Jan. 21, 2007
The Consequences Of Failure In Iraq
National Review: Giving Up On Iraq Would Be Devestating, Even For The War's Critics
-
Play CBS Video
Video
Debate Over Iraq Plan Goes On
In his second trip to Iraq, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates met with U.S. and coalition forces. But the trouble for the Bush administration may be on Capitol Hill. Drew Levinson reports.
-
Video
Rebellion On Iraq Plan
The Senate has proposed a bi-partisan resolution opposing the President Bush's plan to raise troop levels in Iraq. Bill Plante reports that the White House is not pleased.
-
Video
Congress Takes On Bush On Iraq
Members of Congress introduced non-binding resolutions challenging the president's Iraq plan as today's violence in Baghdad killed more than 30 people. Aleen Sirgany reports.
-
Photo
(CBS/AP)
-
Interactive
New Plan For Iraq
Key elements of the plan, excerpts from the president's speech, reaction and more.
-
Interactive
Iraq: A Turning Point?
New Congress, change at the Pentagon, study group report; what does the future hold?
Most Americans accept that if the United States cannot stabilize Iraq, and, in frustration and acrimony, withdraws in defeat, crises follow. The only disagreement is over how bad they will be.
Some point to the aftermath of Vietnam and, mirabile dictu, think the world eventually went on pretty much the same. In this rosy view, the preordained end of the Cold War made the communist postwar Vietnamese increasingly entrepreneurial, and thus more pro-American than friendly to their erstwhile Chinese patrons.
Others, more soberly I think, recall instead in the interval the million-plus of boat-people, exiles, the executed, and detained — and the aftershocks that killed millions more in Afghanistan, Cambodia, and Central America, once it was established that the United States would not, or could not, thwart Communist aggression. The Iranian hostage-taking and the rise of radical Islam itself were predicated on the idea that a post-Vietnam America would not intervene against terrorists, whether in Tehran or Lebanon. And Vietnam, of course, today is no South Korea, as millions there without freedom could attest.
The Ripple Effect
Be that as it may, we sometimes forget that there are also more insidious ripples that can emanate from Iraq. I can think of three for starters, all with post-Vietnam echoes.
The first will be the effect on the Democratic party itself, now riding high in its antiwar invective. Yet for a quarter century after Vietnam its antiwar hysteria warped its stance on issues such as the military, retaliation abroad for attacks on America, and the use of force in general.
Jimmy Carter's paralysis during the hostage taking, the sending of Ramsey Clark to beg Tehran for a reprieve, Bill Clinton's half-hearted responses to the attacks from the first World Trade Center to the USS Cole, all this, rightly or wrongly was seen as the legacy of the party that had imploded after Vietnam.
Now again we have gone from sizable majorities in the Congress warning about Saddam all during the 1990s and voting to remove him in October 2002, to essentially a single Joe Lieberman sticking through the messy reconstruction. Instead Howard Dean's once-pathetic yeehawing has now infected the likes of Senators Boxer, Durbin, Kennedy, Kerry, and Rockefeller, who have respectively rebuked Condoleezza Rice for childlessness, compared our troops to Pol Pot, Nazis, and terrorists, assured that our soldiers are no different from Baathist killers at Abu Ghraib, and suggested that things in Iraq were once better under Saddam.
All that may, like Vietnam-era street theater, play well to the media. But eventually Iraq, also like Vietnam, will be over — while the protocols and culture of hysteria and derangement, like low-lying marsh gas, will linger and smell. A Henry Jackson or JFK would have had nothing to do with a Michael Moore, who now has entrée with the Democratic elite. If the Republicans were once embarrassed of the Buchanan Right, and the Democrats of the Cindy Sheehan Left, now the Democrats have apparently both of them in their antiwar camp. Good luck…
Much also has been written about the post-Vietnam War military, as it struggled after the draft, the drugs, and the odor of defeat. I worry in the same vein about a similar loss of confidence in our ground forces. Before Iraq, wild-eyed reformers talked of a new military paradigm of sanitized war, following from wins in Afghanistan, Bosnia, Kosovo, Panama, or Serbia. Bombing from on high with GPS ordinance and a few paratroopers or special forces were the supposed future — not old-fashioned, everyday artillery, armor, and infantry.
That either/or dichotomy was, of course, absurd. But if we withdraw defeated from Iraq, like it or not, there will be the charge made that the United States should not commit sizable Army and Marine forces abroad on the ground — period, under any circumstances, at any time.
Vietnam and now Iraq will substantiate in greater detail what we tasted in Lebanon and Mogadishu — the impossibility of using large conventional forces in chaotic conflicts that will inevitably turn asymmetrical and terrorist. In that regard, an army on the shelf will fossilize, as we lose confidence that it can ever achieve anything worth its losses. Generals will promise victories in the sort of rare conventional wars they can easily win, and decline the more common messy ones they cannot.
In contrast, stabilize Iraq under horrific conditions, and the world is reminded that there is nothing that a brilliantly led and highly trained American infantry cannot accomplish. Win in Iraq, and there will be fewer future calls on the Army and Marines to repeat their victory; lose — and there will be far more need to do what they cannot.
George W. Bush, True Democrat
Third, there is a weird furor growing, on a bipartisan basis, at the Iraqis in general and the Arab world in particular. Prior to Iraq, there was some American guilt over past realism, whether stopping before Baghdad in 1991, playing Iran off Iraq, cozying up to dictatorships, or predicating American Middle East foreign policy solely on either oil or anti-Communism. Read the liberal literature of the 1990s and it was essentially a call for what George Bush is now doing — and being damned for. Then the liberal bogeyman was not Paul Wolfowitz, but Jim Baker ("jobs, jobs, jobs"/"F—- the Jews"). Now the latter is the model of Republican sobriety.
Arab intellectuals and much of the Western Left once decried Bakerism and called for a new muscular idealism that put us on the side of the powerless reformers and not with the entrenched authoritarians. But if we fail in Iraq, then again, fairly or not, the verdict will be far more sweeping than simply the incompetence of the Bremer proconsulship or the impotence of the Maliki government.
Rather, the conventional wisdom will arise that an infantile Middle East ipso facto — whether due to Islamism, tribalism, gender apartheid, sectarianism, engrained dictatorship, or corruption — is simply incapable at this time of consensual government. Anyone who seeks such reform, whether in the Gulf, Palestine, Lebanon, or Egypt, is to be written off not only as naïve, but as reckless as well. A Libyan dissident, a feminist writer in Egypt, or an Iraqi intellectual who decries Western indifference to their plight or American tolerance of regional dictatorships will be told to quit whining and get a life, by a been-there/done-that American public.
Both carping hothouse Arab intellectuals and Western liberals should be put on notice of this change to come. However imperfect, however flawed, however improperly explained our efforts in Iraq were, they nevertheless represented a costly American about-face to offer something in the Middle East other than theocracy or dictatorship — something we are not likely to see again in our lifetime.
Democrats and liberals should likewise realize that for all their hatred of George Bush and the partisan points to be gained by coddling up to the libertarian and paleo-conservative Right, George Bush’s embrace of freedom was far closer to their own past rhetoric than almost any Republican administration in history. And such an effort to foster democracy was in the long run smart as well, since ultimately a free Iraq would be the worst nightmare of the Islamic jihadists — as we read repeatedly in the rantings of Dr. Zawahiri.
In short, the next Democratic president who wishes to do something about the genocide in Darfur or another mass murderer in the Middle East, will find no support from Republicans, or — in no small part due to liberals' slurs against the war they voted for — from the country at large.
Yes, we may see thousands killed, displaced, and maimed if the United States flees from Iraq. And that tremor in the foundations of American power may embolden everyone from Hugo Chavez to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
But that is only the half of it.
Leaving Iraq prematurely will also damage the credibility of the Democratic party, the reputation of American ground forces, and the idealism of American foreign policy — just those principles that the critics of the war oddly claim they will be saving by fleeing.
By Victor Davis Hanson. Reprinted with permission from National Review Online.
| America's Premier Site for Conservative News, Analysis, and Opinion. |
Video and Galleries from Opinion
-
Video
Rooney: Eat More Fruit!
-
Video
A Day To Remember
-
Video
Jackson Memorial In Context
- 1
- 2
- next
See all 83 CommentsAmerica is not stupid enough to listen to little boys who cry wolf, little boys (and their one girl playmate) who were WRONG with every, single decision! We once overwhelmingly supported the Bush's Doctrine and the invasion of another nation, without the support of the international community. The Commander-in-Chief announced that the mission was accomplished! Bring the troops home to their well-deserved heroes' welcome!
As far as this guy's sabre-rattling against anyone who doesn't have the "historical vision" of George W. Bush... What, has James Baker become a radical Islamist all of the sudden?
Sir, if Bush's "struggle for western civilization" is so vital to the future... Where the heck is the rest of western civilzation?!
This guy thinks we should engage where we can not win. He should put his stupid A$$ on the front line in such a case and put his idiotic philosophy to the test.
He worries about the demoralization of the military, supposedly. Yet, at the same time, he proposes wasting our warriors on foregone conclusions.
You want to demoralize the military, show them they will be sent into unwinnable situations. That'll demoralize them faster than anything else.
PLEASE GO TO:
www.impeachbush.org
BTW, after you left yesterday, lieberman admitted that he was a "reserve reject"....
USMA 70-76. Your daughter a squid like Papa?
Or did she go upper eschelon and become a jarhead?
I need another cup of coffee! Make that "USMC 70-76" and "echelon"....
Need a ride to the war sarge?
Yeah, she likes the navy uniforms, Master-At-Arms
Good for her. You must be proud.
Posted by grumpas at 10:00 AM
It would be nice if such were the case, but all of us - not only Neocons - will be paying a price for this boondoggle for some years to come, unfortunately.
Freedom and democracy is on the march in Iraq! Yeah!!! It's up to the Shiites and Sunnis to resolve their differences. If they want to "make nice", fine. If they want to kill each other in a civil war, fine by me as well. What lunatic honestly believes that the Iraqi's will tolerate 'terrorists' (Al Queada or Jew Neocon(artists) in their midst?
In the highly unlikely event that Iraq becomes a haven for 'terrorists', we will simply send a couple of B2 Bombers and nuke 'em to smithereens.
Neocon Hanson endeavors to con us with his perverted revionist history, especially pertaining to 'Nam. Remember the "Dominoe Theory"? Not only did SE Asia NOT become a commie outpost, but the whole commie empire eventually collapsed as a consequence of their flawed/fatal vision just as the Israeli AEI/PNAC *** are doomed to self inflicted destruction. Nut jobs are everywhere!
Finally, one of these dead-brained National Review Online columnists writes a story on which they are qualified to comment.
"FAILURE" is one subject that these PNAC-loving extremists can claim some expertise.
Screw Israel...Not a drop of oil. Some 'chosen people/land'. We are hanging out now with Persians/Arabs. Got oil?
The rhetoric present in this discussion forum is just that, rhetoric, not logical thought.
I'm still waiting for your answer to my question regarding waht's an approrpiate price for Iraq?
Righ now we're at 3,100 American dead, 25,000 maimed and $500 billion dollars.
What's a fair price for you? 5,000 dead? 50,000 maimed? A trillion dollars?
After wading through your drivel, what IS YOUR POINT?!
Will an 'in depth' counseling session with Republican/Neocon/Christian Pastor Ted help get your 'head' right? (I'll pay for Zionist's Ted's "fees"; but you are own your own when it comes to the meth'head'.
Get out of the way, get out of the meat grinder, and let them get on with the inevitable.
2) Plans for withdrawal are designed to minimize the impact of sectarian strife by transferring authority to other organizations, phasing the withdrawal with safety measures (rapid reaction force, etc) to avoid such a massive crisis. Your argument also neglects the biggest point of all- we opposed going after Saddam in 2003 because HE WASN'T ACTIVELY COMMITTING GENOCIDE. Most of those acts occurred under the watch of the Republican superhero Ronald Reagan, who was actively providing Hussein intelligence and military support all the while. All wanted him held accountable, but given the needs of fighting GWOT and the political nature of the war, deposing Hussein then was a stupid idea, as time has proved.
To occupy Iraq and stop the civil war will likely require 300-400,000 troops, a number that the American people now and before the war are simply unwilling to allow. If the administration had been honest with the peopl in advance and willing to dedicate the resources then to getting this done, they would have been rejected. Knowing that, they tried to do it on the cheap hoping that all the rosiest scenarios would pan out, and they failed miserably. The fact that Iran wields strong influence in Iraq, that destabilization is a huge risk for the US, the people of the Middle East, and a potential huge victory for our enemies in GWOT is not the fault of the Democratic opposition, nor would it be the fault of the military. It is the result of the failures of the leadership that should have been evident long before this war began.
We need to decide now what to do- triple the number of forces, greatly expand our military, raise taxes to afford such a force, and do the job right, or concede our mistakes, declare Iraq a failed state, call on the UN to send peacekeepers in to forestall further violence, and bring about a significant meeting of regional and international leaders to work through a lasting solution to the problem the likes of which hasn't been seen since the end of WWII. Bush is incapable of either, meaning unfortunately Iraq will be left to fester until some grownups are able to take charge.
The only way for Iraq to get better is for Bush to go back to Crawford and let someone ...anyone.. else take over.
WAR PROFITEERS LOSE MONEY.
ISRAEL/ AIPAC STOPS SENDING OUR KIDS TO DIE IN THIER QUEST TO TAKE OVER THE MIDDLE EAST.
LORD BUSH'S FASCIST TYRANNY EMPIRE ENDS.
YUP, WE THE PEOPLE HAVE SO MUCH TO LOSE.
You can SPOT the CBS employees. Don't make it so apparant.
FASCISM. CORPORATISM. LIES. SLAVERY. TYRANNY.
THE REAL AMERICA.
OUR COUNTRY IS FASCIST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Is there some way to legally request Republican Third District Indiana Congressman Mark Souder excuse himself from the Votes on the Iraq War as he is a Certified Conscientious Objector with the United States Selective Service. If his moral views would not let him serve in Vietnam during war it should also excuse him from voting to send other people%u2019s children to wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
What did Hanson's mother do to him?
Linking the hostage taking in Iran and terrorism in Lebanon and Afghanistan to the departure/retreat in Vietnam in the early 70s! Now that is a huge stretch by any imagination! Leave it to a Neo-Conservative Op/Ed writer to come up with that one.
Oh, by the way 'Hanson', Iraqis were under "better" conditions under Saddam Hussein. Prior to 2003, they had things we here in the U.S. take for granted: running water, electricity, jobs, etc. So one major thing was missing in their lives, which was the ability to publicly oppose/denounce their government leaders (specifically Saddam himself). Some actually loved Saddam and praised him. Some had to go through the charade of loving him just to avoid being sent to jail. (Hell, I've had to do that with my wife for the past five years, but knowing that the 'divorce' alternative is far worse than keeping her, then it's: "honey, I love you!" every morning, noon, and night).
I'm sure there's plenty of Iraqis, even Shiites and Kurds who may think that life under Saddam wasn't as bad as it is now! (Unfortunately, it's too late to turn back the clock as the school bell has already rung).
Check out their E&P history. LOSERS! They are nothing more then 'JR Ewing' wannabes that think alinging themselves with our industry is going to add length to their needle *****. Bush/Cheney are a disgrace the "real" o/g biz and all of humanity. Bush/Cheney= *******...
According to Hanson, Western values such as political freedom, capitalism, individualism, democracy, scientific inquiry, rationalism, and open debate form an especially lethal combination when applied to warfare. Non-Western societies can win the occasional victory when warring against a society with these Western values, writes Hanson, but the "Western way of war" will prevail in the long run. Hanson emphasizes that Western warfare is not necessarily more (or less) moral than war as practiced by other cultures; his argument is simply that the "Western way of war" is unequalled in its devastation and decisiveness
He states that these are Western Values:
Western values such as political freedom, capitalism, individualism, democracy, scientific inquiry, rationalism, and open debate
Other than capitalism, not one of those values applies to the United States under Bush.
So perhaps Hanson's beliefs regarding warfare in Iraq are incorrect since most of the western values as defined by Hanson do not apply in this situation.
Although he did get the devastation part correct as we have certainly wrought some devastation. Unfortunately it has been wrought upon the Iraqi people.
Crocodile tears.
Hanson doesn't give a d*a*m*n about these Third World people except as useful poster boys and poster girls for his well known campaigns of glorification of European and American military violence and killing.
There would have been no boat people in Southeast Asia if the U.S. had stayed the h*e*l*l out of there, instead of financing the French attempts to recolonize "French Indochina" after WW2, with everything that followed. When has Hanson shed a single tear for Henry Kissinger's millions of victims ?
If these boat people didn't exist, Hanson and his crowd would have invented them. He wants perpetual American wars (as long as he doesn't have to fight in them personally), and he'll say and write anything to keep them going.
That's what this fool is into. "Say it loud, I'm WHITE and I'm proud !!"
Yeah, he really gives a sh**t about this little yellow boat people...
War is just a fascinating parlor game to him.
A sexual thing for "VD" Hanson, no doubt.
Spoken like a far right republican. Your only argument is against the democrats. To hell with the democrats and the republicans. Get off your platform and speak like an American. The consequences of invading Irag! that is what should have been stopped . Cheney wanted war. He represents the milatary/industrial complex and he is fronted by a guy named George bush who does as he is told. Ike warned of this as he left office.The good republican presidents, Abe Teddy, Ike and Mr. Ford would never have started this war in the name of protecting us from Terrorists. What a lie.
- 1
- 2
- next
See all 83 Comments