Trouble in Paradise
What if Americans would rather win? US News and World Report:
As reports come in suggesting the “surge” is producing some military but not political results, some conservatives are raising the possibility that Democrats will face a backlash from the voters for their staunch opposition to the Iraq war. Those hopes could be bolstered by a report in the Wall Street Journal’s “Washington Wire” column, which notes that by “50%-45%, Americans express confidence the U.S. commander in Iraq,” Gen. David Petraeus, “will provide an objective assessment of situation on the ground. By 36%-13%, public holds positive rather than negative view of Petraeus. Proportion saying the troop ’surge’ is helping grows to 29% from 24% in April.”
The conservative New York Sun says this morning that “leading Democrats have seen little risk in demanding a withdrawal of American troops, buffeted by polls that show as many as seven in 10 voters are on their side.” But “what if the military situation in Iraq turns around?” Some “are advising caution, warning that Democrats could lose the high ground if they are perceived to be ignoring evidence that President Bush’s troop ’surge’ is achieving success.” In a column appearing in today’s Washington Times, Cal Thomas writes, “Most Democrats seem so invested in defeat in Iraq that they apparently have no ‘Plan B,’ which would be success.” Thomas goes on to note comments by House Majority Whip James E. Clyburn, reported Tuesday on the Washington Post’s website. Clyburn “said a favorable report from Gen. David Petraeus could lead 47 moderate-to-conservative ‘Blue Dog’ Democrats to oppose a withdrawal timetable, making it virtually impossible for the liberal leadership to pass such legislation. ‘[It would be] a real problem for us,’ said Mr. Clyburn.”
One thing for sure. They don’t like losers:
That’s why it’s important to make sure everyone understands winning is in fact losing. Hopesully, everyone will then believe vice versa is true:
During an interview with PBS’s NewsHour, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said last night, “The purpose of the surge was to create a secure environment in which political progress could be made. That has not happened. The President’s own benchmarks are not being met. They weren’t met in July by the President’s own admission. It’s hard to see how they will be met in September with the Iraqi government already on vacation there while our soldiers are fighting their fight.”
This was stated immediately prior to the Dem Cong’s monthlong vacation, taking place while our soldiers are winning the Dems’ loss. The Democratic leadership’s strategy is one not seen since World War II, where the Japanese determined that their only chance of winning was their won self-destruction. No, hang on, that doesn’t work. The Japanese actually fought to the death, and killed themselves to avoid surrender, and here we’re seeing a case of surrendering to the death. It may be unprecedented. We’ll need to get the Oxford Medievalist in on this.
Anyway, at the risk of sounding like a broken record, there is a fundamental problem with a strategy based on losing. Only by losing can you win. And what you have won is a loss. You can come at it from every side, but there’s just no way around it. But when every effort to win by losing keeps going down in ignominious defeat, and the win that you hope to portray as a loss keeps showing up as a win, you risk losing everything. Which, presumeably, must mean someone else is winning. But that’s a loss, which is victory. Stay with me here. It follows then that the greatest Democratic victory, short sword having already been honorably stuck in the belly, would be a merciful lopping off of all surrender dreams in November 2008, when Thompson or Romney or Giuliani gets elected, when Mother Sheehan takes Pelosi’s seat … OK, that might be a little farfetched … but when that glorious Democratic mandate of the people loses a dozen seats or whatever narrow margin it holds, because the American people, who can only be fooled some of the time, have finally figured out that losing is not winning.
OK, bad analogy, I’ve got to get off that Japanese fatalism thing. We’ve already discussed the fact that the Japanese, unlike the Dems, did themselves in to avoid surrender, and honor certainly has nothing to do with what the Dems are up to now. The Dems, we can expect, will go whining loudly into the wilderness.
Good morning Instapundit, Surberistas, etal, always good to see you! Come on in. I’m out back finishing up that tree fort for the kids, but make yourself at home. Genocide, it’s all the rage, get yours here. Quick, what do Bush and Napoleon have in common, aside from nothing? Everybody loves a libretto, how’s about a little GWOT and SuicideBomb? Maybe a tap dance. Listen up, Hamas has something to say: “We’re normal.” Important theological question: Do loser jihadis get virgins, too? Warning: suing newspapers can drive you crazy.
Posted by Jules Crittenden at 7:25 am Comments (19) on Saturday, August 4, 2007
19 Responses to “Trouble in Paradise”
Leave a Reply
Trackback URLYou must be logged in to post a comment.
August 4th, 2007 at 8:17 am
The biggest problem with “The Surge” is same the same as the biggest problem with the GWOT: its name.
‘Surge’ puts the emphasis on the increase in troops, while it should really be on the fundamental change in strategy. Those opposed to the war in total can misrepresent the entire new strategy as “simply more of the same failed approach,” rather than having to admit that they got exactly what they demanded: a change in course, based on input from the military leaders.
Bush fell into the same trap when he stressed the threat of WMDs over the other 20+ reasons for toppling Hussein’s regime. It was an understandable, yet unfortunate, decision.
August 4th, 2007 at 8:29 am
[...] the question from Jules Crittenden: “What if Americans would rather win?” It is an excellent post that makes the case with [...]
August 4th, 2007 at 9:32 am
Hogarth: “‘Surge’ puts the emphasis on the increase in troops, while it should really be on the fundamental change in strategy.”
Ah, the Surge is a change in strategy. We’re ‘clearing and holding’, rather than ‘clearing and leaving’. The Surge is about denying the terrorists access to the population. Villages, towns and neighborhoods are closed off and access is allowed only for locals or for people, who have legitimate business there. Secure the population, turn on the terrorists and deny the bad guys territory.
We weren’t do this before. Now, we are and it’s working.
August 4th, 2007 at 10:10 am
It isn’t just their position on Iraq that’s going to cause a backlash against the Democrats. It’s everything they’ve done or not done since they took over Congress. Right now the attitude seems to be if we must have devils in office, let us choose the lesser of devils.
August 4th, 2007 at 10:55 am
JC:
You need to fix your link to U.S.News & World Report. You’ve got an extra URL in the middle of it.
August 4th, 2007 at 11:11 am
Thanks JM, all set now
August 4th, 2007 at 11:26 am
I would love it if there was no war. I was in a war, once, it made me late for supper. I don’t like being late for supper and I imagine that today’s young men (and now women) don’t like it either. Still, there are a significant percentage of Muslims that want to kill my grandchildren. Why, I don’t know. My Grandchildren haven’t ever mess with a Muslim, they’re too young.
Until, and unless the Democrats come up with a believable plan to keep the Muslims from killing my grandchildren, they don’t get my vote. It’s not that I particularly believe in the Iraq invasion, I still am not sure that we shouldn’t have just killed the Imans of Saudi Araabia and the Mullahs of Iran and then proceeded from there. But, for some reason, the US government, including many of the Democrats, chose Iraq. Then AlQ chose Iraq, too.
Well, since both the US Government and AlQ have chosen to fight in Iraq, kill the AlQ types there. I’m sorry about the innocent Iraqis but, fact is, I’d trade a whole lot of them for one of my grandkids. Selfish of me, I know.
August 4th, 2007 at 12:35 pm
You’re being too polite. The Dunkirk Democrats setting their party’s surrender policy call the Blue Dogs the Rabid Dog Democrats….
August 4th, 2007 at 12:56 pm
[...] the reality. Yes, Americans do want to win — but we’re not sure whether we [...]
August 4th, 2007 at 3:14 pm
The Dhim Cong seem to think that no one will remember their own rhetoric re. more troops and a different strategy. Rather than owning that rhetoric, they’ve moved the goal posts–once again. It is this, as much as their pushing for surrender, that turns me off. It shows their dishonesty, and their willingness to play politics with the lives of our troops. Disgusting.
August 4th, 2007 at 3:15 pm
Hogarth–excellent observation, “the Surge” is a very unwieldy name and has lead to widespread public misunderstanding. It is easily misconstrued—sometimes intentionally. Most pundits couldn’t even give a lucid discussion on what in entails. I’ve seen a perky MSNBC talking head talk about a possible increase in the size of the surge as a “surge of the surge”. That right there shows they have no idea what they are talking about. If the public were given an honest account of what’s involved they would be riveted. Who couldn’t be?
To some, “Surge” implies some sort of WWI or Civil War tidal surge of troops to the front lines for slaughter. The DailyKos is making ludicrous parallels to WWI trench warfare and human waves being mowed down by machine gun fire.
It should have been made abundantly clear that it is military shorthand for counterinsurgency strategy.
The democratic leadership went on the offensive seconds after the President finished his State of Union Address in January announcing the new strategy. Steny Hoyer stepped in front of the nearest camera and stated “I heard nothing new”. I was aghast. How could someone listen to this radical departure in strategy and not be impressed? How could they not want to get behind it? Answer: partisan politics.
This was a naked attempt to deceive fence sitters and his constituents who did not know what to make of what they just heard. Hoyer wanted to be the first on record to trash the new strategy. Hoyer was going to say that no matter what he heard.
Well, now Steny, Nancy, Harry, et al are going to have to answer for their “military expertise”. I look forward to hearing how they knew better that Petreaus, Keane, Kagan, and Kilcullen what strategy to use. Of course that day will never come. They, like the Kossacks, thought Bush created this strategy and therefore it had to bad. The Left’s leadership and marching morons disseminated the image of Bush as mad leader in a bunker drawing up war plans ignoring the advice of generals.
“Lincoln went through Gens. Burnside, Halleck, McClellan, McDowell, Pope, and Rosecrans before finding Grant, Sherman, Sheridan and Thomas. In World War II, we never did get Mark Clark out of Italy. No need to mention the train of generals in Vietnam before Creighton Abrams turned things around. Good generals study the errors of their predecessors as they wait for history’s call. In the case of Sherman and Grant, the key difference that marked them as great men, other than an instinctive genius for tactics and strategy, was insight into the mind of the enemy, especially his motivations and contradictions, and a complete calmness in the face of the battle hysteria around them and the backbiting at home.”
VDH—works and days
August 4th, 2007 at 3:54 pm
“Mother Sheehan takes Pelosi’s seat”
Well, why not. She is probably closer to the center of her districts political spectrum, and Hillary will support her, because there can only be ONE Queen Bee in a hive.
August 4th, 2007 at 6:14 pm
Hogarth;
You’d have a tough time documenting the assertion that Bush emphasized WMD; they took the headlines because that’s what media does: select and dramatize. The WH and State statements to press and all and sundry were detailed and far more balanced than the public ever heard.
August 4th, 2007 at 7:46 pm
Your argument makes little sense to me. The state of the war in Iraq has almost nothing to do with the Democrats. If the war in Iraq is lost, it is lost because it was not managed correctly. Obviously, if everything in Iraq was going great (maybe 10 hours of electricity a day) whatever negative things the Dems might say would be ignored. Obviously there is a basis for their concern and you calling them losers reflects your inability to accept the reality of the situation. If we lose the war in Iraq it won’t be because the Democrats say we lost, it will be a result of our failure to send the appropriate amount of troops, when they could be effective, our failure to have a cogent plan and/or system available to run Iraq after the government was dissolved, and our apparent lack of understanding of the Iraqi culture. The time you spend dreaming that this surge is either going to be sustainable, or successful, could have been time spent discussing how we are going solve the problem we have created in Iraq. To think that it is fantastic that 29% think that the surge is helping is a perfect illustration of the futility of our current course. Haven’t we been here several times in the past few years? I personally don’t think that an immediate withdrawl is smart , but if the President cannot accept reality and start to plan for a functional Iraq, the Democrats and their constituents will become increasingly vocal for immediate withdrawl. Approval for Congress is low because of the 29% who think the surge is working and that the Dems are “losers” and because of another 30% or so who are dissatisfied that the congress hasn’t already forced withdrawl from Iraq. Almost everyone else thinks we should have something in between. To think that there is going to be a backlash is a dream. If the two extremes don’t face reality and join to help promote a policy based on reality, Iraq wil fall even further toward chaos. I believe America is a great country and to remain great, we must have the courage to accept mistakes and demostrate the resolve to correct them.
August 5th, 2007 at 1:21 pm
Corran,
With luck we will correct the mistake and de-elect the democrats in 2008. They have shown that they are more interested in getting back in power than they are in protecting the country and they don’t really give a hoot for the troops. They will do and say anything to get elected. If their current policy doesn’t work, they will wipe it out and claim it never existed and here is their new policy that is sure to work.
What gets me is that they are like little kids who need instant gratification. If something does not happen in 5 minutes they want to go on to something else. In the meantime here is a poll that says thus and so. I really wonder why anyone with a mind and a thought in their head would ever vote for the LLL dems like Pelosi and Reid and especially, since I live in NY, Schumer and Hillary. If it moves, tax it. If it sits there, hand it money and tel it what you are doing for it if you vote for me. If you save your money, scrimp and work hard to get ahead, you are an enemy of the people and must be penalized. You can’t stand for anything because I may change my mind in one minute so everything has to change with me. And people vote for this claptrap!! Total nonsense. PT Barnum was right and Pelosi and Reid and Schumer and Durbin and Murtha are proof personified.
August 5th, 2007 at 3:39 pm
corran:
I disagree with the conduct of the GWOT in general, and the resulting occupation in Iraq in particular. There are many reasons for this, but I’m not going to rehearse them here. To say, however, that the dems in Congress have no part of whatever is wrong is disingenuous at the very least. I’ll site only one thing to prove my point: the enemy uses the words of Reid, Pelosi, Murtha, et al, to justify continuing the fight in Iraq. Having taken a page from General Giap’s play book, they know that all they have to do is blow up a few people everyday, and thereby keep the body-count leading the news, and it will be just a matter of time before America surrenders, leaving the field open to them.
When the dems come up with an alternate plan that doesn’t hand the enemy a victory, I’ll count them among the serious people. The enemy is counting on them pushing for surrender, because they know that is the only hope they have of winning.
August 5th, 2007 at 7:06 pm
Web Reconnaissance for 08/05/2007
A short recon of whats out there that might draw your attention updated throughout the dayso check back often. This is a weekend edition so updates are as time and family permits.
August 6th, 2007 at 4:24 pm
Rhomp2002
I feel your pain. I am a small businessman myself. The only disagreement I have is in your belief that the current Repubs are any different. In my state, until recently, we had a dem gov and repub House and Senate. The repubs were essentially worthless, in my mind. All they cared about were cutting taxes, gay marriage, whether or not there was prayer in school etc. I am not a huge fan of taxes, but when you have terrible roads, poor schools, huge deficits, etc. there is a point when telling constituents that your solution to everything is lower taxes, becomes hollow rhetoric. Also, these cut tax Repubs never exhibit the guts to cut the services necessary to balance budgets, because they know they won’t be re-elected. In addition whether gay people get married or not has virtually no effect whatsoever on my marrriage or life for that matter. Cutting taxes when we are spending Billions of dollars a week in a war shows a complete lack of courage. Essentially, our leadership is saying “I want a war but I’ll let future generations who aren’t going to vote for me pay for it.” This is not leadership in my mind. I agree with some of your points concerning the Dems but if you don’t use the same critical view toward Repubs, America will never be able to move forward. People of both parties have to find common ground and demand that our leaders follow us. A divided America doesn’t benefit Americans, it only benefits those who are dividing us.
August 6th, 2007 at 5:19 pm
Saltydog
I see your point. I guess I’m coming from a different place. OBL wants conflict. That is his business. My feeling is that W’s plan is no better than anyone else’s. We have been at it for years now and there is less oil, electricity, commerce, etc than ever before. You don’t think that this is a positive for OBL? If this goes on for 4, 10, 15 more years will that make it any less of a positive for him? OBL can fight this war for years, we can’t. Most experts say that the army in its current form cannot sustain this for even 2 more years much less a decade or more. If we withdraw into certain areas and only deal with security, borders, etc. it will force Iraq, and the region, to address these problems. The regional leaders are the most likely leaders to calm Iraq. We may not like how it turns out, but we have lost the luxury of being picky. As it stands, Iraq is headed toward a gov’t with a substantial Iranian influence. Is it worth many lives and a Trillion dollars to have Iraq become a staunch ideological ally of Iran? We could eliminate all of AlQ in Iraq right now and it would not solve the problems that exist. Like most things these days, we are being distracted. In my mind it is no more of a “loss” to try a different approach to Iraq than it is to have surge after surge with no real improvement. I doubt that OBL is sitting in a cave somewhere wringing his hands because he’s worried that the US won’t pull out of Iraq. He wants us there. His worry , in my mind, is that the leaders of the region will get together and find a solution, that excludes AlQ. Once the conflict ends, AlQ’s influence also ends. As long as there is chaos, in Iraq, AlQ is gaining recruits and can point to the lack of services and progress as proof that the infidels cannot provide a stable gov’t. In my mind this is not victory and it won’t be victory 10 years from now.