Force in Iraq are seeking an exit strategy after months of deadly attacks have utterly sapped morale, shrunk the pool of new recruits, and left the movement rudderless and isolated among a large group of utterly unsympathetic people who have firmly rejected them.
That group is the Iraqi “insurgency”.
For the past two years, we’ve heard about how the Iraqis would bravely rise up and throw off their oppressors — except what the radical left (I’m looking at you, Michael Moore) didn’t get is that the United States wasn’t the oppressors — the real oppressors were the bloodthirsty terrorists and Ba’athist dead-enders who were indescriminately murdering the Iraqi people left and right while the Stalinists at ANSWER were cheering them on.
To think that not all that long ago (and probably still today) Democrats like Ted Kennedy were declaring this war all but lost shows how utterly and completely out of touch many in the Democratic Party are with reality. To compare Iraq to Vietnam is not only historically ignorant, it takes a complete and total lack of understanding of the Iraqi people. To those of us who viewed the Iraqi people as more the convenient political pawns, the events of the past three months have hardly been surprising.
Despite the fact that the term “neocon” has become a slur for many, it was the neocons who got this war right. In two years Iraq has gone from a dictatorship to a fledgling democracy. The “insurgency” continues to flag and al-Qaeda has failed to achieve the victory that they promised their fellow Islamists. The very fabric of terrorism — the idea that the faithful mujihadeen were fighting for the future of the Muslim world and could win against the United States has come crashing down. The ideological foundation of Islamism is being smashed by the will of the Arab peoples themselves.
And had Saddam Hussein remained in power, had President Bush followed the advice of his critics and engaged in a “dialog” with Yasser Arafat rather than treating him like the terrorist slimebag he was, had Bush followed the models so revered in Foggy Bottom and Brussels, the Arab peoples would have remained mired in totalitarianism and the revolutionary events of the past three months would have been never transpired.
It appears that the vision and will of the “idiot” from Texas was far greater than the narrowmindedness of his critics.
Well, I tried to do a trackback, but I’m new to those, and can’t seem to make it work.
So here’s my long comment:
Who’s the bigger Fool…
…The fool, or the fool that loses (and loses badly) an argument with him?
I can completely understand a principled argument against war. Indeed, I think you’d easily find that most people are anti-war. It’s just that some of us accept that sometimes, war really is the answer.
What I cannot understand is the head-in-the-sand approach to arguing against the Bush doctrine on the basis of believing the very worst of President Bush and the vilified neocons and the very best of our fascist enemies.
I’d like to believe our politicians are more responsible than all that. Those like Kennedy, Kerry and Dean make it hard to hold that belief.
It’s not that it’s just a difference of opinion where you can agree to disagree. It’s a total separation from reality. I suspect it comes from the abdication of moral principles in the pursuit of power.
Post-modern thought and the moral-relativism it advocates has wrought this. It is a remarkable theory, but what most liberals seem incapable of realizing is that, like quantum mechanics, moral-relativism works nicely at a micro (individual) level, but simply does not apply at a macro (societal) level.