Obama is following George W. Bush in making war, not love. Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan. Bush dropped bombs on those places, and all we heard about was gut-wrenching wailing and screaming from the Left for eight years because of all the innocent people who died. Now O is doing the same thing … and all we hear are the sounds of silence.

via American Thinker Blog: Liberals and O’s Afghanistan policy.

Rather than blaming Donald Rumsfeld or George Tenet, the principled position of the “my three-week perfect war was loused-up by your five-year occupation” critic would have been an honest admission that they underestimated the potential of Iraqi insurgency, and that even its defeat was simply not worth the commensurate American costs….

Instead, what we have now are dozens of loud, pick-and-choose opportunists who were for the war, then soured on it, then came back some during the purple-finger elections, then got angrier during the February 2006 insurgency, then damned the surge, then grew quiet during the Petraeus success — always, in retrospect, citing a particular past phase of their ongoing metamorphoses when it now seems to best amen the current status in Iraq.

Sadly, most have no ethical bearings, and wrongly judged our presence in Iraq in terms of wishing to identify with a winner and to distance themselves from a perceived loser. The irony, of course, is that in the months to come many abroad will begin to respect our support for Iraqi democracy only for the self-interested reasons that it proved successful rather than principled.

In beginning this process, a broad view of the middle east is necessary. The Middle East, specifically Iraq (but by no means limited to Iraq) was (and would still be) in the process of implosion had we done nothing. It was inevitable that Iraq would have collapsed eventually. There was certainly ample indica of this, whether you looked at the chaos Saddam’s sons would have brought after their father’s death, the religious tensions we have unearthed in the absence of a repressive ruler, or simply the deterioration of the country’s infrastructure caused by years of sanctions and Saddam’s indifference toward his own people.

And this was just Iraq. In terms of the Middle East as a whole, pick your country; you would have found an oppressive government ruling over a vexed citizenry who sought solace in the words of radical teachers who taught hatred of the west and anyone who dare criticize their prophet.

The sings of the region’s implosion were self-evident.

• Saddam was singlehandedly winning an endurance war the U.N., leaving the multinational body nearly impotent. Sanctions were failing and most of Europe had decided that short-term profits in the corrupt Oil-for-food program was more important then a stable and democratic government.
• Saddam was actively involved in funding terrorist groups in the middle east
• Amadenijad had ramped up his own WMD program, partly in reaction to the threat of Saddam’s regime…
• Libia had gotten in on the WMD race as well–further destabilizing the region
• Syria… well, remember that odd building that got blown off the map by an Israeli/U.S. targeted military strike? They were in on the WMD race as well.
• Riots broke out across the middle east when a CARTOON of mohammed appeared in a Danish newspaper.
• a well-funded and well trained army called “al-Qaeda” had already set up camp in the region’s armpit, Afghanistan… and given bathing habits in this region (well, lets just say the stench was by no means geographically contained)
• I’m sure Saudia Arabia was in on the fun too…

This was what the world was facing before 9/11… a middle east crumbling under the weight of oppressive governments lead by radicals.. After 9/11, the West (the US in particular) found itself perusing a rather stupid policy. We started throwing billions of dollars and man-hours into securing a state, Afghanistan, which had no significance other then the fact that it just happened to have a few terrorist training camps. We were spending billions to “fix” a country that had no chance of ever standing on it’s own 2 feet… a country which would have immediately collapsed back into chaos upon our withdrawal. Unbelievable, yes, but this was nevertheless the situation, with apparently no objections from anyone. This was the “genius” of our policy… until the Bush doctrine came of age.

For those of you who spout the familiar rant about Bush loosing his focus on Afghanistan by entering Iraq. I mockingly ask you…what was so great about the Afghanistan policy to begin with? Even now the combined NATO forces are struggling to accomplish even the simplest of objectives there. What could we possibly accomplish in a country of bedouins with no infrastructure? What kind of policy was this? It was beyond stupid. The irony of the Left could not be more clear; for all their criticisms of Bush, they hadn’t a chance for an articulable Afghanistan policy that was any less expensive or any more likely to succeed.

Furthermore, for everyone who rants that we shouldn’t have gone into Iraq “because they weren’t a threat”… let me ask you something. Was Afghanistan perceived as a threat before 9/11? hmm??? This question obviously speaks for itself. The perception of a state’s threat has NO DIRECT RELATIONSHIP to the amount of damage they can cause the United States homeland. Those who use this argument with the benefit of hindsight are disingenuous; they pretend to have some clearer vision of the world but are in fact, no more enlightened than the rest of us. The conditions in Iraq were very similar to those in Afghanistan– in fact, they were worse. Iraqis had begun to coalesce around religious leaders in the absence of any political options–exasterpatnig the problem of islamic fundamentalism–the very problem that lead to Bin Laden’s attacks.

The Bush doctrine recognized a number of fundamental truths. First, and most importantly, it perceived the implosion I have just described. This region would see US troops… not necessarily within the next decade… but it was certainly going to happen. Anyone who fully grasps the implications of the above list of problems would be hard-pressed to come to another conclusion. We could either face this reality on our terms or on theirs; in a healthy economy or during recession; before a nuke went off in New York… or after.

Secondly, the Bush doctrine recognized that the “Afghanistan Policy” was, in the long run, a failure at best. While a necessary political move (no US president would have gotten away with doing NOTHING after 9/11). It was a failure because legitimate, sustainable statehood was never an attainable goal. And for every blunder we would have made… we would have further alienated muslim extremists. The middle east needed a stable democracy for the sake of the west; for the sake of long-term peace; and for the sake of worldwide freedom. It had to be changed. What better place to do it than in perhaps the second most western muslim nation in the middle east… (next to Turkey… probably the Arab Emirates come to think of it) a country of 27 million bordering Iran and Syria… a country capable of supporting itself by opening a few oil spigots… a country that wanted democracy after decades of brutal oppression. And they did want democracy… the blue fingers of millions of Iraqi women attest to this startling fact.

Third, Bush recognized the threat radical islamists posed to freedom and democracy worldwide. Radical Islam thrives in autocracies… it thrives under regimes… it thrives in environments where blowing oneself up is seen as a better option to living life. This kind of environment, this kind of belief system is an undeniable threat to the west… it threatens our lives and our cultures–as the British have realized (Borris’ election wasn’t just a fluke, you know) and as many in the Dutch have realized (remember Geert Wilders?).

We labored before the United Nations making our case. A body that never hesitated to condemn Saddam’s regime on paper suddenly found itself compromised when the opportunity to act on those beliefs finally arose. Never once hesitating to congratulate themselves on their “bold” resolutions, these same people instantly became linguini-spined when they had to make decisions when lives were on the line. Many people learned very quickly how hard leadership is… and how easy it is to be brave when nothing is at stake. George Bush himself pressed the counsel on this very matter, saying: “Are Security Council resolutions to be honored and enforced, or cast aside without consequence? Will the United Nations serve the purpose of its founding, or will it be irrelevant?

Perhaps I am overly broad in my criticisms… The U.S. did not get United Nations support primarily because of French and Russian disagreement. France, for its part, has had a change of heart on this point–a diplomat even noted that “I really believe that depending on what happens here [Iraq] it will change the world.” Russia, on the other hand (who was, for the record, the lone holdout in a worldwide consensus on the Iraq invasion) had a great deal to gain by stonewalling the consensus. Putin, desperately wanting to exercise his growing power and influence, basked in the opportunity to crush the credibility of the United States. Never mind the obvious conflict of interests–arms sales to Iraq, fusion technology transfers, oil for food money… yet somehow one country acting almost entirely in its own self-interest gets a pass while the United States… spending Trillions on a war with sofar not a penny gained in return–is labeled as a unilateralist imperialist.

There is obviously much more to say about Russia than I have the time or energy for in this post, but suffice to say, I can think of no greater irony that the fact that environmental-peace-lib-activists have chosen to side with a dictatorial multi-billionaire oil tycoon on this matter. (alas, this happens O’ so often…) I think it would be fair to say that Russia never has had any interest in a stable middle east or in a functional United Nations. Its own imperialistic tendencies–whether it be in Chechnya, Georgia or its historical tendencies that are very much still a part of the kremlin leadership — are in direct conflict with the values the United Nations supposedly champions. Yet because of one countries’ defiance, an entire worldwide policy is discredited as “unilateral” and “cow-boy-esque”. This couldn’t be farther from the truth.

This brings us to the pre-war claims of the President and the familiar “Bush lied, people died” mantra. The fact is that Bush never claimed Iraq HAD nuclear WMD’s. He simply related that British intelligence thought he was trying to acquire them through various other countries (i.e. yellowcake from Niger). In almost every quote, he reiterated that it was what INTELLIGENCE REPORTS CONCLUDED. Any quotes missing this piece of context should be read with it as a given implication. All information about foreign weapons capabilities are based on best-guesses and intelligence. Those who think they can use this information to prove anything are ignorant of the CIA and our intelligence-gathering operations. May I also remind you that the Director of the CIA, George Tenet, was a DEMOCRAT holdover from the Clinton administration. May I also remind you that good intelligence was hard to obtain — partly due to the infamous “Gorellic wall” – also a Democrat. May I also remind you that the leakers of national security secrets – Valery Plame, Joseph Wilson, Richard Armitage – were ALL democrats!!! If anything is to be learned from this brief history is the incompetency of democratic policy-makers… and how unfortunate it was that Bush believed them. Those who criticize Bush without also criticizing these Democrats are at best, disingenuous and partisan.

In the end, whether we believed the British intelligence is irrelevant. Whether Tenet was right or wrong is irrelevant. We could certainly have believed the United Nations Weapons Inspectors who INSPECTED chemical and Biological weapons. Common sense demands one conclude they still existed somewhere or else Saddam wouldn’t have kicked the inspectors out! Democrats who overlook this fact lack common sense… it’s unfortunate but true. This was Saddam’s big mistake… as Fred Kaplan put it:

“There is also a lesson here for our adversaries: Don’t try to manipulate an American president’s perceptions; your cultural understanding of us is at least as shallow as our cultural understanding of you.”

What can we conclude thusfar? First, the NO WMDS! argument is weak… it bears no connection with the reality of the time. Second, the “iraq is not a threat” argument was also weak. The strongest argument was that Saddam MUST be dealt with in a language he understood: raw military power.

Now, there have been mistakes made. Rumsfeld, who in my opinion was a decent man, simply did not understand how to win minds on the ground. Bush should have removed him sooner. Abu-Garab, while terribly unfortunate, was also a mistake… but not Bush’s mistake. It was a twisted experiment by a couple sexual perverts (these are the people Democrats otherwise always defend in the spirit of tolerance and understanding…) S*** happens in war… Democrats need to realize this and move on… the amount of restraint shown in comparable circumstances may not have been surpassed in the history of war-fighting.

It is also expensive. I hate this as much as anybody. We probably needed more troops in the initial invasion… while costing more up front may have saved us in the long run. However, is this not worth the cost rather than letting an entire population be over-run by islamic radicals like Bin-Laden and Al-Sawahiri? The point missed by the libertarians lamenting the costs is what this shows about the America… and the American people. The global war on terrorism is a GLOBAL WAR. It affects all free nations. America is taking the financial burden of protecting western civilization almost entirely upon its own shoulders. Americans have volunteered to make the sacrifice for the rest of the world: it is a noble thing that speaks of our love of freedom and our sacrificial character. In fact, the cost SHOULD BE BORNE by the west as a whole… but many nations are not sharing the burden. Wars cost what they do… to criticize the cost is therefore nothing more than an anti-war argument. The criticism lays in the reluctance (or inability) of the west to pay their fair share for the dividends that will result from a better middle-east.

For those of you who disagreed with the war from the start… I have one thing to say to you. An anti-war “position” is NOT REALLY a position on the iraq war. It is simply a knee-jerk reaction to the pro-war movement. In order to have a position… one must advocate for the alternative to war. This would have required advocating for a weak United nations; advocating advocating for torture chambers; advocating for a nuclear middle east; advocating for the continuous suppression of the Iraqi people for the next generation under the leadership of UDAY and USAY. That was the future… at least nobody was doing anything to stop it. Even Richard Cohen, who came out as acknowledging he was wrong, acknowledged as much

“One final argument appealed to me. It was quite clear that, over time, Saddam would slip the noose of U.N. sanctions, the United States would tire of its campaign to enforce the no-fly zone, the Europeans-so worldly, so repellently even-handed about Israel, so appalled by Saddam’s excesses, and, finally, so full of shit-would do business with the regime, and Saddam would be free to use his oil wealth for weapons and war. If something were not done when it seemed that something could be done, then nothing would ever be done-until it was too late.

There are no good arguments left for the anti-war movement. Holding Saddam accountable was the right thing to do. Yes, we have stirred the hornets nest, but each and every member of congress who signed the declaration of military force SHOULD HAVE EXPECTED AS MUCH and been prepared to deal with the consequences. Instead, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Mike Murtha (and the like) have yet again disgraced their office by letting thousands of American soldiers die in vain… deciding that “oops!” they were wrong — using the excuse they were mislead. Not one Democrat has ever given constructive criticism about how we might win the war faster or conduct it more effectively. No, they have made it their mission to destroy the credibility of the troops commander in chief… calling him a liar, a thief, a cowboy, an idot and a war-mongorer. They can’t debate the arguments I have laid out so they reduce themselves to the arena of personal attacks on the character of the military’s leader.

In conclusion, most of these arguments are not uniquely my own (although the stupidity of the afghanistan policy was an exception)… but they are the best arguments being made and I wanted to consolidate them all into one post. While watching CSPAN yesterday, I came across an interview with David Horowitz discussing his new book, “Party of Defeat”. It is an incredibly history lesson and analysis of the Democrat’s shameful behavior. I HIGHLY recommend watching it should you get the chance.

thanks for reading, feel free to attack and criticize my position… I can take it.

• efforts to stabilize the country had been a “complete failure” - Senator Barak Obama
• the surge “is a failure,” - Senator Nancy Pelosi
• the troop buildup “is a failure” – Senator Biden
• the surge was an “absolute failure” – Ron Paul (ya, I know he isn’t a democrat but he was still wrong)

Democrats NOW:

• More American troops have brought more peace to more parts of Iraq. I think that’s a fact. – Dick Durbin
• The military aspects of President Bush’s new strategy in Iraq … appear to have produced some credible and positive results. – Carl Levin
• We’ve begun to change tactics in Iraq, and in some areas, particularly in Al Anbar Province, it’s working. – Hillay Clinton

I don’t need to add any commentary to this… I am vindicated.

Oh, and this in the New York TImes:

Al-Qaeda leaders admit: ‘We are in crisis. There is panic and fear’

Al-Qaeda in Iraq faces an “extraordinary crisis”. Last year’s mass defection of ordinary Sunnis from al-Qaeda to the US military “created panic, fear and the unwillingness to fight”. The terrorist group’s security structure suffered “total collapse”.

The Anbar letter conceded that the “crusaders” – Americans – had gained the upper hand by persuading ordinary Sunnis that al-Qaeda was responsible for their suffering and by exploiting their poverty to entice them into the security forces. Al-Qaeda’s “Islamic State of Iraq is faced with an extraordinary crisis, especially in al-Anbar“, the unnamed emir admitted.

In an apparent reference to al-Qaeda’s brutal tactics, he said of the Americans and their Sunni allies: “We helped them to unite against us . . . The Americans and the apostates launched their campaigns against us and we found ourselves in a circle not being able to move, organise or conduct our operations.“

He said of the loss of Anbar province: “This created weakness and psychological defeat. This also created panic, fear and the unwillingness to fight. The morale of the fighters went down . . . There was a total collapse in the security structure of the organization.“

“The morale of the fighters went down and they wanted to be transferred to administrative positions rather than be fighters. There was a total collapse in the security structure of the organisation.”

I guess it’s safe to say the surge worked then? 

[the definitive post on the subject]