Monday, July 14, 2008

Obama on Iraq: Inconsistent and infantile.

The mindlessness of the left’s critique of Iraq is best expressed in today’s NY Times and Barack Obama’s latest collaboration.

Obama, grudgingly, acknowledges the American victory that President Bush’s “surge policy” produced. Not surprisingly, the Democrat nominee and his leading press ally ignore their consistent efforts to produce American defeat in Iraq throughout 2004-2007. While Obama avoided the outlandish statements like a belief in even the possibility of American victory in Iraq required a willing suspension of disbelief (Hillary Clinton) or the repetitive declarations of defeat from creatures like
Dingy Harry Reid and Damascus Nancy Pelosi the results of his policy would have been the same had President Bush surrendered to their demands for retreat, failure and defeat. Iraq would have looked something more like a far more populous and wealthy Somalia or Lebanon and been a safe haven and support base for further terror attacks on the interest of our country, the democratic allies of the United States and more generally, civilization itself had we followed Obama and the other advocates of American failure back in 05 and 06.

Moreover, the Obama editorial is an implicit statement of his feckless view of foreign policy: no long term vision and no resolution. Much like Bill Clinton before him and Jimmy Carter before that, Obama sees foreign policy as an extension of the welfare state (we give money to people who hate us) and domestic politics (take no action that might challenge our enemies less they hate us more).

Most importantly, the victory provides us with an ally that is potentially wealthy and powerful in a region where we still confront the increasingly powerful Nazi regime in Teheran and assorted crazies in Pakistan, Afghanistan and other more obscure places. Obtaining that huge strategic advantage has been costly but the gain is huge. In turn, this gain, and particularly the Surge itself, utterly vindicates John McCain’s international vision, personal resolution and political courage. Obama’s editorial tells well how lacking are those qualities in the author himself.

Support Freedom
Vote Republican


Anonymous said...

Ted, 'll sure say one thing, this bullshit of yours is certainly on par with that horseshit the Times printed from Obama.

Anonymous said...

Check out the upcoming New Yorker magazine cover!!

Anonymous said...

After the GW Bush train wreck of foreign policy most of America is more than happy to give Obama a shot at it.

Anonymous said...

Sporer's charge that Dems "give money to people who hate us" reminds me that Ronnie Reagan gave arms to the Iranians in exchange for hostages being released in Lebanon. He sent TOW missiles, not just a truck load of rifles.

Four hostages were being held when he started the giveaway. By the time it was exposed, 14 hostages were being held. Another success of Republican foreign policy.

So before you point out the speck in your brother's eye, take the log out of your own eye.--Spotlight

spotlight on clauswitz said...

TOWs that the Iranian Nazis used to kill Iraqi Nazis.

Where's the downside to that?

Anonymous said...

It encouraged more hostage taking, for one thing. It also made a liar out of Reagan ("never trade arms for hostages") for another. It was illegal by US law for a third thing.

But I guess we know how little some folks care about observing democratically passed laws.


Major Ken said...

Misdirection will not change the fact the people over here (in Iraq and Afghanistan) from the generals to the soldiers support President Bush and the war in overwhelming numbers. That is why Obama doesn't want to come here and sell his cool aid because the troops who fight and die smell a rat and a fink like that a mile away and they've paid a high price for idiots like Jimmy and Billy already. President Bush simply stoop up to the people throwing punches rather than backing down once again with an apology to boot.

John Maszka said...

Taking the war to Pakistan is perhaps the most foolish thing America can do. Obama is not the first to suggest it, and we already have sufficient evidence of the potentially negative repercussions of such an action.

For example: On January 13, 2006, the United States launched a missile strike on the village of Damadola, Pakistan. Rather than kill the targeted Ayman al-Zawahiri, al-Qaeda’s deputy leader, the strike instead slaughtered 17 locals. This only served to further weaken the Musharraf government and further destabilize the entire area. In a nuclear state like Pakistan, this was not only unfortunate, it was outright stupid. Pakistan has 160 million Arabs (better than half of the population of the entire Arab world). Pakistan also has the support of China and a nuclear arsenal.

I predict that America’s military action in the Middle East will enter the canons of history alongside Hiroshima, Nagasaki and the Holocaust, in kind if not in degree. The Bush administration’s war on terror marks the age in which America has again crossed a line that many argue should never be crossed. Call it preemption, preventive war, the war on terror, or whatever you like; there is a sense that we have again unleashed a force that, like a boom-a-rang, at some point has to come back to us. The Bush administration argues that American military intervention in the Middle East is purely in self-defense. Others argue that it is pure aggression. The consensus is equally as torn over its impact on international terrorism. Is America truly deterring future terrorists with its actions? Or is it, in fact, aiding the recruitment of more terrorists?

The last thing the United States should do at this point and time is to violate yet another state’s sovereignty. Beyond being wrong, it just isn't very smart. We all agree that slavery in this country was wrong; as was the decimation of the Native American populations. We all agree that the Holocaust and several other acts of genocide in the twentieth century were wrong. So when will we finally admit that American military intervention in the Middle East is wrong as well?

Anonymous said...

John Maska - you make a lot of good points, but you don't say what you WOULD do...

Pre-emptive war on its face is bad, but how would you fight it, they are fighting us.