[Rhodes22-list] WTF? (response to Hank and Tootle)

[brad haslett]

Wally,

No time to comment, time to make the donuts.  Here's
some Memorial Day thoughts.  I agree with the author.

Brad

-----------------

Private Papers
www.victorhanson.com

May 26, 2006
Looking Back at Iraq
A war to be proud of.
by Victor Davis Hanson
National Review Online

There may be a lot to regret about the past policy of
the United States in the Middle East, but the removal
of Saddam Hussein and the effort to birth democracy in
his place is surely not one of them. And we should
remember that this Memorial Day.

Whatever our righteous anger at Khomeinist Iran, it
was wrong, well aside from the arms-for-hostages
scandal, to provide even a modicum of aid to Saddam
Hussein, the great butcher of his own, during the
Iran-Iraq war.

Inviting the fascist Baathist government of Syria into
the allied coalition of the first Gulf War meant that
we more or less legitimized the Assad regime’s
take-over of Lebanon, with disastrous results for its
people.

It may have been strategically in error not to have
taken out Saddam in 1991, but it was morally wrong to
have then encouraged Shiites and Kurds to rise up —
while watching idly as Saddam’s reprieved planes and
helicopters slaughtered them in the thousands.

A decade of appeasement of Islamic terrorism, with
retaliations after the serial attacks — from the first
World Trade Center bombing to Khobar Towers and the
USS Cole — never exceeding the occasional cruise
missile or stern televised lecture, made September 11
inevitable.

A decade was wasted in subsidizing Yasser Arafat on
the pretense that he was something other than a
mendacious thug.

I cite these few examples of the now nostalgic past,
because it is common to see Iraq written off by the
architects of these past failures as the “worst”
policy decision in our history, a “quagmire” and a
“disaster.” Realists, more worried about Iran and the
ongoing cost in our blood and treasure in Iraq, insist
that toppling Saddam was a terrible waste of
resources. Leftists see the Iraq war as part of an
amoral imperialism; often their talking points weirdly
end up rehashed in bin Laden’s communiqués and Dr.
Zawahiri’s rants.

But what did 2,400 brave and now deceased Americans
really sacrifice for in Iraq, along with thousands
more who were wounded? And what were billions in
treasure spent on? And what about the hundreds of
collective years of service offered by our soldiers?
What exactly did intrepid officers in the news like a
Gen. Petreus, or Col. McMaster, or Lt. Col Kurilla
fight for?

First, there is no longer a mass murderer atop one of
the oil-richest states in the world. Imagine what Iraq
would now look like with $70 a barrel oil, a $50
billion unchecked and ongoing Oil-for-Food U.N.
scandal, the 15th year of no-fly zones, a punitative
U.N. embargo on the Iraqi people — all perverted by
Russian arms sales, European oil concessions, and
frenzied Chinese efforts to get energy contracts from
Saddam.

The Kurds would remain in perpetual danger. The
Shiites would simply be harvested yearly, in quiet, by
Saddam’s police state. The Marsh Arabs would by now
have been forgotten in their toxic dust-blown desert.
Perhaps Saddam would have upped his cash pay-outs for
homicide bombers on the West Bank.

Mohammar Khaddafi would be starting up his centrifuges
and adding to his chemical weapons depots. Syria would
still be in Lebanon. Washington would probably have
ceased pressuring Egypt and the Gulf States to enact
reform. Dr. Khan’s nuclear mail-order house would be
in high gear. We would still be hearing of a “militant
wing” of Hamas, rather than watching a democratically
elected terrorist clique reveal its true creed to the
world.

But just as importantly, what did these rare Americans
not fight for? Oil, for one thing. The price
skyrocketed after they went in. The secret deals with
Russia and France ended. The U.N. petroleum perfidy
stopped. The Iraqis, and the Iraqis alone — not
Saddam, the French, the Russians, or the U.N. — now
adjudicate how much of their natural resources they
will sell, and to whom.

Our soldiers fought for the chance of a democracy;
that fact is uncontestable. Before they came to Iraq,
there was a fascist dictatorship. Now, after three
elections, there is an indigenous democratic
government for the first time in the history of the
Middle East. True, thousands of Iraqis have died
publicly in the resulting sectarian mess; but
thousands were dying silently each year under Saddam —
with no hope that their sacrifice would ever result in
the first steps that we have already long passed.

Our soldiers also removed a great threat to the United
States. Again, the crisis brewing over Iran reminds us
of what Iraq would have reemerged as. Like Iran,
Saddam reaped petroprofits, sponsored terror, and
sought weapons of mass destruction. But unlike Iran,
he had already attacked four of his neighbors, gassed
thousands of his own, and violated every agreement he
had ever signed. There would have been no nascent new
democracy in Iran that might some day have undermined
Saddam, and, again unlike Iran, no internal dissident
movement that might have come to power through a
revolution or peaceful evolution.

No, Saddam’s police state was wounded, but would have
recovered, given high oil prices, Chinese and Russian
perfidy, and Western exhaustion with enforcement of
U.N. sanctions. Moreover, the American military took
the war against radical Islam right to its heart in
the ancient caliphate. It has not only killed
thousands of jihadists, but dismantled the hierarchy
of al Qaeda and its networks, both in Afghanistan and
Iraq. Critics say that we “took our eye off the ball”
by going to Iraq and purportedly leaving bin Laden
alone in the Hindu Kush. But more likely, al Qaeda
took its eye off the American homeland as the promised
theater of operations once American ground troops
began dealing with Islamic terrorists in Iraq. As we
near five years after September 11, note how less
common becomes the expression “not if, but when”
concerning the next anticipated terror attack in the
U.S.

Some believe that the odyssey of jihadists to Iraq
means we created terrorists, but again, it is far more
likely, as al Qaeda communiqués attest, that we drew
those with such propensities into Iraq. Once there,
they have finally shown the world that they hate
democracy, but love to kill and behead — and that has
brought a great deal of moral clarity to the struggle.
After Iraq, the reputation of bin Laden and radical
Islam has not been enhanced as alleged, but has
plummeted. For all the propaganda on al Jazeera, the
chattering classes in the Arab coffeehouses still
watch Americans fighting to give Arabs the vote, and
radical Islamists in turn beheading men and women to
stop it.

If many in the Middle East once thought it was cute
that 19 killers could burn a 20-acre hole in
Manhattan, I am not sure what they think of Americans
now in their backyard not living to die, but willing
to die so that other Arabs might live freely.

All of our achievements are hard to see right now. The
Iraqis are torn by sectarianism, and are not yet
willing to show gratitude to America for saving them
from Saddam and pledging its youth and billions to
give them something better. We are nearing the third
national election of the war, and Iraq has become so
politicized that our efforts are now beyond
caricature. An archivist is needed to remind the
American people of the record of all the loud
politicians and the national pundits who once were on
record in support of the war.

Europeans have demonized our efforts — but not so much
lately, as pacifist Europe sits on its simmering
volcano of Islamic fundamentalism and unassimilated
Muslim immigrants. Our own Left has tossed out “no
blood for oil” — that is, until the sky-rocketing
prices, the U.N. Oil-for-Food scandal, and a new
autonomous Iraqi oil ministry cooled that rhetoric.
Halliburton is also now not so commonly alleged as the
real casus belli, when few contractors of any sort
wish to rush into Iraq to profit.

“Bush lied, thousands died” grows stale when the WMD
threat was reiterated by Arabs, the U.N., and the
Europeans. The “too few troops” debate is not the sort
that characterizes imperialism, especially when no
American proconsul argues that we must permanently
stay in large numbers in Iraq. The new Iraqi-elected
president, not Donald Rumsfeld, is more likely to be
seen on television, insisting that Americans remain
longer.

A geography more uninviting for our soldiers than Iraq
cannot be imagined — 7,000 miles away, surrounded by
Baathist Syria, Wahhabist Saudi Arabia, and theocratic
Iran. The harsh landscape rivals the worst of past
battlefields — blazing temperatures, wind, and dust.
The host culture that our soldiers faced was Orwellian
— a society terrorized by a mass murderer for 30
years, who ruled by alternately promising Sunni,
Shiite, and Kurdish collaborationists that cooperation
meant only that fewer of their own would die.

The timing was equally awful — in an era of easy
anti-Americanism in Europe, and endemic ingratitude in
the Muslim world that asks nothing of itself,
everything of us, and blissfully forgets the thousands
of Muslims saved by Americans in Bosnia, Kosovo,
Afghanistan, Kuwait, Somalia, and the billions more
lavished on Jordanians, Palestinians, and Egyptians.

And here at home? There are few Ernie Pyles in Iraq to
record the heroism of our soldiers; no John Fords to
film their valor — but legions to write ad nauseam of
Abu Ghraib, and to make up stories of flushed Korans
and Americans terrorizing Iraqi women and children.

Yet here we are with an elected government in place,
an Iraqi security force growing, and an autocratic
Middle East dealing with the aftershocks of the
democratic concussion unleashed by American soldiers
in Iraq.

Reading about Gettysburg, Okinawa, Choisun, Hue, and
Mogadishu is often to wonder how such soldiers did
what they did. Yet never has America asked its youth
to fight under such a cultural, political, and
tactical paradox as in Iraq, as bizarre a mission as
it is lethal. And never has the American military —
especially the U.S. Army and Marines — in this, the
supposedly most cynical and affluent age of our
nation, performed so well.

We should remember the achievement this Memorial Day
of those in the field who alone crushed the Taliban
and Saddam Hussein, stayed on to offer a new
alternative other than autocracy and theocracy, and
kept a targeted United States safe from attack for
over four years.

©2006 Victor Davis Hanson


--- TN Rhodey <tnrhodey at hotmail.com> wrote:

> Herb,
> 
> Yes....I stand by those statements.  I was against
> attacking Iraq from the 
> start and I still am. Time will tell but if past
> preformance is a good 
> indicator of future performance ......
> 
> If you read Brad's (and others) post you will
> understand why I made the 
> statment about my voting record. There are many who
> lump all who disagree 
> into one group. It was been expressed on this list
> that you are either for 
> the war or a bleeding heart liberal. In my case this
> is certainly not true. 
> Hopefully I made my point.
> 
> Changing the subject....I am sure you have seen
> recent head lines about 
> alleged massacre of civilians. I first heard about
> this several weeks ago 
> and kind of dismissed the whole thing. Now the
> Pentagon looks like they are 
> already convicting the accused Marines. I don't even
> want to believe what I 
> am hearing. If true we really are our own worst
> enemy.
> 
> For the record I don't think this alleged massacre
> has any bearing on the 
> issue at hand. We could have been fighting Iraq for
> all of the right reasons 
> and the same type of massacre could of happened. War
> crimes are not limitied 
> to only "just" wars. I do understand that. However
> when you are attacking a 
> country that has not attacked you this type of
> incident makes it so much 
> harder to justify our cause. No piling on here I
> just hope this crap isn't 
> true. I know all sides are disgusted by this type of
> shit.
> 
> Wally
> >From: "Herb Parsons" <hparsons at parsonsys.com>
> >Reply-To: The Rhodes 22 mail list
> <rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org>
> >To: <rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org>
> >Subject: Re: [Rhodes22-list] WTF? (response to Hank
> and Tootle)
> >Date: Fri, 26 May 2006 14:19:27 -0500
> >
> >Wally, I was referring to your previous post where
> you said you knew this 
> >was wrong from day one. Your statement, not mine.
> >
> >Never said anything about you being a Democrat or
> Republican or who you 
> >voted for. All I did was make a prediction and
> quoted what you said. Was I 
> >wrong about some part of my post?
> >
> >Herb Parsons
> >
> >S/V O'Jure
> >1976 O'Day 25
> >Lake Grapevine, N TX
> >
> >S/V Reve de Papa
> >1971 Coronado 35
> >Lake Pontchartrain, Louisiana Coast
> >
> > >>> tnrhodey at hotmail.com 5/26/2006 1:32:30 pm >>>
> >Herb,
> >
> >I am not sure what you think I have known since day
> one.....I did think
> >prior to attacking Iraq we were rushing things. I
> still feel that way 
> >today.
> >
> >The fact that this decision was made by a
> Republican doesn't really concern
> >me. If Clinton made the same call the decision
> would have been just as
> >wrong.
> >
> >For the record I never voted for Clinton or Gore.
> For some reason if one is
> >against attacking Iraq it is assumed you are a
> Democrat. In my case nothing
> >could be further from the truth. At one time I
> thought I had republican
> >leanings but I don't see much to align with.
> Foolish fiscal policies and
> >lthe rush to war have me wondering what the
> Republican party is really 
> >about
> >these days. Not to mention the religous right......
> >
> >Wally
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >From: "Herb Parsons" <hparsons at parsonsys.com>
> > >Reply-To: The Rhodes 22 mail list
> <rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org>
> > >To: <rhodes22-list at rhodes22.org>
> > >Subject: Re: [Rhodes22-list] WTF? (response to
> Hank and Tootle)
> > >Date: Fri, 26 May 2006 11:45:35 -0500
> > >
> > >Way to go Brad. Wanna bet though, that Wally's
> reply will be "still not
> > >enough to make me change my mind"? Keep in mind,
> he's "known" since "day
> > >one".
> > >
> > >Herb Parsons
> > >
> > >S/V O'Jure
> > >1976 O'Day 25
> > >Lake Grapevine, N TX
> > >
> > >S/V Reve de Papa
> > >1971 Coronado 35
> > >Lake Pontchartrain, Louisiana Coast
> > >
> > > >>> flybrad at yahoo.com 5/20/2006 6:53:12 am >>>
> > >Wally,
> > >
> > >OK, here's a quick shot to clarify things before
> the
> > >boys put my arse on a machine.  If you read
> through
> > >the report, Saddam's generals thought they had
> WMD.
> > >They had WMDs at one time, they used WMDs. They
> wanted
> > >more. We still don't know where they went. 
> Saddam
> > >sponsored terrorism all over the Middle East. 
> Clinton
> > >thought he should be taken out.  So did Gore, so
> did
> > >Kerry.  It is easy to second guess the decision
> to go
> > >to war after the fact, but post 9/11, given the
> > >intelligence we had, it was a tough call (unless
> > >you're a pacifist or an isolationist).  We went,
> we're
> > >there.  These calls for an early withdrawal are
> > >nonsense.  Do you know why the loss of our kids
> to
> > >IEDs has gone up?  The insurgents are getting C4
> from
> > >Iran that is seven times more powerful. The
> argument
> > >that we wouldn't have these problems had we not
> gone
> > >there doesn't fly with me.  Why fight the war in
> > >Europe when it was Japan that attacked us?   This
> is a
> > >war like no other, the front is hard to define
> and
> > >constantly shifting. IF Iraq can become a stable
> > >nation, it will shift the whole Middle East. 
> We've
> > >had enough "meet and greets" in the Rose Garden. 
> The
> > >world is too small and the Middle East too
> important
> > >to ignore. Whether Iraq was the best move won't
> be
> > >determined for a long time.  NEWS FLASH!  Bush
> will be
> > >gone soon.  Hillary, or whoever, will face the
> same
> > >problems.  The folks who want to take us back to
> the
> > >seventh century don't give a shit who's next. 
> The
> > >problem remains the same. As to the folks who are
> in
> > >Iraq now, they deserve our support.  The
> re-inlistment
> > >rate and requests for redeployment to Iraq is
> > >incredible.  They believe in what they are doing.
>  You
> > >have to read the soldiers blogs to get that story
> > >though, it won't sell soap for the MSM.
> > >
> > >Brad
> > >
> > >--- TN Rhodey <tnrhodey at hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Brad,
> > > >
> > > > I am not sure I follow what you are saying.
> Perhaps
> 
=== message truncated ===


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com