Now Surrender
I believe Andrew Sullivan (Ross) has lost this paragraph:
Here’s my question: Is there any imaginable point in any imaginable conflict where Mark Levin would admit that the United States had lost a war? I don’t mean to be flip, and I say this as someone who generally thinks that the U.S. hasn’t necessarily lost in Iraq; we probably have, but the outcome is still sufficiently in doubt and the stakes sufficiently high that I want to give the “surge,” however ineffectual it may prove (or may already be proving), at least a Tom Friedmanesque six months to work. But even allowing that Reid shouldn’t have said what he said, it’s still the case that the United States can lose wars, like any world power; that we may well lose this one (in some sense, at least); and that at some point, in this struggle or another, some American politician will say “we’ve lost the war” and be entirely correct. Given this reality, I wish Levin (and many of his fellow “till the last dog dies” Iraq War backers) would clarify whether there’s any situation in which they would greet a U.S. defeat abroad with any response save a rote invocation of the stab-in-the-back narrative.
Background: Sullivan (Ross) is dissing the National Review’s Mark Levin, who called for the resignation of Harry Reid for proclaiming an enemy victory in Iraq. Sullivan (Ross) appears to agree we have not lost, I think, but he (Ross) can’t quite bring himself to say it and appears to be keeping his options open, not being able to completely stomach the surrender-lust of his (Ross’) new pals. He (Ross) also may be agreeing that Reid should not have said it, though he (Ross) doesn’t quite commit himself there either. He (Ross) doesn’t appear to object to Levin’s call for Reid’s resignation. But he (Ross) is thrown into a fit of indignation by his (Ross’) own supposition that Levin might never admit defeat, or if forced to, that Levin and his “last dog dies” crowd might have the gall to suggest that Congressional leaders actively trying to undermine a wartime president and troops in the field might be responsible for that.
Here’s the clarification Sullivan (Ross) requests: If and when a U.S. “defeat” is not caused by our military being undermined by politically motivated surrender enthusiasts at home. Though I think ”capitulation” is a better word for what happened in Vietnam and what could happen in Iraq. “Defeat” would suggest actually being beaten by the enemy.
Back to the matter at hand, Andrew Sullivan (Ross) has got himself hopelessly bogged down in a quagmire of equivocation here, and I think it’s time for him (Ross) to admit defeat. A word surge might get him (Ross) out of it. But I want him (Ross) out of this paragraph by next March!
Crotchety Old Bastard nails the issue here in a letter to Reid regarding his son, now on his third tour in Iraq. It’s not, as it turns out, whether Reid has a right to declare the the war lost, and whose fault that “defeat” is. Contrary to what Andrew Sullivan (Ross) declares above, the real issue here is what Reid is going to do about it:
Dear Senator Reid,
Thank you for finally putting this whole Iraq War mess to bed. The timing couldn’t be better for my family.
You see, my son is serving in this “lost war” with the 82nd Airborne Division; actually on his third tour. My family will be very happy to have him home within 30 days because then he can attend my daughter’s graduation from college and Commissioning Ceremony.
My bride is skeptical of all of this but I reassured her that I know for a fact that he will be home soon because based on your statement and being the Senate Majority Leader, you will kill all funding for this “lost war” immediately.
My bride was still unconvinced and I explained it to her this way.
If Senator Reid, based on the information that the Senate Majority Leader has, has determined that this war is lost; there is nothing left to do but come home. The way I see it, if you were to vote for anything less; you would be personally liable for any future wounded or God-Forbid dead soldiers.
Although, I have the utmost confidence that you will do the right thing and de-fund this war immediately; I have retained legal council just in case.
So, know this Senator; if you don’t de-fund this war within seven days, I will hold you personably liable for any harm to American servicemen. If the war is lost and you have the power to end it then just do it. Stop whining like a bitch and just do it.
COB makes a point. Why are they talking about extending the spending for just two months, or even for a year with withdrawal, if the war is lost? That would be … murder.
Posted by Jules Crittenden at 10:08 pm on Friday, April 20, 2007
12 Responses to “Now Surrender”
Leave a Reply
Trackback URLYou must be logged in to post a comment.
April 20th, 2007 at 10:27 pm
The only war the US can lose is one we choose to lose.
April 20th, 2007 at 10:33 pm
Andrew Sullivan is on vacation right now.
I think you quoted one of his guest bloggers..
April 20th, 2007 at 10:41 pm
That’s what he gets for giving the kids the keys to the car.
April 20th, 2007 at 11:15 pm
If we are beaten, it will be from within by those who simply would not give up the road to defeat.
April 20th, 2007 at 11:16 pm
Whether that was Sullivan or not (and that post has the by line “Andrew Sullivan”), the author can’t committ to a position because either one means supporting Bush. This is something that Sullivan has consistently refused to do for years,
So even if Reid is wrong, Sully (or his clone) are too far into BDS to even suggest that Bush might possibly be doing something right, no matter how unethical that might be. That’s pretty sad, all things considered.
O/T: Jules, I listened to you briefly on BlogRadio with Captain Ed today. I would have called in, but I volunteered to support a local event, and had to take off. But I thought you sounded quite good, especially when you were discussing the AP. Ugh, winnowing through material! My condolences.
April 20th, 2007 at 11:18 pm
Too true, Rebecca. Wars are won when one side loses their will to fight. The Dhimmicrats are better than halfway there, damn them to hell.
Double for Harry “Lord Haw Haw” Reid.
April 21st, 2007 at 12:17 am
We could also run out of Iraqs to democratize.
Or would that just be a tie?
April 21st, 2007 at 6:41 am
[...] Crotchety Old Bastard does (via Jules Crittenden): If Senator Reid, based on the information that the Senate Majority Leader has, has determined [...]
April 21st, 2007 at 7:04 am
Appeasement and capitulation–the Dhimmi’s plan for this war. It’s the only one they have. Bunch of murdering Quislings.
April 21st, 2007 at 3:11 pm
alphie;
Considering the fact that your side of the debate is all for handing Iraq over to the people who are busy killing women and children I would say the idea of running out of Iraqis does not bother you one bit. You little hypocrite.
April 22nd, 2007 at 1:47 am
There is no military criterion by which we could be said to be loosing. Our expenditures of both blood and treasure have been by historical standards minimal. The hostiles have been unable to inflict significant losses on us. We could, if we so wished, dig in and stay in Iraq, in fortified positions forever.
Leaving is unthinkable to patriotic Americans, and to anybody who does want to live in an Islamic theocracy.
But building a stable Iraq with some type of republican government is a non-trivial task that will take at least a generation.
Allow me to introduce some historical examples for your rumination.
This past weekend we had the rare treat of seeing a brilliant company of famous actors (including Ethan Hawke, Billy Crudup, Jennifer Ehle and Amy Irving) perform Tom Stoppard’s trilogy, “The Coast of Utopia.” If you can arrange to see the production, by all means do so. Unfortunately, its limited run is currently scheduled to end on May 13, 2007 and most of the seats are sold already.
The play reviews the birth of the revolutionary opposition in Russia through the life of Alexander Herzen (1812-1870), the first great Russian intellectual who spent much of his adult life in exile.
[More info here]
Stoppard, a brilliant and famous author (”Shakespeare in Love”), has not conformed to the leftist dogma that has shackled the British intelligentsia since the end of the Victorian Era. His choice of Herzen as the center of his work, and his rendering of the anarchist revolutionary Bakunin as a buffoon, show his sound judgment about the fate of Russian revolutionary movements.
From the above web-page:
“Herzen may be the most eloquent Russian who ever lived when it comes to excoriating the dangers of replacing one form of oppression (church, tsar) for another (utopias based on nature or history, race or class).”
One reflection I had on the play is that, as Herzen says therein, the population from which the revolutionaries were drawn was tiny, about one percent of the total population of Russia, (then about 60 million). The vast mass of the population were peasant serfs, who were for all practical purposes, slaves. Their emancipation by the Tsar in 1861, ended their formal ties to their masters, but it made them neither educated nor self-sufficient. The contrast between autocratic Russia and the democratic United States described by Tocqueville in the 1830s could not be more complete. The “habits of the heart”, the diffusion of education, self-sufficiency and civil institutions that made the United States a republic which was able to withstand one of the most traumatic civil wars in all of history, were nowhere present in Russia.
Given that background, it cannot surprise us that Russia fell into a more complete and perfect autocracy less than 60 years after the emancipation. The failure of Russia to grasp the opportunity provided by the collapse of the Soviet government is not surprising either. The intervening generations of communism did little to prepare the Russians for self government. They are certainly more educated and cultured now than they were 150 years ago, but most of the hidden infra-structure of republicanism is still missing. The Russians are lucky in that the current generation of rulers are more kleptocrats than autocrats, and that they have little in the way of ideological fervor. However, they are unlucky in that a generation will pass and they will not yet be ruled by those with the wisdom to build a civil society.
This reflection can also serve to illuminate what is going on in Iraq. The Ba’athist regime caused incalculable damage to Iraq’s civil society. The building of a new civil society will require years.
The difficulty of the task is reflected to us by one of the foundation stories of our civilization — the exodus of the Jews from Egypt and their journey to the promised land. They were led by the greatest and most humble of prophets, Moses, and by the Eternal God, Creator of the Universe, in the form of a pillar of fire. Even with the direction of leadership that we all can agree was better than George Bush and Don Rumsfield, it still took 40 years to turn an oppressed people into a free people, and there was plenty of rebellion and backsliding along the way. At the end of the story, God cashiers Moses because of his mistakes.
We must remember that patience is a virtue. Nail Ferguson has said that the US is the first great power that suffers from ADD. It takes years, to stabilize a situation like Iraq. Just as a surgeon may not leave the OR until the patient is ready for the recovery room, the US should not leave Iraq at this point. Iraq is still on its first elected government. How many years of elections and coups d’etat did we go through in Korea before it was stable enough to have one elected government follow another? (Hint, at least 35.) My point is that even with the best leadership possible, turning slaves into citizens is difficult and time consuming.
April 22nd, 2007 at 7:39 am
Dems wage Information Warfare against U.S. forces
In Military Review, Lt. Col. Timothy Thomas (Ret.) lists strategems of information warfare (IW)…