Dems Were Wrong Then, Any Reason to Believe It’s Different Now?
Posted by: Blue Collar Muse in 2008 election season, Anti Dictionary Democrats, Blogroll, Common Sense, Geopolitics, History, Homeland Security, Liberal, Politics, Terrorism, War on TerrorRemember the NYT, MoveOn.org and the General “BetrayUs” ad? Remember that fine Senator and patriotic American Harry Reid who said “The Surge has failed and the War is lost!”? Remember the drumbeat of quagmire, imperialist America, War for Oil and the rest of the Democratic Party nonsense designed to wear down our will and reduce our resolve? Turns out they were wrong - spectacularly so. They were joined in their error by far too many on the Right side of the aisle. If their opinions stated as fact, their anti-Americanism lauded as patriotism, their defeatism couched as strategy and the rest of the agenda they tried to foist on the public - if all of that was so badly off the mark, why should we listen to them on Russia v Georgia, Energy Policy, The Economy, The Housing Market Crisis or anything else for that matter?
Mark Alexander and the fine folks at The Patriot Post quote Jeff Jacoby in their brief today. Concerning their failure in predicting results for the War in Iraq Jacoby notes:
“The prevailing wisdom 18 months or so ago was that invading Iraq had been, in retrospect, a disastrous blunder. It had led to appalling sectarian fratricide and an ever-climbing body count. Iraqi democracy was deemed a naive pipe dream. Worst of all, it was said, the fighting in Iraq wasn’t advancing the global struggle against Islamist terrorism; by rallying a new generation of jihadists, it was actually impeding it. Opponents of the war clamored loudly for pulling the plug…
But what if we had known then what we know now?
We know now that the overhauled counterinsurgency strategy devised by General David Petraeus—the ‘surge’ —would prove spectacularly successful, driving Al Qaeda in Iraq from its strongholds, and killing thousands of its fighters, supporters, and leaders.
We know now that US losses in Iraq would plummet to the lowest levels of the war, with just five Americans killed in combat in July 2008, compared with 66 fatalities in the same month a year ago—and with 137 in November 2004.
We know now that the sectarian bloodletting would be dramatically reduced, with numerous Sunni tribal leaders abandoning their former Al Qaeda allies, and Shi’ite radical Moqtada al-Sadr’s Mahdi Army being thoroughly routed by the Iraqi military.
We know now that by the summer of 2008, the Iraqi government would meet all but three of the 18 benchmarks set by Congress to demonstrate security, economic progress, and political reconciliation.
And we know now that, far from being undermined by the campaign in Iraq, the wider war against Islamist violence would show significant progress, with terrorism outside Iraq’s borders having ‘in fact gone way down over the past five years,’ as Newsweek’s Fareed Zakaria noted in May—and with popular support for jihadist organizations plummeting across the Muslim world.
So what does hindsight counsel today? That Iraq is a pointless quagmire—or that it is a costly but winnable war, in which patience, tenacity, and smarts have a good chance of succeeding?”
The political Left is valueless, adrift and grasping at the equally drifting and valueless mooring of “Change!”. That they may win in November does not mean their ideas are better for America. Indeed, as Jacoby records for one significant instance, the evaluations, perspectives and solutions from the Left are demonstrably wrong. Thus, if Americans elect Obama in the Fall they will be trading experience and wisdom for ideas proven to be destructive and impotent; nice sounding platitudes that taste sweet while swallowing and a lot worse on the trip in the other direction.
On the most important issue of the last 10 years, they’ve been wrong and for all the wrong reasons. I cannot even tell you that they were wrong but had America’s best interests at heart in their efforts. They did not. How can we possibly trust them now?
Blue
Popularity: 24% [?]
Tags: Democrats, Jeff Jacoby, Mark Alexander, Patriot Post, War in Iraq, War on Terror
Entries (RSS)
August 18th, 2008 at 2:02 pm
What? Please take off your blinders and look to the sides of the Iraq map. We know for a fact that the ‘bad guys’ are showing up increasingly in other countries. The surge has done nothing but move the war to another country, namely Afganistan. That doesn’t mean that what was done in Iraq was a success. Once we move all our troops to Afganistan, things in Iraq will heat up again, or the bad guys will find yet another country in which to wage their war against America.
August 18th, 2008 at 6:20 pm
Kevin,
I wondered if you might make it by my place at some point. Thanks for stopping by and commenting.
I’m at a bit of a loss as to how to respond to your comment. It first appeared that we disagreed. Then we seemed in accord. Now, I’m not so sure.
We seem to agree the people we are opposing in Iraq are “bad guys”. We seem to agree these bad guys are the ones waging war on us and we are, therefore, defending ourselves. We seem to agree the ‘Surge’ was effective in reducing the number of bad guys in Iraq.
But there seem to be a few points of contention. The number of Al-Quaeda in Iraq (AQI) is greatly reduced. We know that we’ve killed and captured many of them. Jeff Jacoby’s piece noted that
In light of that, I’m not sure what the meaning or basis is for your contention “We know for a fact that the ‘bad guys’ are showing up increasingly in other countries.” If you mean the bad guys that remain alive and free are smart enough to realize Iraq is no longer a safe haven for them, I agree. If you mean they are leaving because of that for pastures they deem greener to continue their murderous ways, I agree. But if you mean that they are doing so strongly and showing no effect from our efforts in Iraq and Aghanistan, then we disagree. I am unsurprised that bad guys are leaving and keep doing bad. I am also unsurprised there are so many fewer of them these days.
Another area of disagreement would seem to be the ability of Iraq to remain free and stable. As Jacoby notes, the recent campaign against Muqtada al-Sadr and his forces was almost entirely conducted by Iraqis. There is little reason to believe the ability to defend their country would vanish once we leave. Any terrorists thinking they can return to Iraq and find easy pickings is likely going to be disappointed. But some may try. And some may find success. Even Israel cannot stop every maniac with a bomb and no regard for his own life or that of others.
You are correct that Afghanistan is heating up. You offer no source for your contention, however. Also missing from your analysis is the “Where” and the “Why” of Afghanistan’s increase in violence. I suggest you look into that a bit and write me again as to the reasons for that increase.
So, as I said, I’m not sure if we agree or disagree. Perhaps you can plainly tell me and, if it’s ‘disagree’, explain why and how. Unless your disagreement has to do more with the basic contention of my post - that the Democrats were wrong in their reasoning and their conclusions before and are, therefore, not to be believed or trusted now. I suppose we could disagree on that but the truth of the “If” side of the premise is not assailable and the “Then” side is a subjective conclusion. But we all generally tend to shy away from the advice of those whose advice has been consistently bad. Well, most of us, anyway …
Let me know what you think and what you find out about Afghanistan. I’m looking forward to it.
Ken