Last week I looked at some poll data that showed that there is a substantial portion of the American public who overtly desire our failure in Iraq (An American Scandal). I found it puzzling that so many Americans would wish us to fail and questioned their patriotism. Perhaps that was unfair; it might be more accurate to say that there is a substantial portion of the body politic who believe that what they value in America is more endangered by our presence and our missteps in Iraq than it would be by our failure. This is a debatable point and I don't think those who espouse the anti-war position make a very persuasive case, nonetheless, this is not the same as being anti-American. For instance, there are those who have claimed that our efforts to fight the war against terror have increased the danger of our civil liberties being eroded, a point emphasized this morning during a discussion on NPR on the need for more careful attention to the civil liberties of those "capriciously" labeled enemy combatants by the President. I have suggested that the single greatest threat to our civil liberties would be another successful terrorist attack on America since the political reaction to such an attack would make the ACLU yearn for the days of the Patriot Act.
Be that as it may, the reactions to the President's State of the Union speech on Tuesday night bring up such questions anew. It was disturbing enough to see the reluctance of the Democrats to applaud the President's call for victory in Iraq; Jim Webb's response is of even greater import, since he was the officially designated responder to the SOTU.
For purposes of clarity, I would like to digress for a moment and describe how I would define victory in Iraq.
(Digression:
Victory in Iraq would mean achieving relative security for the average Iraqi. This would mean an end to the sectarian violence and the dissolution of sectarian militias. It would require an Iraqi government that is able to rule (already partly achieved, despite the messiness of their brand of democracy), an Iraqi military able to maintain peace, and Iraqi police able to maintain order. Since this describes relative states, the near term success of the mission would entail a significant diminution in acts of violence and terror, though a cessation of such would be impossible. Both the Sunni terrorists (al Qaeda) and the Shia terrorists (backed by Iran) would find Iraq inhospitable and diminish their presence and activity within Iraq.
Failure, on the other hand, would mean that Iraq would deteriorate into a failed state, would continue and accelerate its descent into sectarian violence, and would become a battleground for all the various groups of terrorists, sociopaths, religious lunatics, et al, to establish bases and centers from which to disseminate their virulent wares. Additionally, al Qaeda and the Sunni radicals along with the Shia radicals would proclaim victory and become emboldened to step up their attacks on those they consider insufficiently amenable to their cause. Iraq would be de facto divided into a Sunni mini-state and a Shia mini-state, both antagonistic to the modern world; they would continue to vie with each other in Baghdad, but would, as they have in the past, continue to cooperate against the greater evils of Europe, America, and Israel. Iran would find itself with much greater leeway to continue their quest for the ultimate weapons and would increase their support for their terrorist proxies in the region.
This may not be an exhaustive description of the stakes, but thus far, there has been little dispute from the anti-war side that these, in fact, are the dangers we are facing. The major argument from the anti-war side seems to be that these conditions already exist or are already inevitable.
Digression over)
This brings me back to Jim Webb's response to the President's speech, a response that has been solidly lauded by the left side of the blogosphere.
Gateway Pundit, among many others caught the internal contradiction in Webb's speech:
We need a new direction. Not one step back from the war against international terrorism(?) Not a precipitous withdrawal that ignores the possibility of further chaos. But an immediate shift toward strong regionally-based diplomacy, a policy that takes our soldiers off the streets of Iraq’s cities, and a formula that will in short order allow our combat forces to leave Iraq.
GP's comment is apt:
Get that... the US should not withdraw(al) and the US should leave Iraq... Same paragraph.
Couple that with the Senate's vainglorious attempt to pretend to act on principle. Dean Barnett has it exactly right on the Senate resolution:
Imagine if shortly prior to D-Day, it became publicly known that America was going to make a landing on Western Europe. The strategizing was done. The fact that there was going to be a landing was a fait accompli. Then imagine that a bunch of Senators got together anyway to express their opinion via a resolution that the move was a bad one. Even though it was going to happen anyway.
What possible purpose could passing such a resolution have had? It couldn’t have changed the strategy. Indeed, it wouldn’t have even counseled a change in strategy. The only possible purpose would have been to express a national sense of disunity. And what good would that have done?
THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT WE have happening today with the Senate resolution that is currently being contemplated. The Senators who have expressed their support for the measure have earned history’s scorn. The Senators who have agreed to even consider such a divisive and pointless measure have earned history’s scorn
Of particular concern, this resolution follows the testimony of General Petraeus, widely considered one of the brightest lights in our military and a man who is convinced that we can succeed, given the time to do so by the Congress and the American people. Hugh Hewitt understands what is at stake:
Yesterday General Petraeus testified that the Biden/Warner resolutions and those like them encourage the enemy.
What does it mean, "to encourage the enemy?"
It means that the enemy gathers will and strength from the prospect of a collapsing political will to seek victory in Iraq and stability in the region.
With that additional strength and will the enemy redoubles and retriples efforts to kill American soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines.
In short, it means that more Americans will die.
Let me make it perfectly clear that I do not think that those who support this Senate resolution are unpatriotic, though the effect of their behavior is to offer support to those who want to destroy us. Further, while I agree with my colleague, Dr. Sanity, that those who want to destroy us include a fair number of Western members of the left, I doubt they are more than a small minority of the anti-war camp. I think it is more appropriate to consider the vast majority of such to be merely deeply unserious.
(Another digression:
Rationalization is the psychological defense that uses words, emptied of their meaning, to make barely plausible assertions that cannot stand up to rudimentary challenge. Because they are defenses motivated by unconscious pressures, the rationalizer doesn't realize how empty his words are, although some have the grace to be mildly embarrassed by the weakness of their arguments. The defense of rationalization is a derivative of the child's toilet training struggles. Anyone who has raised a child is probably familiar with the situation in which a frustrated parent, caught up in the toilet training struggles with a 2 year old, places the child on the pottie and instructs him to sit there until he goes. The child, internally resistant but overtly compliant, sits on th pot and struggles mightily to produce what the parent so dearly desires. The child sits, straining, puffing our his cheeks, groaning with the effort, until he finally produces ... a mighty wind. Of course, it is a wind full of sound and fury, but markedly deficient in substance. Empty efforts, empty words, the wind that replaces the reality, that is the "hot air" from which rationalization is constructed.
Digression over)
Our esteemed Senators, who lack the courage of any convictions beyond the belief that their re-election is critical for the republic to survive, have produced a masterpiece of rationalization.
General Petraeus wants more troops in order to win. Some Senators want to start pulling out troops now, but won't vote to cut off all funding for the military lest they be seen as insufficiently supportive of the troops; other Senators oppose the surge, though if challenged are completely unable to address any of the tactical and strategic shortcomings of Petraeus's plan; perhaps they support "staying the course." Webb wants us to leave as soon as possible (don't most Americans) but doesn't want to be held responsible for the disaster that will follow so he suggests we stay and leave at the same time.
Senatorial posturing is a price we pay for our democracy; at a time of war, they should be held to higher standards.
Recent Comments