guns or get killed. Far fewer people would have died if they had. Of course, hand-wringers around the world, beginning with the American media, would have denounced such 'brutality' and claimed that 'negotiations' could have prevented such bloodshed. The Iraqi government has negotiated, if not collaborated, with some of these domestic terrorists -- and the net result has been escalating violence and mounting death tolls.
A very thoughtful article in the current issue of Foreign Affairs by Singapore's former prime minister Lee Kwan Yew explained the realities of maintaining order after a conquest. You do not do it by a wholesale banishing of those who maintained order before the conquest."

noneyobiznez: "Oh, you mean like the de-Baathification of the government and the disbanding of the Iraqi army that Rumsfield did."

That is exactly what Sowell is writing about, yes. You'll find that most people on the right -- especially military personnel -- agree that Rumsfeld should not have done that.

Sowell: "The most fundamental difference between President Bush and his critics has not been in who has made mistakes, because both have. The biggest difference has been that the President has taken a long-run view of the worldwide war on terror, while his critics are seeking a quick fix."

noneyobiznez: "No the BIGGEST difference is that the critics alleged mistakes matter not one iota, while the President's mistakes affect the entire globe deeply."

So, as long as Bush makes errors in his prosecution of the war, everyone else is allowed to screw up, too?

Why hold the president alone to the standard of acknowledging his errors? That's pretty hypocritical and extremely convenient for his opponents, yes?

Sowell: "Critics claim that there is no connection between the war on terror and the war in Iraq. They don't seem to notice that the terrorists themselves obviously see a clear connection, which they express in both words and deeds."

noneyobiznez: "Critics argue that there is no connestion between the Twin Tower attacks and Iraq. Explain how Iraqis posed a threat to the continental United States and the people there? Long range missles? HOW WERE THEY A THREAT??"

Who cares? The invasion of Iraq was about other issues, including his repeated flouting of international law. We didn't go into Iraq because Hussein blew up the WTC, we went in because he kept violating UN law and because we, Great Britain, Russia, and China (among others) thought that he had a stockpile (in fact, China still says that Hussein had a bunch of them moved to Syria).

You jokers on the left are just projecting your own underhandedness onto your opponents. Back when Bill Clinton wanted to get things done, he used any flimsy excuse he could muster -- which practice was perfectly in keeping with leftist "by any means necessary" tenets of obtaining and maintaining power. None of you had anything to say about it then, and now that you *think* you see some of your own devices in Bush, you're hypocritically lambasting him for it. Give me a major break.

noneyobiznez: "The 'connection' the terrorists see is that they now have a target to attack which they would not have if we were not there."

And thank God for that! Better there, in the heart of the Axis of Evil, than in other more civilized and democratic nations.

Sowell: "Terrorists are pouring into Iraq, even at the cost of their lives, in order to prevent a free, democratic government from being established in the Middle East. They see victory or defeat in Iraq as having major and long-lasting repercussions throughout the region and even throughout the world. Critics seem not to be concerned about anything beyond the 2008 elections."

noneyobiznez: "Anti war critics are not playing politics. They have been against the war even when that was a political liability. They are concerend about our soldiers and the innocent civillians who are dying every day. That this shmuck Sowell can only see things throught the 'political concequences' is very revealing about him."

The point is that you have to weigh the current violence in Iraq vs. what will happen in the future if the violence is *not* concentrated there. You know, beyond a few months from the time on your wristwatch.

Sowell: "Both individuals within Iraq and countries throughout the Middle East must make life-and-death choices, based on whether they are safer to cooperate with the United States or to align themselves with the terrorists. If the United States is here today and gone tomorrow, while the terrorists have already demonstrated their staying power and tenacity, we can expect a catastrophic realignment of forces in a region whose oil is the lifeblood of economies around the world."

noneyobiznez: "We've been there over 4 years. That is not 'here today gone tomorrow'. The United States has been in Iraq longer than we were in all of World War II when this country defeated Nazi Germany, Mussolini and the entire Japanese empire. So what you're saying is that it IS all about oil and greed."

Four years is *nothing* -- to anyone who maintains a broad perspective. That's the amount of time that most Americans spend in high school, and a few decades after graduation it tends to be viewed as a very small span in the fuller context of one's life. If, on the other hand, you're a teen-ager who's still *in* high scool, or someone else who has a near-sighted focus on current events (e.g. the 2008 election), then four years is going to look like a vista -- but good luck selling that kind of perspective to people who are objective enough to look at the bigger picture.


-- Milo

Typical Debate Tactics, Left and Right
When a liberal disagrees with a conservative, he says, "You're Evil!"

When a conservative disagrees with a liberal, he says, "You're Stupid!"

I try to tell people, "You're Mistaken," but sometimes you just hasta take the gloves off. Some of the morons criticizing Sowell have gone *WAY* over the line.

Everybody should use the "To Your Face" method of criticism. I.e., if you wouldn't say something to somebody's face, coz they'd bloody your nose for it, then don't say it on the Internet either.

Anyone have a bile-o-meter?
What is that saying about wrestling with pigs?

I'm glad to see there are still some on the left who can engage in civil discourse and keep their emotions in check.
voice_of_reason and einhverfr fall into that catagory.

Then there are those who come not to persuade with reason, but to belittle, vent, and spread bile. Now, to be fair to noneyobiznez, Red Tooth, and Gaylord - - I realize there are a few right-wing, venom spewing equivalents in this comment string. They don't impress me much either.

Mastering the fallacies and emoting may persuade some. But they generally reveal a weakness in one's own arguments and abilities.

When I detect bile - I just skip right to the next post. Searching through the mud for salient points - - just aint worth it.



For CrtclThinkr - - - On Flaming Bile
First off -- dude, you need to buy some vowels! :-)

Secondly: "Mastering the fallacies and emoting may persuade some."

Actually, I don't these kind of flames ever persuade anybody, nor are they really intended to.

UncaAlby - On Civil Disagreements
I'll buy those vowels - and while I'm at it - as a friendly gift, I'll buy you a verb for your last sentence. ;-)

Agreed. Three of the seven deadly sins - pride, wrath, and envy - are often stoking the flames.

Mr. Sowell, on the other hand, has the class to be courteous to people even while making his more stinging points. An example to us all.

Civility and the art of conversation
Dale Carnegie - charm, courtesy, and the desire to understand the ideas and opinions of others

It takes work and be to civil and manage our anger and frustrations while disagreeing with others - especially when others are playing dirty.

I have to work at it. A good tool is found at http://www.fallacyfiles.org

As couple good examples of civil discourse related to this topic...
Podcast from iTunes - Economist 13-20 Jan

Topic - The increase of troops in Iraq.
"The Economist doesn't admire Mr. Bush, but it argues in an editorial that on this, he is right" and later...
"For all his flaws, the lonely Mr. Bush is right to resume the charge."

There's room for both sides to get all biled up about these statements and many other arguments made in the editorial if they choose to do so.

The listener or reader goes away thinking a) I agreee, b) I disagree, or c) they may have a point to consider. That is unless they dig into the bile and those deadly sins listed above.


UncaAlby - Typos and errors
Yeah, yeah, yeah - I see them too.
Darn. I here I thought I was perfect.

Sanctimonious egalitarianism.
UncaAlby: "When a liberal disagrees with a conservative, he says, 'You're Evil!' When a conservative disagrees with a liberal, he says, 'You're Stupid!'"

On the contrary, I think that the leftists are far and away the main wielders of the "stupid" and "evil" sticks.

But let's pretend that your observation is accurate. So what? Maybe most of the leftists here *are* stupid ("stupid" meaning egregiously incorrect, usually willfully so). That the proclamation offends your egalitarian sensibilities would hardly make it false.

UncaAlby: "I try to tell people, 'You're Mistaken,' but sometimes you just hasta take the gloves off. Some of the morons criticizing Sowell have gone *WAY* over the line."

Sometimes? This "way over the line" attitude is the leftist *norm*, in my experience. If you think this is bad, you haven't been reading enough of the left-wing blogs, where people more typically express their unadulterated opinions. Speaking of which:

UncaAlby: "Everybody should use the 'To Your Face' method of criticism. I.e., if you wouldn't say something to somebody's face, coz they'd bloody your nose for it, then don't say it on the Internet either."

I think that's a terrible, terrible idea. I say that if you've got a forum where you can be completely honest, then take advantage of it. I would much rather hear someone's *real* opinion on an issue, instead of some version watered-down by etiquette or political shrewdness. That it offers the psychological comfort of speaking one's mind is one of the Internet's greatest assets; why take that away from everyone because some people don't know how to articulate their positions without resorting to name-calling?


-- Milo

Milo Is
Milo-

I appreciate your thoughtful reply to my post. I wish I knew of a forum where more of this type of reasoned discussion could be had between left and right.

Your point about name calling is also taken. I should not have left the name calling of Mr Sowell in. It was an error and I'd like to apologize to him and thank him for keeping the post up in the name of open discourse. I wrote the post in reply to a right-winger who emailed me a link to this article and figured, since I took the time to write a 'rebuttal', I might as well post it here, too. I should have edited my email to take out personal attacks before posting it in a public forum.

I finally made it back to see if anyone had rebutted my points, and was shocked to see an intelligent reply. The reply from the person I originally wrote the post for was not quite so thoughtful:

"a good argument could be made that you lack the intellectual height to kiss my a**, even if you were standing on tip-toe."

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.