|
|||||
Why now?One of the questions that early war critics asked in the lead-up to OIF was, “why now?” It was a fair question: Of the many several reasons to go to war in Iraq, Saddam’s WMD programs – the one rational which all branches of government were able to equally embrace – was assessed to be an emerging threat but never – contra strawman manufacturers throughout the land – an imminent one. The same question ought be asked as we seek to extract ourselves in time from Iraq. The New York Times tinkers with the subject in their op-ed today, but doesn’t quite hammer it flat:
Let us lay aside for the moment the Times recent revelation with respect to the prospects for victory in Iraq, as well as the temptation to be the very first reward the paper’s courageous but newly outworn reluctance to pass judgment. Their time line for withdrawal seems driven as much by the editors’ loathing of President Bush and their determination to see the consequences of defeat hung around his neck while still in office – no surprise that, but it is nevertheless a little shocking to see how blithely the paper attends to those consequences themselves:
Think of it this way: If genocide and terrorist activity the paper predicts will happen were occurring absent US involvement, would it be hard to imagine the Times agitating for a full-scale insertion of American military power to prevent the same catastrophe for which they now agitate? But no: In order to arrive at the logical extension of an innate partisan animus, the paper is willing to wave away the deaths of all them furren wogs on the way to creating a new terrorist stronghold – picture the Hamas takeover in Gaza written on an industrial scale. Left unexplained to the reader is why this course is in any way superior to the presidential alternative. The surge cannot in any case last longer than next March at current force levels. All of the paper’s recommendations for mitigation of the predicted disaster – international pressure, and dialogue with Iran, for example – are just the sorts of things that have been proven not to work throughout the world, most recently in the case of Iranian nukes. This is doubly astonishing when the paper’s own John Burns devotes an article to the “astonishing success” of coalition efforts in the heretofore rebellious Anbar province. The ostensible reasons for withdrawal now are that the enterprise is costing too much – and how much, I wonder, is one genocide worth? – and that the Army is too preoccupied with killing terrorists in Iraq to prepare for the consequential act of preparing to fight terror. That we should decide to lose a war based on nothing more than a domestic political cycle makes no sense to me, but then again I’m only a war fighter, not a politician. And so as we contemplate losing a war that the war’s critics thought we shouldn’t enter into, with all of the loss of innocent human life, strategic access, national prestige and security that such a defeat will entail, I’ll ask the question again that the war critics themselves asked: Why now? Update: Jules is more patient. Or, in any case, more thoroughgoing. 13 comments to Why now? |
  |
||||
|
Copyright © 2009 Neptunus Lex - All Rights Reserved |
|||||
Cap’n,
Why Now? Because the Democrat Party, and those teeming masses of leftists and limousine liberals suffering from BDS, have only this to fall back upon. The only platform, the only solution they have for any and all problems is: “It’s Bush’s Fault”.
Lookit here. The Dems, in their first 100 days in office, have undertaken 300 investigations. They have passed nothing of any substance, nor done virtually anything since taking charge of the legislative branch.
All they can do is threaten and bluster and twist facts, raise scurrilous charges, and generally bloviate about things they know little to nothing about. And why? because they HAVE nothing else to offer. Nothing.
The NYT and LAT can only cover for them for so long. They hope to destroy IOraq through a US and Coalition withdrawal in order to divert attention from their own inabilities. They are like the story of the “Emperor’s New Clothes”. The real tragedy, however, are the countless millions condemned to death or worse if those plans go into effect.
These politicians are akin to children playing with matches, except that here, they will set the whole world on fire if left alone.
Respects,
Because things are looking up a bit? Because we MIGHT have some sort of victory on which they’d HAVE to report? Because that goes against every scenario they’ve been pushing for so long? Doesn’t it sound a bit like PANIC?
Questions, questions…
Beacuse a sitcom is 22 minutes long plus commercials and this has gone on for 4 years… Way too long…
I pulled into Costco behind an SUV with a bumper sticker reading “Stop Endless War” with the “Endless” lined out, and “This” printed above it, yesterday. After parking a dozen spots up the row, I walked down and peeled the sticker off, all the while resisting the impulse to carve something appropriate into the tailgate. Direct action is always more effective than legislative process. That’s why we win.
OT but, I just have to tell the readers that John Smeaton’s pint donations are now up to 1,400!!!
He says he may donate some to the soliers in Iraq. But really, have you ever seen anything like this? He is now called the “Smeatonator”!
I love it!
There is some video up at Hot Air and he looks totally bagged!
The New York Times is in the process of putting itself out of business. Hardly anyone reads the damned rag anymore outside of NYC (I subscribe because my wife wants it), and those who do know what a waste of paper it really is.
“reprisals against those who worked with American forces, further ethnic cleansing, even genocide”…in 1938, after the sellout at Munich, the following message was read in churches throughout Czechoslovakia:
The land of St Wencelas has just been invaded by foreigh armies and the thousand-year frontier has been violated. This sacrifice has been imposed upon us by our ally, France, and our friend, Britain. The Primate of the ancient Kingdom of Bohemia is praying to God Almighty that the peace efforts prompting this terrible sacrifice will be crowned with permanant success, and should they not, he is praying to the Almighty to forgie all those who imposed this injustice on the people of Czechoslovakia.
The above is from “Nineteen Weeks,” by Norman Moss, which continues:
Hitler was strengthened. The Hungarian-born historian John Lukacs recalls that Germans were transformed by their country’s expansion. “From Podolian illages to the avenues of great cities such as Budapest or Trieste or Prague, Germans, whether tourist visitors or white-stockinged youth, walked or marched with an arrogance and self-confidence that had never been their before.
Like beauty, “innate partisan animus” is obviously in the eye of the beholder.
While I may not necessarily agree with all the NYT’s editorial points, I found it to be an interesting and intelligent discussion of facts and options.
But what to me may be even more interesting and ironic is the negative reaction to it by some unlikely sorts who surprisingly raise the “genocide” flag. (Heretofore, where have they been?)
While the potential of genocide is certainly real – whether we “leave” today, or even decades from now – some writers and bloggers (not necessarily lex) who raise the genocide issue sadly do so for political, rather than humanitarian reasons. Some ignore Darfur and other venues where genocide is actually occurring now, and not just a possibility in the future. ?
Dude, congratulations, you’ve got the specious conclusion market cornered!
AW1 Tim said: “…The only platform, the only solution they have for any and all problems is: ?
Why now? Because as Al Anbar proves; we’re winning. And the Dems cannot allow that.
Jim C
There’s nothing like snatching defeat from the jaws of victory for the naysayers like the Dems and the NYT.
Mustn’t let Iraq become successful in any way, or Bush might be right after all, and can’t have that. Might mean they were wrong.
Two-faced sniveling weasels, that’s what they all are.
I agree with Jim C above.