Chickenhawk macho
Painting lipstick on a pig, or "why don't they enlist"?
August 29, 2005
Just when you started to believe all of that doom and gloom from the dread "liberal" media about car bombs, and dead Americans and Iraqis piling up, we are proud to bring you good news through the alchemy of the chickenhawk conservative media. And it comes just in the nick of time, as the movement to withdraw from Iraq builds momentum. Even Republican Senator Chuck Hagel is beginning to notice the eery similarities between Iraq and Vietnam.
Pretty macho, aye? It takes guts to rally American kids to keep going off to Iraq to come back decapitated or in a box from behind the safety of an anchor desk at FOX.
Myth: The Iraqi constitution getting bogged down in intractable ethnic, regional and religious sectarianism is actually good, and the future is rosy
President Bush doesn't lack for critics when it comes to his Iraq policies, but the smartest and most devastating of these is Peter W. Galbraith, a former United States ambassador to Croatia.
Yesterday, after reading gloomy press accounts about the proposed Iraqi constitution, I thought it might be interesting to hear what Galbraith himself had to say. I finally tracked him down in Baghdad (at God knows what hour there) and found that far from lambasting Bush, Galbraith was more complimentary about what the administration has just achieved than anybody else I spoke to all day...
In the last election each group expressed its authentic identity, the Kurds by voting for autonomy-minded leaders, the Shiites for clerical parties and the Sunnis by not voting.
This constitution gives each group what it wants. It will create a very loose federation in which only things like fiscal and foreign policy are controlled in the center (even tax policy is decentralized). Oil revenues are supposed to be distributed on a per capita basis, and no group will feel inordinately oppressed by the others.
The Kurds and Shiites understand what a good deal this is. The Sunni leaders selected to attend the convention are howling because they are former Baathists who dream of a return to centralized power. But ordinary Sunnis, Galbraith says, will come to realize this deal protects them, too.
Galbraith says he is frustrated with all the American critics who argue that the constitution divides the country. The country is already divided, he says, and drawing up a constitution that would artificially bind three divergent societies together would create only friction, violence and civil war.
-- David Brooks, “Divided They Stand”, New York Times, 08/25/05
Human suffering must never be ignored, nor neglected, but it is still obvious that the humanitarian situation in Iraq has improved remarkably since Hussein was toppled. When taking other aspects of human rights into consideration, such as freedom of speech, it becomes even clearer that Iraq has made huge improvements.
More than ten TV channels have been founded since the end of the Hussein regime; there are hundreds of newspapers and the Iraqi people are getting more access to foreign media. Needless to say, this would have been impossible under the reign of Saddam Hussein.
When looking at the political and economic development of Iraq, it becomes even more obvious that things are getting better rapidly. According to The Economist, the Iraqi economy grew more than 30 percent in 2004 and it is predicted to grow at 34 percent this year. Iraq's "New Dinar" currency, introduced in 2003, has been performing strongly and it has appreciated by about 25 percent against the dollar in two years. The country's banking system has been modernized and Iraq is taking steps towards a functioning market economy.
To be sure, a war for the future of Iraq is going on. Terrorists are killing both civilians and soldiers and it is still a violent country. But we mustn't forget that things were a lot worse under the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein and that despite the terror, Iraq is improving steadily. If things continue to move in this direction, Iraq will emerge as a peaceful and prosperous country in the near future.
-- Christian Sandstrom, “Iraq Is Improving”, TechCentralStation.com, 08/15/05
Here's a brief overview of what we know about the war in Iraq so far:
--The war has been going on for 2 1/2 years.
--The government was overthrown, Saddam Hussein is sitting in prison.
--Control was handed over to the new Iraqi government early, elections were held and a new Constitution is being drawn up.
--We won.
--In 2 1/2 years, there have been just under 2,000 casualties...1,861.
--The war is being fought with an all-volunteer force.
Now, for the sake of comparison, and for the benefit of people like Chuck Hagel whose memory is a bit rusty, here are some Vietnam War facts:
--The conflict lasted, depending on how you look at it, 10-20 years.
--The ultimate result was the fall of South Vietnam to the communists.
--We lost.
--There were some 58,000 casualties.
--The war was fought with the presence of a draft.
Yeah...Iraq is just like Vietnam...not. It's interesting how the pro-appeaser defeatists want to throw in the towel just because some Islamic terrorists don't like democracy and the rule of law.-- Neal Boortz, “IRAQ NOTHING LIKE VIETNAM”, boortz.com, 08/19/05
REALITY
So David Brooks is against friction, violence and civil war in Iraq? Then he should realize that the majority of civil wars and other violent conflicts in the twentieth century followed the partitioning of post-colonial countries into ethnic regions (Yugoslavia, Northern Ireland, Chechnya, Kashmir, you get the idea). It’s not as if there are no Sunnis in predominantly Shiite areas or vice-versa. How does he suppose the local minorities will take to being subjugated within their region? Does he realize local governments in Iraq are already expelling minorities to strengthen their hegemony? Doesn’t he realize that, for example, Sunnis in majority Shiite areas might direct their terrorist attacks against their local government at the first sign of Shiite autonomy? Or that it is precisely the prospect of loose federalism and local autonomy that is causing Arabs to attack Kurds in Kirkuk? Oh wait, we forgot, David Brooks is a partisan hack and who will figure out a way to praise every development in Iraq.
Since Sandstrom is so enamored of The Economist, we’ll point to this article in the same publication that details the sectarian violence surrounding Kurdish attempts to strengthen their control over the north and Shiites over the south. And we can play the economics numbers game too. How about Iraq’s sky-high unemployment? Or this CNN report that Iraqi income is falling? We hope Sandstrom's optimism eventually proves right. It is not, however, an honest assessment of the facts - it's just another conservative attempt to paint lipstick on a pig.
Finally Boortz just stops making the argument that we are winning in Iraq and goes and declares victory (much like hawks did during the Vietnam War). Considering that far more troops have died since President Bush did his little "mission accomplished" dance on the Abraham Lincoln than before, it would be more accurate to say the war is far from over. Boortz also commits the classic conservative sin of trying to have it both ways, and trumpets the great success of Bush's war on the fact that casualty levels are below that of the Vietnam War. Well, thank God for that. But keep in mind that there is no end to the insurgency in site, and an adequate occupation force would necessarily lead to higher casualties. It is exactly the "Vietnam Syndrome" that dictates Rumsfeld's low occupation force numbers. These are some of the reasons why a lot of people want to get out now. If only the shouting heads would shut up and listen.
Myth: The Iraq is winnable, but only if the American people continue to support President Bush
Bush's support for the war is falling off like leaves in autumn. And that shouldn't be.
He should be able to articulate the reasons we're there without sounding like a broken record.
He should be able to say why we'll stay a certain length of time — long enough for them to get ready to protect themselves — and then if they seem like they will fail forever, we'll probably have to go, and say, "Hey, we gave it a good shot."
He should be able to convince people that this was a war worth fighting and it's a war worth winning. The latter is harder than the first. It's hard to hang in long enough to actually win. But it is worth it.
Can there be an Arab democracy? Lawrence of Arabia (search) tried, failed and walked away. Now the test of history for George W. Bush: Will he hang in? And can he explain it well enough that the American people will hang in with him?
-- John Gibson, “Test of History for George W. Bush”, Fox News, 08/15/05
These modern radical Leftists might not be wearing their old-fashioned Birkenstocks and tie-dyed t-shirts, but their cowardly, anti-American mentality is the same as it has always been. They don't want to pay the price for their own freedom, let alone anyone else's. Their last presidential nominee even threw his own Vietnam War medals away….
Conservatives, on the other hand, truly love freedom — so much so that when necessary, they are willing to fight to preserve and protect it, as well as to export it around the world and extend it to other peoples less fortunate than we are.
-- Nathan Tabor, “Liberals Hate Freedom, Not War”, RenewAmerica, 08/19/05
REALITY
Has it ever occurred to Mr. Gibson that the reason Bush is losing public support is not because of his admitted inarticulateness, but because his cause is weak? And because his administration lied to the world to mislead America into this war? Maybe he can’t convince Americans the Iraq war is worth fighting because all of his reasons for beginning it—links to Al Qaeda, weapons of mass destruction and democratization are going unfulfilled. Maybe he can’t convince Americans it’s worth winning because they realize it is unwinnable. Maybe if John Gibson were not such an ignoramus he’d realize that there are Arab democracies, namely Lebanon and Qatar.
Meanwhile Mr. Tabor turns the chickenhawk cluck into a scream. So he thinks conservatives are willing to sacrifice for freedom and liberals aren’t? Well then why doesn’t he enlist? Why are the children of every Republican in Washington, from Bush to the House and Senate staying safely at home? And does John Kerry throwing his medals in protest prove his point? Kerry served in Vietnam, and was awarded medals—George W. Bush has nothing from that era but a sketchy record in the champagne brigade of the Texas Air National Guard, and reputation for too much drinking. But most importantly, if conservatives will sacrifice for their freedom, why won’t they raise their taxes to give the troops adequate body armor, and not straddle our grandchildren with debt from this war?
