Hat tip: Tim Blair. EFL. Much more at the link - read it all.
The defeatist Left said Iraq would become an endless bloodbath. Instead, it is creating a ripple of freedom throughout the Middle East.
PHILLIP Adams, lion of the Left, writes in The Australian: "There has to be a day of reckoning on this wretched war."
Well, if he really insists.
In fact, let's start that reckoning right now. With me. And then with Adams.
*snip*
But as I said even before the invasion — weapons and oil, while important, weren't the main prizes. The spreading of freedom to a region of autocrats would justify this war.
More facts, wonderful facts: Freedom does at last seem to be coming to the Middle East, and faster than even I dared to hope.
*snip*
Eight years ago, the main architects of Iraq's liberation demanded the US "challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values".
"We need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom aboard", if necessary "with a policy of military strength", they said in an open letter signed by current US Vice-President Dick Cheney, Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, his deputy Paul Wolfowitz and President George W. Bush's brother Jeb. They wanted what we now see, freedom growing in the Middle East.
These men and their media backers can, so far, face their reckoning with pride. But can Phillip Adams AO, flippant ABC host, Australian columnist and former chairman of the Australian Film Commission?
How would he and his fellow Leftists face their own reckoning over Iraq?
*snip*
But still worse than this savagery is that many in the Left mocked the very idea of Arabs having freedom. Is the Left truly so racist?
Well, yeah. Haven't you been paying attention for the last 50 years?
Take Rory Steele, a former ambassador to Iraq and one of 43 "eminent Australians" who signed a petition just before our last election damning the Howard Government and the war in Iraq. No, you take him. I don't have enough disinfectant to protect myself.
Declared Steele: "The invaders did this in the name of democracy, a concept unaccepted to date in the Arab world and one that is totally unrealistic for Iraq."
FINALLY, someone is publicly calling the leftists to account for their vicious bigotry. About damn time.
Unrealistic? Not to Iraqis who risked death to vote, yet Adams was just as jeering of our hopes of bringing freedom to Arabs.
Can't have that, can we, Phillip, them being brown and all. Asshole. Loser. BIGOT.
A year ago this New Barbarian gloated over what he thought was the death of this dream: "There was also the lunatic proposition that, by imposing democracy by force, the US, UK (and us) would inspire the region to transform itself. What a load of ideological claptrap."
And there were his other wild claims — that the war would "create another Vietnam", "could cost Bush (and Blair) office", would end with "a Stalingrad-style battle in the city" and more.
Last year he even crowed: "The promised outbreak of peace between Israel and the Palestinians has failed to materialise."
Day of reckoning, Phillip.
There is a long way to go with many setbacks to come. Iran is still a grave threat. But democracy is dawning in the Middle East, transforming even Palestine. These are miracles that, had it been left to Adams and his kind, we'd have never seen. Without the war they opposed, Saddam would still be in power, and freedom in its grave.
Day of reckoning. Let these enemies of freedom be judged, and as harshly as they would have judged us.
Hot double damn! It's past time the Lefties got the righteous bitch-slap they so richly deserve. Hang 'em high, Andrew! :-D
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
03/09/2005 11:27:09 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Unfortunately Bolt writes for a newspaper 99% of whose readers couldn't give a stuff about geopolitics. The Australian media is infested with Leftists, far worse than the USA.
How many times have I had to tell you, gentle reader, to read anything President Bush says. There was a joke made by the louche webloggist, Wonkette, to the effect that the Bush administration has been sadly lacking in empty gestures. The President not only seems to mean almost everything he says, he seems to act on it soon after. This is, as my reader must agree, very eccentric behaviour in a politician. I'm not saying Mr. Bush utters deathless prose; I'm just saying read his texts if you want some clue to what is going to happen next. (Always archived at whitehouse.gov.)
This instruction applies particularly to his address yesterday to the U.S. National Defence University in Fort McNair, near Washington. It contained several dozen hints that the U.S. would now be accelerating, in its engagement with the Middle East. It also contained one pregnant little dropped allegation of fact: that the U.S. government is convinced the recent terror blast in Tel Aviv was ordered from Damascus, not from the usual sources on the Palestinian West Bank.
More was being said through that than meets the ear. Mr. Bush was not only telling Bashir Assad, the Syrian dictator, that he has drawn a bead on him. He was signalling beyond this that the U.S. is no longer interested in keeping what happens to Israel in a separate file from what happens elsewhere. He was thus subtly insinuating "peace with Israel" into the agenda of Arabs and other Muslims demonstrating for democracy in spreading waves throughout the region.
Now turning to those, let's take three items I noticed in yesterday's news, glancing through the Internet:
In Kuwait, the parliament is speeding work on a bill to give the vote to women, and allow them to stand as political candidates (as in Iraq and Afghanistan), while several hundred women activists hold vigil outside. From the pictures I've seen, few of these ladies were wearing the proper head covering.
In Cairo, protesters for an opposition party are telling President Mubarak they are not entirely happy with his plan to let other candidates run in Egypt's next presidential election. This is because after reading the small print, they think any such election will be rigged. They think that, perhaps, if Mr. Mubarak and his anointed son were neither of them candidates in such a next election, it might have more chance of being free and fair.
In Multan, Pakistan, several thousand women rallied in defence of the rights of Mukhtar Mai, a woman who was gang-raped, probably on the orders of a village council.
There are many more reports, of demonstrations from Morocco to Pakistan, but I chose these three because I've now seen photographs. What struck me in each case was the mixing together of well-dressed, middle-class, respectable people -- of the type who normally calculate they have too much to lose by yelling in the street -- with poorer and more ragged people. And shoulder to shoulder, in the same causes. And each cause was, for its location, a direct affront not only to the powers-that-be, but to their most basic attitudes.
I don't think any of these demonstrations would have happened without the extensive television coverage now spreading through the Arab and Islamic world of Lebanon and Iraq. Several of my correspondents in the region have pointed out, that Al Jazeera's "pro-terrorist" coverage in Iraq has backfired, because Arabs watching the footage of anti-government demonstrations take away a powerful impression that such demonstrations should be possible.
The subtext is more eloquent than the text in these cases. For, yes, Al Jazeera often only covers people marching against America and her allies. But also, yes, the Americans and their "running dogs" also permit such protests. Viewers know their own dictators permit no such thing. Or rather, have only started allowing that sort of thing as a way to release pressures that their police forces tell them are building, quickly, everywhere.
As I've said before, the reason the large, flag-waving, anti-Syrian demonstrations have been happening in Beirut is not because the occupying Assad regime has suddenly gone soft. It doesn't have the option of going soft; no dictatorship does.
These people are rallying because, after Afghanistan and Iraq, they believe the United States Mediterranean fleet now offers them real cover. And they' re watching the Assad regime pulling back tanks and troops towards the Bekaa Valley and the Syrian frontier, chiefly because President Bush is publicly and plainly telling them to pull back. Many American flags have been waved among the Lebanese ones by the demonstrators.
What Mr. Bush was saying yesterday, over the shoulders of his audience to the people campaigning for freedom and democracy across the Islamic world, was, in my paraphrase: "You are right to think you have the full support of my people, government, and military. The freedom bell is ringing, do not hesitate to rise."
Posted by: tipper ||
03/09/2005 3:01:37 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#2
The Bush strategy in the GWOT reminds me of Alexander the Great, or maybe Sherman in his march through Georgia (without the sacking and pillaging). The plan is to stay constantly on the attack, to keep the opponent backing up, unable to look where he is going, and to not give him time to re-organize. It makes sense when 1) your forces are grossly outnumbered and 2) your logistical capability is strong. And, it's easier to spot the bad guys when they're moving than when they are blending in with the civilian population.
So, as soon as Afghanistan was (more-or-less) under control, the fight was moved to Iraq. Now that Iraq, post-election, seems (more-or-less) under control, the fight will move ......??? Iran? Syria? Lebanon? Or, keep 'em guessing for now, and moving, and gather intel, and pick off a few key players.
#3
stay constantly on the attack, to keep the opponent backing up, unable to look where he is going, and to not give him time to re-organize
That's not Sherman, that's classic Ulysses S. Grant.
Posted by: Steve ||
03/09/2005 8:35 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Gives the slogan "the Arab street will explode if the Americans invade" a whole new meaning doesn't it?
#5
Bush's strategy is even grander than Sherman and Grant's. Every move has used a new weapon. Afghanistan, SF, Iraq, regulars, Lebannon, media. In each case strengths were attacked directly, anarchic tribes, the fourth largest army in the world, al-Jezeera. He cannot realisticly do another invasion, politicly or logisticly. So the team in DC will come up with another idea to defeat an enemy by indirectly attacking its strength. They are being taken out one at a time, each in its own special way. Attacks Designed with the Enemy in Mind.
What it reminds me of at the moment is the civil rights movement. Assad's assasination of Harari ranks up there with the murder of the civil rights workers in Philadelphia Mississippi in 1964. Dumb move, really dumb. Bush is providing the apparent cover but it is really media supplied public opinion thatos the cover. Al-Jezeera has been turned on itself.
Bush really isn't in control of much because it is up to the indiginous population to decide to change things. So where next seems more a question of who's ready. Could be Viet Nam. Wouldn't that be sweet?
Posted by: Mrs. Davis ||
03/09/2005 8:46 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Nathan Bedford Forrest. "Keepin' up the skeer."
Or the famous VDH on Sherman's march. The enemy had no idea what was happening because Sherman was always a step ahead.
"Let's set up a defensive line here."
"General, we just got word the Yanks are three miles behind us."
Posted by: Richard Aubrey ||
03/09/2005 10:16 Comments ||
Top||
#7
The Sherman analogy reminds me of Liddy Harts analysis on war. Basically Sherman and others would march their army directly to the spot between two cities. The enemy could fortify one well, or both weakly. If they fortified one he'd take the other. If they fortified both weakly he could choose.
Nazi's did a similar thing on the Russia front which is how they swept so far East so quickly.
Now enlarge the scene. The US army is between two nations. Iran and Syria. Will Hezbollah split their forces or concentrate on defending one over the other. Hezbollah in Syria is not available to beat down Iranian protestors. Hezbollah in Iran is not available to beat down Lebanese.
"I too welcome these developments, but more warily. Having been trained in Middle Eastern history makes me perhaps more aware of what can go wrong"
Posted by: gromgorru ||
03/09/2005 11:28:54 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Having been trained in Middle Eastern history makes me perhaps more aware of what can go wrong
Thatn of course would be either younameit or everything.
#2
And one BIG thing that can go wrong, tactically, is to not follow up on a breakthrough. Many military campaigns suffered from this mistake. You can't have somebody in charge who so tries to hedge their bets that they miss golden opportunities.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
