Republican discontent re: Iraq

October 13, 2006 at 3:27 am (Blogs, Iraq, Military, The Media, The Right, The United States, War)

Slublog had an interesting post: “Why are Republicans so Annoyed”.

He quotes a commenter in “Why Are Conservatives So Down On The GOP?” of the Ace of Spades HQ:

We expected a fairly quick war and a fairly quick occupation; we got the former, but definitely not the latter.

If this is what we expected, then we were very, very wrong. For that matter, The White House had been careful to point out that the road ahead would not be easy and that it would take some time. If we had listened to The White House, perhaps we would have been prepared for an effort that took a long time and would be fraught with ups and downs.

Our demands for a speedy and most successful and effortless resolution are, frankly, ridiculous, impractical, and idiotic. We can do what we can, but hard realities always makes things more difficult and complicated than we would have liked.

Nevertheless, we did what we had to do. And it is our obligation to stick through it until the end. If we leave now, we will only set the stage for more harm for us, not to mention the millions in Iraq. But as every state operates for its own national security and interests, we must stay and finish the job, no matter how hard, difficult, or hopeless it may seem.

Furthermore, it is uncalled for, for us to criticize and denounce The White House when they already informed us, when we were going in, that this would not be an easy or swift campaign. Had they not informed us, our condemnation and denunciation would be quite appropriate. But since we were warned, we should have heeded then and we should now realize our having been forewarned.

It sometimes seems to me that we live in a time of impatience, short attention spans, inability to think ahead, and instant news (that build up to create what may be an incorrect image or profile). This is not meant as a criticism of Ace or Slublog or specific person or group. I just find it a bit puzzling that past campaigns could have taken many years with many hardships without people demanding an immediate resolution whereas it seems now we somehow have lost this will and ability.

We may be frustrated by the lack of progress–as it seems–in Iraq. (I think we do not focus on the positives, on the progress, on the improvements in Iraq enough. We focus too much on the bad news.) And it is perfectly acceptable for us to vent our frustration, disappointment, and so on. We should even share our disagreements with how the situation is being handled (as long as we offer alternatives to what we disagree with: that is, all criticism should be constructive criticism as there is no use telling someone he is wrong without suggesting ways he can do things better or right). But to turn on The White House simply because the campaign in Iraq is taking so long or does not seem as successful as we would like, is not right.



  1. Subvet said,

    Good points. You’ve hit the nail right on the head. Congratulations.

  2. broadsunlituplands said,

    The job cannot be finished. It was ill conceived and detrimental to our interests. There is no achievable concrete goal spelled out anywhere. There is no amount of effort that can achieve the hopes of those who want victory. It is not a difficult task, fraught with peril, but a pointless task laden with nightmares. Conversely, a withdrawal from the Mideast abbatoir will not lead to an invasion of our country. That is another fanatastically ill conceived notion, that fuels the first. Disregard the simple minded Hitler anaolgy’s, examine history and you will see.

  3. Scott said,

    History has plenty of examples of how occupation turns out (positively and negatively), including Japan and Germany, places where the job still hasn’t been “finished”, yet are nonetheless regarded as successful operations.

    Well said Muslihoon.

  4. dicentra said,

    My generation is used to seeing our military as an invincible, kick-butt force that can subdue any enemy at any time and still have time for a round of golf afterwards. It’s tough to see the struggle from afar and woonder what in Sam Hill is going on if we can’t get the job done quickly and cleanly. Too much Gulf War I and Grenada in our consciousness.

    There is no achievable concrete goal spelled out anywhere.

    Except the one where the government of Iraq is strong enough to protect itself against the insurgency. It’s achievable, and it’s concrete enough. At the current time, it is evident that the government is not strong enough. Ergo, we stay.

    It is not a difficult task, fraught with peril, but a pointless task laden with nightmares.

    It most definitely is a difficult task. It’s one thing to take an island from the Japanese when all you have are two kinds of soldiers fighting each other; it’s quite different when you have a large civilian population that is largely supportive of the democratization effort, but that is liberally peppered with terrorists from two different factions who are firing at each other and and you. We can’t wage all-out war in Baghdad because we can’t easily tell friend from foe.

    Pointless? Only if we fail. I’m a pessimist by nature, but even I can see that Iraq’s freedom is worth the effort.

    Conversely, a withdrawal from the Mideast abbatoir will not lead to an invasion of our country.

    Not right away, no, it wouldn’t. It would lead to something similar to what happened in southeast Asia when we backed out of Vietnam: an oppressive regime establishes itself and Job One is to slaughter everyone who collaborated with the Americans, then the enemy militia (Shia or Sunni, depending on who takes over).

    After that bloodbath subsides, Iraq ends up with another Taliban-like government of fanatics who are determined to spread their version of Islam throughout the region. If the Shias win, Iran becomes their buddy; if the Sunnis win, then it’s Saudi Arabia.

    Either way, big money flows into Iraq, and it becomes another home base for terrorism training. The Iraqis (now missing a good chunk of their population) or the unattached jihadis begin to conquer neighboring countries and impose more Taliban governments (just as has been done in Somalia). Once they absorb these other countries, they can press men into service, and they get to be a huge force.

    The Caliphate is established, current Muslim lands become consolidated into one, and 1.2 billion people fulfil their destinies to live under the Caliphate. They screw with oil supplies, causing the world economies to stagger.

    Then the Caliphate goes after the lands Islam lost centuries ago. They win them back, because the Europeans who currently occupy those land are too weak to resist.

    Or. The US steps in to fight back the Muslim invaders. But by now the jihadis are so numerous and so strong that we lose people at WWII or Vietnam rates before we win. If we win.

    If we lose, the Caliphate goes on to conquer the rest of Europe, helped by the Fifth Columns already residing in those nations. More men are pressed into service. Eurabia becomes a reality.

    Again, if the Caliphate starts war against our “allies,” we’ll be obliged to help them, just as with WWII.

    Maybe they never flat-out invade us, but that doesn’t mean that the spread of the Caliphate is good for the US. Maybe all they do is nuke NYC and Chicago and LA. Maybe all they do is commit random acts of mayhem in malls and stadiums throughout the country. Maybe we won’t see an army of Muslims landing on the beach as if it were Normandy all over again.

    But it’s not a pretty picture for the world if the Islamists achieve their goals. Best take them out now when they’re relatively small rather than wait until they get so strong that taking them out costs us dearly. Because if France had taken out Hitler when he invaded the Rhineland, like they were supposed to, think how many millions of lives would have been saved.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: