Uh, War Still On
Captain’s Journal, run by a pair of Marine dads one of whom is back from an extensive combat embed, recommends a long view on Iraq and Afghanistan at a time when the nation is decidedly out of focus on the issue. Here’s Spiri, post-embed, re carrying on.Â
Meanwhile, erstwhile fan of jacked-up Iraqi civilian death toll rediscovers his skepticism, without ever letting it go. Immoderate Mullen at Moderate Voice while acknowledging he was way off when he embraced Lancet’s politically motivated death tally, makes the remarkable statement that the Iraq war is something Iraqi civilians “neither invited nor deserved.” That’s an assessment that has a bit of a happy-kite-flying-nation quality to it, ignores the bloody reality of Kurdish and Shiite resistance to Saddam and the welcome U.S. troops received in 2003 from Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds upon being freed from Saddam’s reign of terror. It also ignores the reality that Shiites struggled for three years to avoid reacting to Sunni extremist provocations until the February 2006 Samarra attack. Iraq war critics have said you can’t just give people freedom and democracy. They have to earn it. The tragic reality is that that is what the Iraqis are doing, as they come to terms with 35 years of being violently pitted against each other, on top of centuries of Sunni minority domination. The Sunni and Shiite awakenings suggest they are making headway.
To embrace Mullen’s skepticism for a moment, I suppose we should consider these guys hapless American stooges.
Mullen’s offhand dismissal of reality would be irrelevant, except that he is not alone. There are a lot of people who would consider it preferable that Iraq remain under Saddam’s bloody rule to this day, presumeably on the theory that this violent ethnic power struggle would never happen, or that if it did, it would be preferable that we were not there to contain it and keep Iran at arm’s length. A bunch of them are running for president now. People who think the war is over might elect one of them.
I’ll take a wild guess that Mullen’s amnesia extends to the United States’ regime-change policy of the 1990s. I bet he remembers where Hill stood in 2003 better than she does, though.Â
Meanwhile, Gateway notes the unease of a pol pantsed for being against the surge before he was for it.
Posted by Jules Crittenden at 7:07 am on Monday, January 7, 2008
6 Responses to “Uh, War Still On”
Leave a Reply
Trackback URLYou must be logged in to post a comment.
January 7th, 2008 at 7:30 am
No doubt. The average attention span of the average American with the microwave mentality is around .15 nanosconds.
January 7th, 2008 at 10:02 am
[...] Jules Crittenden reminds her that the war she authorized is doing well. [...]
January 7th, 2008 at 11:30 am
Web Reconnaissance for 01/07/2008
A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day…so check back often.
January 7th, 2008 at 12:43 pm
Captain’s Journal always has really good insight and I really liked Jim Spiri’s most recent post. The average attention span of the average American with the microwave mentality is around .15 nanosconds. I haven’t heard that one, Snooper, that’s an interesting analogy. I’ve been partial to Americans having the “Drive-Thru” mentality, meaning if there’s a long line they just shift their focus somewhere else (so something like the Long War gets pushed aside for the latest Britney Spears debacle).
January 7th, 2008 at 4:59 pm
Did anybody check in at the beginning of the war? I vaguely remember the President saying something to the effect that this wasn’t going to be a quick thing because of the enemy that we were fighting. Something to the effect (paraphrasing) of a multinational vietcong. I understood what he was saying when he mentioned something about a long time.
His message to congress: “Americans are asking, “How will we fight and win this war?”
We will direct every resource at our command — every means of diplomacy, every tool of intelligence, every instrument of law enforcement, every financial influence and every necessary weapon of war — to the destruction and to the defeat of the global terror network.
Now this war will not be like the war against Iraq a decade ago, with a decisive liberation of territory and a swift conclusion. It will not look like the air war above Kosovo two years ago, where no ground troops were used and not a single American was lost in combat.
Our response involves far more than instant retaliation and isolated strikes. Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign unlike any other we have ever seen. It may include dramatic strikes visible on TV and covert operations secret even in success.
We will starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another, drive them from place to place until there is no refuge or no rest.
And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation in every region now has a decision to make: Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. ” The Indianapolis Star 9-21-01.
Seemed pretty clear to me and everyone that I talked to.
January 8th, 2008 at 4:34 am
And it isn’t working out, now is it. I’m as pro-war as the next person here, but I do not think we have addressed the problem nearly forcefully enough. For all of the brilliance of our military, we not only still deal with terror countries, but we are slowly turning over Israel to terrorists. Slow and easy isn’t doing anything but draining us. It won’t end well.