Enjoy this sort of thing while it lasts. It'll wear off soon...
BY MARK BROWN SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST
Maybe you're like me and have opposed the Iraq war since before the shooting started -- not to the point of joining any peace protests, but at least letting people know where you stood.
I'm not, but go on. I'm interested in what your opinion is now...
You didn't change your mind when our troops swept quickly into Baghdad or when you saw the rabble that celebrated the toppling of the Saddam Hussein statue, figuring that little had been accomplished and that the tough job still lay ahead.
I fully expected our troops to sweep quickly into Baghdad, and I fully expected the "rabble" to celebrate the toppling of his statue. That sort of thing's predictable in states where Fearless Leader gets 99.9 percent of the vote. And I wasn't under the illusion that things would be easy from that point. Look to Iraq's east, northwest, and south and see how friendly things look. A successful Iraq is a mortal danger to all three.
Despite your misgivings, you didn't demand the troops be brought home immediately afterward, believing the United States must at least try to finish what it started to avoid even greater bloodshed.
Had the troops been brought home as soon as Sammy was kicked out, I wouldn't have turned a hair. I'd have been wrong, since Sammy and his bad boyz would have come crawling back out from under their rocks.
And while you cheered Saddam's capture, you couldn't help but thinking I-told-you-so in the months that followed as the violence continued to spread and the death toll mounted.
I nver thought "I told you so" once. I was paying attention. What were you doing?
By now, you might have even voted against George Bush -- a second time -- to register your disapproval.
Not me. Told you, I was paying attention.
But after watching Sunday's election in Iraq and seeing the first clear sign that freedom really may mean something to the Iraqi people, you have to be asking yourself: What if it turns out Bush was right, and we were wrong?
He was right, you were wrong, but the important thing is how you take it. You can look at the fact with your eyes open and make a rational decision, or you can decide that since you know Bush is stoopid and controlled by sinister cabals there must be something wrong and keep looking until you find something that will do to justify writing him off.
It's hard to swallow, isn't it? If you fit the previously stated profile, I know you're fighting the idea, because I am, too. And if you were with the president from the start, I've already got your blood boiling.
My blood's not boiling. We've spent a lot of time trying to convince you guys. We tried persuasion. We tried argument. We tried ridicule. I just hope the water's cold enough this time to keep you awake for awhile.
For those who've been in the same boat with me, we don't need to concede the point just yet. There's a long way to go. But I think we have to face the possibility.
Since your nose is being rubbed in it...
I won't say that it had never occurred to me previously, but it's never gone through my mind as strongly as when I watched the television coverage from Iraq that showed long lines of people risking their lives by turning out to vote, honest looks of joy on so many of their faces. Some CNN guest expert was opining Monday that the Iraqi people crossed a psychological barrier by voting and getting a taste of free choice (setting aside the argument that they only did so under orders from their religious leaders).
Some Shiites did. I doubt if any Kurds or Turkmen or Chaldeans did. And the Sunnis who voted obviously did so in the face of orders from their holy men not to and the threats from the Bad Guyz that they'd kill them if they did.
I think it's possible that some of the American people will have crossed a psychological barrier as well. On the other side of that barrier is a concept some of us have had a hard time swallowing: Maybe the United States really can establish a peaceable democratic government in Iraq, and if so, that would be worth something.
Bingo. Before it was an abstraction, something that was going to maybe kinda sorta happen somewhere down the line but it'd prob'ly be screwed up. Sunday, somewhere down the line arrived, and it wasn't screwed up, and in fact it was well within tolerances.
Would it be worth all the money we've spent? Certainly.
It's "pay me now or pay me later" money. If you pay later, it'll be with interest.
Would it be worth all the lives that have been lost? That's the more difficult question, and while I reserve judgment on that score until such a day arrives, it seems probable that history would answer yes to that as well.
History will answer "of course." The lives expended are "pay me now or pay me later," too. And the performance of the military has been magnificent. The casualty rates are extremely low, given the level and type of combat.
I don't want to get carried away in the moment. Going to war still sent so many terrible messages to the world.
I don't think "If you attack us, we'll kill you" is a bad message to send to the world. I don't think "If you help people attack us, we'll kill you" is a bad message. The first was the message sent to Afghanistan. The second the message sent to Iraq. Now we're sending a third message: "If you're a bloody-handed dictator, we don't like you, so watch it, buddy!"
Most of the obstacles to success in Iraq are all still there, the ones that have always led me to believe that we would eventually be forced to leave the country with our tail tucked between our legs. (I've maintained from the start that if you were impressed by the demonstrations in the streets of Baghdad when we arrived, wait until you see how they celebrate our departure, no matter the circumstances.)
Probably so. I'm not blind to the possibility. But an alternative to total withdrawal is a Status of Forces Agreement that'll go on for years, as with Germany and Japan. I also think you're assuming more revulsion toward the U.S. than there actually is within the Iraqi mainstream. There's a subset that'll jump up and down and make faces, and probably a larger subset that'll miss us, and probably a majority that'll be indifferent. Guess which bunch will take to the streets if the occasion arises?
In and of itself, the voting did nothing to end the violence. The forces trying to regain the power they have lost -- and the outside elements supporting them -- will be no less determined to disrupt our efforts and to drive us out.
Here's where I lose touch with the guys who oppose what we're doing. The forces trying to regain the power they have lost are evil to the bone. Binny and Zawahiri and Zarqawi and al-Douri and the Association of Venomous Muslim Scholars would fit right in with Fu Machu, Professor Moriarty, and the Council of Boskone. Attila the Hun was more reasonable and sweeter natured. Genghis Khan would be shocked at some of the things they do. They've declared war on us. They attacked us. They hate us and they want to kill us all. Where's the hesitation in whether we "should" exterminate them?
Somebody still has to find a way to bring the Sunnis into the political process before the next round of elections at year's end.
I don't give a crap if a single Sunni finds his way into the political process. It's a choice they're making self-determination, remember? Well, they're determined not to play unless they can be in charge.
The Iraqi government still must develop the capacity to protect its people.
There's a problem, isn't it? Iraq's military was very good at rolling over people with tanks, not very good at repelling enemies unless they were dirtbag pickup armies like Iran's. Building the Duty-Honor-Country tradition's going to be difficult. It'll take every day we're there and then some. We won't know if it took until they have their next government crisis.
And there seems every possibility that this could yet end in civil war the day we leave or with Iraq becoming an Islamic state every bit as hostile to our national interests as was Saddam.
Or another fascist dictatorship. Or they could become commies. Over time they could come to be ruled by an oligarchy probably the most likely outcome in the long run or they could become European-style social democrats and hate us because we're crass Americans. There are lots of possibilities, and at the moment none of them appear to be probabilities. So why not worry about them later? We have lots of other things on our plate now.
But on Sunday, we caught a glimpse of the flip side. We could finally see signs that a majority of the Iraqi people perceive something to be gained from this brave new world we are forcing on them. Instead of making the elections a further expression of "Yankee Go Home," their participation gave us hope that all those soldiers haven't died in vain. Obviously, I'm still curious to see if Bush is willing to allow the Iraqis to install a government that is free to kick us out or to oppose our other foreign policy efforts in the region. So is the rest of the world. For now, though, I think we have to cut the president some slack about a timetable for his exit strategy. If it turns out Bush was right all along, this is going to require some serious penance. Maybe I'd have to vote Republican in 2008.
Posted by: Fred ||
02/01/2005 11:44:47 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[7 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Nice of you to finally come around to a point of view that only took me a couple days research and a fraction of common sense. And while you're doing your penance, a**hole, take a moment to reflect on how much easier this might have been, how many less soldiers might have died, if whiny little mouth-breathers like yourself hadn't been FIGHTING US THE WHOLE F*CKING WAY!
#2
Just go ahead and vote Democratic again, Mark. We've already proven that we can do the right things and elect a Republican in spite of you.
Posted by: Tom ||
02/01/2005 16:13 Comments ||
Top||
#3
All of the hand-wringing, gnashing of teeth, weighing of pros and cons, etc. is the conscious mind grappling with accepting what the subconscious mind decided the instant the question or problem was posed.
This guy has felt the first few little pangs - indicators the conscious and subconscious views are in conflict. He's smarter than the average bear in that he's begun to recognize the source of those pangs.
Those who are incapable of what Mark Brown is doing, evolving, should seek immediate professional help to assist them in identifying their personal collection of disorders, conveniently listed here.
#4
I see the latest rantings from Liberals as their last gasp before they die. Think about it, they have Pelosi, Boxer, Kerry, and Kennedy painting themselves in a corner. They have no (political) way out of the âquagmireâ they created for themselves. We have seen a second election in a country that not too long ago was ruled by a tyrant. And they were opposed to deposing the dictator, funding the reconstruction, and letting the people vote. Unless Iraq descends into total lawlessness (still possible) this has to be a HUGE win for America and Bush. Hell even the terrorists are relegated to kidnapping GI Joe dolls!
The News on the domestic front isnât much better if you are a Liberal that opposes tax cuts, social security, and tort reform. These are all hot-button issues that better than 75% of the country is on the Presidents side. Their âbig issueâ is Gay marriages! Now there is an issue they can âget behindâ and take one for the team. Every state that has the issue on a ballot has soundly supported a marriage as between one man and one woman.
I hate to get overly optimistic, but I canât wait until the 2006 elections and see which Democrats are picked off or decide to leave politics. After they called Condi every name in the book and are gearing up to smear Gonzales they are going to find little support from their most cherished voters. I am totally pumped for 2006 and beyond!
#5
Part of Fred's commentary reminds me of thoughts I had during election season. Do you remember way back to Mike Dukakis? And how he was asked what his reaction would be if he wife was raped? He stammered, and stuttered, and gave a very wimpy answer, and lost the election.
With GWB, we got the right answer when our country was attacked. He didn't stammer, didn't stutter, and didn't wimp out. He picked up our military and went and avenged the heck out of Afghanistan and Iraq. Other countries and terror entities now know that they had best think again before attacking the US directly. They just might end up finding themselves casting votes two years later!
We can all sleep better at night knowing that GWB has our back and won't let us down.
#6
Seafarious, reading your comment I was reminded of the advice they give if you are hiking and confronted by a mountain lion.
STAND TALL. If you crouch or show fear the mountain lion is much more likely to attack. And RUNNING (ala Teddy Kennedy) is the WORST thing you can do!
GWB knows that the military will do what needs doing, and do it BETTER when they've got a President who believes in them and the cause they're fighting for!!
Those of us following the nascent career of Islam in America have for years worried about the unhealthy influence of Saudi money and ideas on this community.
We watched apprehensively as the Saudi government boasted of funding mosques and research centers; as it announced its support for Islamist organizations such as the Council on American-Islamic Relations; as it trained the imams who became radicalized chaplains in American prisons; and as it introduced Wahhabism to the university campuses via the Muslim Student Association.
But through the years, we lacked information on the contents of Saudi materials. Do these water down or otherwise change the raw, inflammatory message that dominates religious and political life in Saudi Arabia? Or do they replicate the same outlook?
Now, thanks to excellent research by Freedom House (a New York-headquartered organization founded in 1941 that calls itself "a clear voice for democracy and freedom around the world") we finally have specifics on the Saudi project. A just-published study, "Saudi Publications on Hate Ideology Fill American Mosques," provides a wealth of detail.
(Two points about it bear noting: this important study was written anonymously, for security reasons; and it was issued by a think tank, and not by university-based researchers. Once again, an off-campus organization does the most creative and timely work; yet again, Middle East specialists find themselves sidelined.)
The picture of Saudi activities in the United States is not a pretty one.
Freedom House's Muslim volunteers went to fifteen prominent mosques from New York to San Diego and collected over two hundred books and other publications disseminated by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (some 90 percent in the Arabic language) in the mosque libraries, publication racks, and bookstores.
What they found can only be described as horrifying. These writings - each and every one of them sponsored by the kingdom - espouse an anti-Christian, anti-Semitic, misogynist, jihadist, and supremacist outlook. For example, they:
-- Reject Christianity as a valid faith: Any Muslim who believes "that churches are houses of God and that God is worshipped therein ... is an infidel."
-- Insist that Islamic law be applied: On a range of issues, from women (who must be veiled) to apostates from Islam (who "should be killed"), the Saudi publications insist on full enforcement of the Shari'a in America.
-- See non-Muslims as the enemy: "Be dissociated from the infidels, hate them for their religion, leave them, never rely on them for support, do not admire them, and always oppose them in every way according to Islamic law."
-- See the United States as hostile territory: "It is forbidden for a Muslim to become a citizen of a country governed by infidels because this is a means of acquiescing to their infidelity and accepting all their erroneous ways."
-- Prepare for war against the United States: "To be true Muslims, we must prepare and be ready for jihad in Allah's way. It is the duty of the citizen and the government."
The report's authors correctly find that the publications under review "pose a grave threat to non-Muslims and to the Muslim community itself." The materials instill a doctrine of religious hatred inimical to American culture and serve to produce new recruits to the enemy forces in the war on terrorism.
To provide just one example of the latter: Adam Yahiye Gadahn, thought to be the masked person in a 2004 videotape threatening that American streets would "run with blood," became a jihadi in the course of spending time at the Islamic Society of Orange County, a Saudi-funded institution.
Freedom House urges that the U.S. government "not delay" a protest at the highest levels to the Saudi government about its venomous publications lining the shelves of some of America's most important mosques.
That's unobjectionable but it strikes this observer of Saudi-American relations as inadequate. The protest will be accepted, then filed away.
Instead, the insidious Saudi assault on America must be made central to the (misnamed) war on terror. The Bush administration needs to confront the domestic menace that the Wahhabi kingdom presents to the United States.
That means junking the fantasy of Saudi friendship and seeing the country, like China, as a formidable rival whose ambitions for a very different world order must be both repulsed and contained.
(Daniel Pipes is director of the Middle East Forum and author of Militant Islam Reaches America. He has a Ph.D. in early Islamic history from Harvard and taught at Harvard and the University of Chicago.)
Posted by: Steve ||
02/01/2005 10:57:12 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
One of the best things to do with these anti-American publications is print their translations (without further comment) in US newspapers and magazines. Let the Saudis try to deny them.
Lately, Rantburg has been posting imam Q&A columns to get a look into what's being said. The moonbattery involed[sic] just screams to be lampooned. So without further ado, let me presentâŠ
Ask your Friendly Imam
Q. I'm a girl in twelfth grade in an non-Muslim country, wondering if I can go to my graduation.
A. First, there is a mingling of the sexes there so no you must not, and second, why are you still in school. You should have dropped out and been married off by now!
Q. I was raped and now am pregnant. What do I do besides trust in Allah?
A. Give me your father's name and address so I can order him to honor-kill you.
Q. I'd like to go birdwatching. Is it halal?
A. Only if there are infidels among the birds for you to explode among.
Q. My neighbors are ardent Zionists. I know them for nice people, and cannot bring myself to kill them.
A. You can run but you can't hide, infidel.
Posted by: Steve from Relto ||
02/01/2005 9:04:31 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
A fair analysis would compare and contrast the similarities and the differences. The author does a good job of cataloguing the differences so I won't repeat them. Here are a few of the similarities:
* Extraterritorial sanctuaries (Laos and Cambodia vs Syria, SA, and Iran)
* Foreign ideological, logistical, and financial suppport (USSR and China vs SA, Syria and Iran)
* Terrorist infrastructure deeply embedded in tribes and villages (VC vs AQ and Ba'athists)
* In some cases, poorly trained militias abandoning posts and giving weapons to terrorists. (RF/PF vs ING)
Understanding the similarities are important because we can mine old databases to see how we dealt with these sorts of problems and shorten our decision cycle (OODA loop seems to be the hip new term) accordingly. By identifying what's different, we can allocate are creative resources more efficiently (let's face it, gifted problem solvers don't grow on trees) to formulate the appropriate responses at the tactical, operational and strategic levels.
#4
Mr. Public: Never mind that, my lad. I wish to complain about your reporting about Iraq what I heard not half an hour ago from this very media service. MSM: Oh yes, it's, uh, just like Vietnam...What's,uh...You understand that, right? Mr. Public: I'll tell you what's wrong with it, my lad. It's not true, that's what's wrong with it! MSM: No, no, it's uh,...it's the truth. Mr. Public: Look, matey, I know a Vietnam when I see one, and this is nothing like Vietnam. MSM: No no it's just like Vietnam, Vietnamese everywhere! Remarkable people, those crafty Vietnamese, idn'it, ay? Beautiful culture! Mr. Public: The culture don't enter into it. It's not Vietnam. MSM: Nononono, no, no! Of course it's just like Vietnam! Mr. Public: All right then, if it's Vietnam, I'll wake Walter Cronkite up! (shouting at CBS) 'Ello, Mister Walter Cronkie! I've got a lovely fresh Richard Nixon for you if you show... MSM: (shows a picture of a burning car) There, see! Just like Vietnam! Mr. Public: No, it isn't! That car had US plates! MSM: I never!! (etc.)
#5
Hey .com, pshaw! Neither LBJ, Robert Strange McNamara, nor POW GI Joe anywhere to be seen. Plus no NVA coming down the HCM trail. This one is definitely winnable. We just need to get SOCOM and the Iraqis to start dismantling the infrastructure and get the Army and Marines back to doing what they do best.
Well another nail in the MSM's coffin today, huh? Soon CBS, NBC, ABC will be shutting down their news bureaus. In 5-10 years it'll all be webzines and cable news. Newspapers will be for those too poor or drugged out to afford a PC. I'm predicting a comeback for Howell Raines at that point.
Even Mac the Whore can't revise history enough to cover his sorry ass, heh.
Arthur Sulzberger Jr., NYT moron owner and Charter Member of the Kool Aid Krowd, will rejoice in hearing he can help his butt buddy, lol! Here's an absurdly (logrolling, heh) story about the NYT's future. It misses the point you make so clearly regards the true future of the news biz. Next Goliath: AP / AFP / Rooters / et al. When there is a functioning model for the raw data acquisition, it will be Game-Set-Match for the assholes, heh.
#7
.com - I dont think that infrastructure is too far in the future. Right now I have a digita camera which can produce a halfway decent video (including sound). You can stuff a suprising bunch of video in 14 minutes for a 1Gb memory stick.
When these get on-the-fly mpeg encoding it could be mere minutes from some something happening halfway around the planet and it being posted on a blog (or video-blog) in video and accompaning text for everyone to see without the filter and talking heads and bullshit the media lathers over it.
It may not be studio quality video and the text may have mispeling (intentional) but people would be able to make their own decisions and not have some talking head tell them what to think.
And from there it won't be long before corporations and government start releasing video press-releases directly to the public instead of hoping the local news station can mention it betweent the big human-interest (oh-my-god-someone-looked-at-a-dog-funny) stories. It has already started with Government - the 9/11 comission for example was released directly to the network.
#8
# 1 & 2 You both hit the nail on the head. When a comparison is made between the two wars- they
are trying to compare the time length- year's that
are tied up here and all the money as well as the casulties. You can never really compare the two war's there is too much contrast. We now fight
with computer's and technology. few computer's existed in the Vietnam days***
Andrea Jackson
Posted by: Andrea ||
02/01/2005 21:24 Comments ||
Top||
#9
Andrea, They had lots of computers and fancy laser printers during the vietnam war! Microsoft Word too...
Opening paragraph:AND so the "looming Iraqi election fiasco" joins "the brutal Afghan winter" and "the brutal Iraqi summer" and "the seething Arab street" and all the other junk in the overflowing trash can of post-9/11 Western media fictions. The sight of millions of brave voters emerging from polling stations holding high their purple dye-stained fingers was so inspiring that, from America's Democratic Party to European protest rallies, opponents of the war waited, oh, all of three minutes before flipping the Iraqis their own fingers, undyed.
Posted by: trailing wife ||
02/01/2005 12:45:51 AM ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you the incomparabe Mark Steyn:
"International community", by the way, doesn't mean Tony Blair, John Howard, the Poles, Japan, India, Fiji, et al butJacques Chirac and Kofi Annan, a pantomime horse in which both men are playing the rear end. [emph mine]
#3
Yeah but he's still not posting all the links on his website. I wonder if he's doing that to boost his booksales. Or maybe it's a test so that he can compare the amount of traffic he drives to his articles with and without his website. Or maybe his intern quit/left. Those of us who anticipate his every article now have to suffer and search hard and hope we don't miss one or two, like the ones in the Irish Times or whatever.
Posted by: John in Tokyo ||
02/01/2005 20:47 Comments ||
Top||
#4
John, I don't think all his syndication contracts allow it....
Posted by: Frank G ||
02/01/2005 20:53 Comments ||
Top||
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.
