If you have seen the film version of 1776, you may recall the scene in which John Adams is reading a letter from George Washington addressed to the Continental Congress. Washington's letter is a recitation of the problems he and his troops were having and a plea for supplies, men, etc. It is clear that Washington is approaching desperation and exasperation since all that has been emanating from Philadelphia has been talk. His letter ends with the query..."Is anybody there? Does anybody care?"
I was reminded of that scene and those sentiments as I read the many columns, reports, and analyses of the President's plan for Iraq and the reaction of various politicians to it. Very little of these stories is devoted to analysis of the merits of the plan, its chances for success, or viable alternatives. Instead the reports deal almost exclusively with the politics of the plan. It seems incredible, but as American troops continue to risk their lives for us in Iraq, our so-called "leaders" are maneuvering for political advantage, clearly worried more about the effects on their electoral chances than the lives of our troops or the future security of the country.
Have I missed something? Is the threat from Islamic radicals over-stated? Are Iran and Syria really not that much of a danger to us? Isn't it true that the US has been attacked by Islamic radicals on a number of occasions since the 1970's? Let's see, Iran Embassy takeover, Beirut Marine barracks bombing, 1993 World Trade Center attack, Khobar Towers bombing, US Cole attack, 9/11 attacks; weren't those all perpetrated by Islamic radicals?
I am one of many supporters of the Iraq War and the War on Terror who is quite upset with the errors committed in its prosecution. Our troops have, as seems to happen more and more often, been made to fight with a hand tied behind their backs. Frankly, the failure to really fight the war has left us with few decent options. George W. Bush and his advisors deserve criticism for that.
The criticism of the President and his policy has not, however, been intended to turn defeat into victory over al-Qaida but rather to gain leverage in US politics. The nature of the criticism has led to the fact that the majority of Americans simply want out of Iraq. No one is trying to explain that leaving Iraq will mean only that we will postpone, not avoid, the culture war with Islamic radicals. Nor is anyone trying to explain that our enemies, most notably, Iran, will be stronger and bolder when the next round inevitably comes. Finally, these opportunistic critics are not willing to acknowledge that withdrawal from Iraq greatly increases the likelihood of renewed attacks on our soil.
Is it possible that the Democrats running for President or plotting for increased majorities in Congress, are so focused on ensuring that Bush and the GOP fail, that they are ignorant of the danger? Are the Republicans so desperate to hang on to their seats, trying so hard to distance themselves from a policy that polls say has failed, that they are blinded to the coming disaster? Where are the statesmen? Where are the voices who want to rise above politics and aspire to true patriotism? Where are the leaders who are supposed to protect us and our children? Where is the media raising the alarm?
Is anybody there?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
The answer is no...they're all out to (I want to be the president) lunch. Chuck Hagel and his ilk will someday pay a heavy political price. Somehow these politicians think agreeing with Chris Mathews and Cindy Sheehan puts them in a populist position. Instead of jockeying to fit in atop a growing crowd of nay-sayers perhaps they should try something that seems foreign to today’s politicians…LEADERSHIP! Nice blog!
Leadership! Such a straight-forward word, yet, as you say, apparently foreign to so many of our politicians. Most of our would be "leaders" so much prefer to poll out positions rather than lead public opinion.
This is the main reason I've been taking a long look at Rudy Guliani. Despite a fair amount of baggage, his record as mayor of NYC, both brfore and after 9/11, gives some indication that he's got the right stuff.
I have red the REPOMAN’s MOOT POINTS and no I do not agree with him at all.
Yes the threat from Islamic radicals is overstated. Does this small minority of Moslems pose a threat? Yes of course. A threat to the United States as well as a threat the civil and orderly functioning of the mid east countries. It is not us against the Islamists. It is us and the great majority of Islamists against the small number of radicals.
Iran and Syria as a threat to us or to Israel is greatly over rated. Iran – despite being led – primarily by a Nationalist- is actually very pro- Western. My opinion is that Iran is probably the country which has the greatest chance of developing a democracy in the mid-east. We need to deal with its leader in a diplomatic manner while doing whatever we can to foster economic ties between us and the middle class of Iran. Iran is in many ways a vibrant country with a strong economy and an educated middle class. We need to foster them. The better off they become economically- the less appeal the radicals will have within their country. (Bucks, baby!)
Yes, all of the attacks mentioned were perpetrated by a small number of Islamic radicals. The United States being the premier country on the planet must expect that those jealous of us, exasperated by their own weakness and poverty, will take pot shots at us. George Bush is a failure because his policy has no complexity to it. His policy has no “panage” . This country is great enough to know that yes- being at the top of the flag post- others will take shots at us. That is just the way it is. We must deal with those shots with covert military actions, appropriate assassinations, diplomacy, economic incentives and only rarely with overt military action. We need leadership that can do many things at once. In other words, we need an orchestra to deal with this, not a one note song. It will be a long struggle. It is one we will win. Because in the final analysis, the great majority of Islamists like the great majority of Christians- want to raise their children, have a decent home , eat and clothe themselves and have the finer things that their societies offer. Osama is probably living in a Cave. Good for that asshole. The majority of Islamists want to live in houses, drive cars, eat in restaurants and enjoy their families. We must always remember that- encourage that – and develop that. Potshots will always take place. We can manage them without hysteria.
Well, anonymous, you made a number of interesting assertions. I agree with some of your points but others are not really sustainable. I'd like to respond to a few of your points; I'm a little short on time so I might need more than one post to reply fully.
You appear to claim that the vast majority of Islamists are "on our side" against the radicals. There are at least two problems with that claim. First, I have seen almost no evidence of "moderate" or non-violent Islamic leaders speaking out and openly denouncing the radicals. Meanwhile, we regularly see scenes of "the Arab Street" celebrating suicide bombings, Amercan casualties, and most, notably, the Sept. 11th attacks. Second, while it is arguable that there is a "silent majority" of moderate, non-violent Islamists, they are apparently powerless to effect the policies of their leaders who, at a minimum, look the other way at terror activities. In that regard, I suppose they are comparable to the alleged majorities of Germans and Japanese who did not support Hitler or Tojo.
You also claim that the threat from Iran and Syria is overstated. I could not disagree more, at least with regard to Iran. Iran's president has called Israel a "one bomb state". Iran is determined both to develop a nuclear weapon and, I believe, to use it. Further, Iran is currently providing the Iraq insugency with sophistcated weapons and advisors. Frankly, we have, in effect, been at war with Iran for a long time.
Finally, your belief that Iran's middle class will ultimately overthrow the the radical government seems like wishful thinking. You mention prosperity ultimately resulting in change, but Iran is awash with oil money. Apparently it is all going into weapons research.
I do agree that Bush's strategy has been flawed. But the flaw has largely been in execution, not design. Until I see evidence to the contrary, I will continue believe that we remain in a clash of cultures and that the leaders of Islam want to subjugate the West. At least George W. Bush recognizes that. It's a shame that he and his advisors have not done a better job of implementing their policies.
I hope to hear more from you.
Anonymus, I also wanted to agree with some of your post.
I do agree that there are many (in fact, surely, a majority) of average people who follow Islam who don't want to participate in or celebrate the violence done in its name. As you suggest, they just want to live their lives, raise their kids, etc.
But that fact does not diminish the threat posed by the radicals, whatever their number. Those radicals are supported by large numbers of their fellow Moslems. In many cases, the radicals have state support, such as the case with Syria and Iran (and, until we intervened, Iraq and Afghanistan). In many Islamic nations, the state either informally aids the terrorists, or turns a blind eye to their activities. Pakistan and Saudi Arabia fall into this category, despite being our alleged allies.
In the long run, we may get the support of moderate Islamists who want an end to violence. But, in my view, its a very long run.
Finally, about George Bush. Clearly he botched the job. You are correct that a successful strategy would have required some nuance, which his administration was apparently incapable of. The multi-faceted strategy you alluded to, including diplomacy, assassination, etc., was quite on point. I don't think its entirely fair to blame W. exclusively, however. He was probably not up to the task but such a policy would have elicited howls of criticism from our Democrat friends.
Bush blew his chance. Now the "boneless wonders" of Congress will make us pull out of Iraq. The next President will face a bolder and probably nuclear armed enemy. The cost of the next attack on our soil may be horrible. I hope we have a leader in the White House who will accept no halfway measures.
You are correct that the radicals are supported at least emotionally- in an "us against them sense" by islamic citizens even as they go to work and live ordinary lives. So too, due to their domestic polictical reality, pro-western and moderate Islamic nations must tolerate and "throw a bone" to the radicals within their own population.
It is time to stop focusing on forging a democratic Irag. We must seek a stable Iraq. Democracy may work there. Certainly the citizens of Iraq were courageous in going to cast a vote within a very hostile environment. But stability is in the interest of all countries in the region. Bush's policy is not only flawed in its execution - but in its very design. Democracy is not welcomed by the Desposts of Saud Arabia, Egypt, Syria etc, etc, etc. Kuwait is a dictatorship - run no doubt by a self centered , self absorbed family. Yet we went to war preserve it.
Bush needs to quit the "messianic" "Wilsonian" idea of spreading democracy. The world is run by tough, hard and in manny, many countries evil self centered men. That is just the way it is. While this nation can influence, lead by example , urge and cajole- in the final analysis we must work with what is on the ground.
Why would Syria help us deal with the mess in Iraq? Or Egypt? Or any of the other dictatorships in the region? Beacuase it is in their self interest to preserve the one thing they have and want to keep: their control and power.
Bush was right when he ran for President the first time: We cannot nation build.
The way out of Iraq is to get off the high horse- the Wilsonian high horse- and get real. I can hear Nixon in his grave- Work with the despots- achieve stabiltity- and come home.
Anonymous:
A lot of people agree with you. The "realist" camp has a lot of members.
I'm not sold on the idea of Western-style democracy really taking hold in Iraq or anywhere else in the Middle East, but, it wasn't a bad idea to try.
You were right to mention Nixon. Realists like Nixon and Kissinger have been operating in the Middle East as you suggest for at least 40 years. It hasn't done much towards resolving these long-standing disputes.
For most of that time, there has been a growing militancy among Islamists. That militancy has grown despite the Realist policies the US has pursued. Frankly, I think the policies we have pursued have alienated the masses of Arabs, because we have supported despotic regimes. You propose more of the same. George W. Bush is actually the first President since FDR to try a different strategy.
There is no easy or clear answer to our problems in Iraq, or the Middle East generally, or with radical Islam. More of the same isn't the right answer either.
Meanwhile the most militant among the Islamists clearly want to weaken the US, destroy Israel, and increase the size of the "Caliphate". They are going to fight us and try to kill us whether or not we want to fight them. The only choice we really have is where to have the fight. For my money, I'd rather the fight be on their soil, not ours.
Post a Comment