The Fifth Horseman: Fantasies from the Right Wing...

Thursday, August 18, 2005

 

Fantasies from the Right Wing...

If there's one thing the Iraq War, and the Cindy Sheehan protest specifically, has taught me, it is this: The Far-Right is completely out of touch with reality.

Despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary (mounting death tolls, sectarian infighting, increasingly sophisticated guerilla tactics, etc), many right-wing crazies still insist that we are winning the Iraq War.

In order to get a feel for the depths of their depravity, let's examine some right-wing quotes about the Iraq War:

"How do you want to be remembered in history? Do you want to be part of an America that faced terrorism down, and established democracy where evil men would rule, or do you want to be part of an America that quit?"
--The Confederate Yankee

"All of us must demand victory. Things aren't going well, improve. Sure, war is hell, but wars are won by those who are smart and tough."
--Bill O'Reilly

"Pulling troops out prematurely will betray the Iraqis. Our mission in Iraq, as I said earlier, is to fight the terrorists, is to train the Iraqis. And we're making progress training the Iraqis."
--President Bush, August 11th

"I believe that Iraqis will save Iraq..."
--Lt. Gen. David Petraeus

Hmm...if you listen to the words of the right-wing, it would seem that we are winning the war in Iraq. However, the facts beg to differ.

This raises one interesting question: does the Right Wing actually believe that we are winning in Iraq, or are they simply distorting facts to save face?

Sadly, I suspect the latter. Why?

Despite the Right Wing's optimistic words, its actions indicate that they realize the Iraq War is unwinnable. Follow this link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/13/AR2005081300853_pf.html.

In the end, it all boils down to this: there are really only two explanations this inconsistency. Either the Far Right is completely out of touch with reality, and believes we are actually winning in Iraq, or they realize that the situation is becoming worse, yet refuse to acknowledge their mistakes to the public.

Either way, this means bad news for the rest of us.

Comments:
So what do we do? We broke them, don't we have an obligation now to try and fix them?

If we pull out now, we leave them at the mercy of all the foreign terrorists who we attracted in by our presence. Those guys will set up a Taliban government that we'll have to smack down five years from now.

We should admit we fucked up. But since we have already fucked up, shouldn't we try to make it better?
 
So, Iraqis think we are winning (there are actually fewer civilian deaths from the war and terrorism in Iraq than under Saddam in peacetime), the terrorists complain in captured communications that they are losing, Iraq has had hugely successful elections faster and with a better turnout than they did in either German or Japan after WWII, Iraq's Constitution in 95% complete in less than a year when it took us a decade to ratify ours in the United States, and we're losing this war how?

If you said prior to the invasion in 2003 that by 2005 we would have destroyed the Baath Party, captured Saddam, set up a provisional government, had popular elections with high voter turnout, and were on the cusp of having a constitution signed in 2005, all with less that 2,000 American dead, they would have called you delusionally optomistic.

As you consider all of these near miraculous events a disaster, I'd strongly suggest that you , and American liberals in general, are the delusion ones.
 
A response to the first comment:

Indeed, I do agree that we need to stay in Iraq. I don't like it, but we created this mess, and it's our responsibility to fix it.

However, I would like to get some answers from the administration to questions such as "why are we in Iraq in the first place?" No WMD's: Saddam wasn't a threat to us. I want to know why we have to be stuck there.

However, although I'm resinged to the fact that we're effectively stuck in Iraq, there may come a point when the costs of remaining in Iraq outweigh the benefits of keeping our troops there. I'm not sure when (or if) that time will come, but it is a distinct possibility.

However, I would still like some answers from Dubya and I want those who misled us into this war to be held accountable for their actions.
 
Now, a response to the second comment:

My friend, your logic is sadly short-sighted.

Of course we're winning the immediate campaign, just as we had a millitary victory in the Tet Offensive and over North Vietnam. We outnumber the insurgents and have better weaponary and equipment in all areas. However, the long-term consequences of this war are dire enough to render any current victory completely phyrric.

This war in Iraq is breeding the next generation of Islamic nsurgents, by outraging the Muslim world and providing a live-fire training ground for millitants. Much like the Soviets in 1980's Afghanistan, we are fueling the next breed of terrorism ten to twenty years down the line. This has been confirmed by CIA analysts. (I can't find the report now, but when I do, I'll post the link)

Sure we have a dummy constitution. Sure, we had parliamentary elections. But all those "succeses" pale in comparison to the destruction and death our jingoistic war will cause ten years down the line. Rather then creating stability in the Middle East, (as certain right-wingers claim Iraq to be a model of) we have destablized the entire region by strenghting the cause of millitant extremism.
 
You seek to attach Afghanistan and Vietnam to Iraq... and yet the comparisons are not remotely similar.

In Vietnam, we never had ground or air control over the country, never even trying to invade the North. We never destroyed the NVA, where we decimated the Iraqi Army in 3 weeks.

You also forget the Viet Cong was crushed in the Tet Offensive and was never a viable fighting force afterward. Other than the fact that these were both insurgent movements, they have nothing in common.

Ditto Afghinstan, as while the Russians took a decade of bloody warfare to withdraw, we defeated them in weeks except for small terrorist units along the border.

Your Afghanistan/Iraq "breeding ground is especially wrong. In the 1980s, tens of thousands of Jihadists flooded over the border each month, and fought with the backing of a major superpower. Today in Iraq, less than a few hundred Jihadists come across the border into Iraq, and most end up dying.

If you mean by "outraging the Islamic world" you mean "making them rebel for freedom" you would be correct. To say anythng else is tone deaf to reality. Lebanon has already had the Cedar Revolution and both Syria and Iran are near to overthrowing their governments from within by rising democracy movements.

You would truth the CIA---the same guys who misled Bush on WMDs? Good luck with that.

The Middle East has not been stable since the dissolution of the Caliphate. Anything we do can't hurt, and if what we are trying works, it could make the region more stable than it has been in centuries.

This is what Bush is offering.

Liberals? Hot air, but nothing else.
 
Ah, sadly you are incorrect on several facts, my friend.

First of all, the CIA did not mislead Bush. Bush deliberately misused the information from his inelligence sources. In the build-up to the war, the vast majority of those in the intelligence community asserted that there were no WMD's in Iraq. However, about 30% of the intelligence commmunity believed that there still were WMD's. Bush chose to ignore the advice of the majority of his advisors, and went with the minority that adovcated faulty intelligence. So, don't try to blame the CIA for Bush's crooked misdoings.

Frankly, the argument that the Iraq War is "making them rebel for freedom" is quite laughable. To expose this, let's examine one of our closest allies: Pakistan. Pakistan is ruled by a secular, pro-America millitary dictatorship. If the people of that nation were given true freedom, they would immediatly overthrow the secular government and install radical, anti-American clerics in power. This holds true with many of our other allies (Egypt, and Saudi Arabia, for example). In fact, this is happening in Iraq right now, where the most powerful political party is headed by Muslim clerics.

For the vast majority of Muslims in the Middle East, freedom means this: Islamic law, no Americans, and peace. It's a completely different mind-set: we're just too narrow-minded to comprehend it.

And as for these looming Syrain and Iranian revolutions-I'd say they're mostly hot air. We'll just have to wait and see who's right. Personally, if I were a Syrian or an Iranian, I would have little incentive to rebel for "freedom".

Why? Because Iraq, supposedly a model of freedom, has degenerated into a pitched war zone. The common thought in their heads is likely something along the lines of: "If freedom means millitants duking it out with tanks in my back yard, then count me out."

Honestly, I can't say I blame them.
 
I would ask Anonymous #2 what sources he has for the statements that: 1) There are fewer civilian deaths now than under Sadaam, and 2) The terrorists are "complaining" that they're losing. I would also point out that there's a HUGE difference between WRITING a constitutin, and RATIFYING one. Sloppy debate tactics there, Anonymous #2.

Anonymous #3 should provide support for his assertion that hundreds of jihadists are coming across the border, and I would assert that we didn't crush the Iraqi army; they melted away, and we're fighting them right now.

And I would remind both that, until Mr. Bush's little adventure in Iraq started, that nation had fuck-all to do with Mr. Bin Laden or Al Queda.
 
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?