April 27, 2007
WAITING FOR THE NEXT PRETEXT:
Iraq, and the Truth We Dare Not Speak: We must win American hearts and minds. (Victor Davis Hanson, 4/27/07, National Review)
Not long ago I talked to a right-wing hardnosed fellow in a conservative central California town about the need to stay and finish the task of stabilizing the democracy in Iraq and rectifying the disastrous aftermath of 1991. He wasn’t buying. Instead he kept ranting about the war in the ‘more rubble, less trouble’ vein. And his anger wasn’t only over our costs in lives and treasure. So I finally asked him exactly why the venom over Iraq. He shouted, “I don’t like them sons of bitches over there — any of ’em.” His was a sort of echo of Bismarck’s oft-quoted “The whole of the Balkans is not worth the bones of a single Pomeranian grenadier.” [...]A controversial and costly war continues, in part so as to give Arab Muslims the sort of freedom the West takes for granted; but at precisely the time that the public increasingly is tired of Middle Eastern madness. In short, America believes that the entire region is not worth the bones of a single Marine.
To counteract this, we need more clarity both here and abroad. First, the administration must articulate how our idealism is stark realism as well. Americans daily have to be reminded that consensual government in Iraq — not just plebiscites — is in our long-term strategic interest. Second, we should hear far more of Iraqi cooperation and joint operations, both military and civilian, that in fact do characterize this war and reveal an Arab desire to be free of the past. And third, far more long-suffering members of the Iraqi government need to express some appreciation for the American sacrifice — and express such gratitude to the American people directly.
We worry rightly about anti-Americanism and winning over the people of Iraq. But the greater problem, at least as we now witness it in the Senate and House, is winning back those here at home.
The reason presidents have always relied on false war provocations is because it's tough to get folks interested in fighting wars purely for others, which all of our wars--since the Revolution--have been. What's remarkable is actually that a country whose national security has so seldom faced any genuine threat has been at war for so much of its history. We've generally ended those wars badly, making the next inevitable, but the point is that we fight the next one too. Posted by Orrin Judd at April 27, 2007 9:15 AM
...fighting wars purely for others, which all of our wars--since the Revolution--have been.
Okay, I'm not disagreeing with your general point, but the War of 1812 is particular interest of mine, and that one was not fought for others.
Posted by: Brandon at April 27, 2007 10:41 AMI don't think many of us would care about the Middle East except for:
1) Oil.
2) Very bad things now come in small packages.
3) There are a lot of people - mostly from the Middle East - who are willing to bring those very bad things here and do us harm.
4) Those people can get here quickly and easily.
Posted by: Rick T. at April 27, 2007 10:43 AMHarry Reid was probably correct, from his point of view. That is, the war was lost here, in the good old USA and the winners were Academia, the MSM, Move on Org, left-wing progressive Democrats, Hollywood and other assorted useful idiots and fellow travelers. We are becoming the land of the lotus eaters, by default. A superpower no one can depend on
... and the rest of the world loves it ... until the next "big one" comes along.
The President thought it was.
Posted by: oj at April 27, 2007 1:17 PMAre you forgetting the Civil War?
Posted by: Brad at April 27, 2007 11:38 PMNo. It was especially unnecessary.
Posted by: oj at April 27, 2007 11:45 PMWhat a strange idea, that our wars have been fought for others.
Time does not now permit a systematic, war-by-war, "Fisking" of this fantasy. Let it suffice to say that we have always had some good-Samaritan pretext, some humanitarian fig-leaf for our steps on the road to Weltmachthaber status.
We do this to pay tribute to the virtues our enemies, foreign and domestic, would try to turn against us. In every case, however, there has been a concurrence of ideals and interest.
The irony of the present situation is that the peace-creep side has been maneuvered into hoolding that the people of Iraq would have ben better off if they were still being fed into Saddam Hussein's log chipper.
Posted by: Lou Gots at April 28, 2007 5:50 AMYou have that exactly backwards. All have been a matter of Samaritanism, but covered by a pretext of national security.
Posted by: oj at April 28, 2007 7:42 AM