Wheels Come Off Neo-Con Bus
Conservatives Are Thrown Under
By -Jefferson Paine
It's time for true Conservatives to admit that the Battle in Iraq has ground to a halt and recognize that we should support pulling back militarily from the quag in which it has become mired.
To tweak the metaphor a bit more - the wheels have come off the Neo-Con bus, and Conservatives should be tired of being thrown under it.
The U.S. met its military objectives long ago - with the crushing defeat of Iraq's military, plucking Saddam Hussein from a spider-hole to face justice (string him up already!), and the long-overdue mission of verifying his ongoing schemes of illegal weapons programs.
But, the Neo-Con mission careened way off track and into the bog when the victory conditions morphed ineptly into imposing peace and harmony throughout Iraq and the region. These new victory conditions of forcing a "democratic" nirvana in Iraq were NOT specified by the force-authorization vote in Congress - which, by the way, was signed by nearly every liberal in Congress (although they lie about it now).
The latter fact notwithstanding, we can write off the Left in this argument - for they would despise Bush no matter what his actions - if he created programs to feed forlorn puppies and kittens, he would robotically be condemned by liberals for favoring the white kittens over the darker ones, and be accused of causing the achievement-gaps among the runts of the litters.
But we must come to terms with the fact that Bush's Iraq policy, right now, is severely fracturing the Right, and threatens to cripple future Republican prospects into the foreseeable future!
To come to grips with this murky state of affairs, it is necessary to recognize that defining victory in Iraq as forcing peace and harmony (ensuring "stability and security") and imposing "democracy" through foreign military coercion is sheer Neo-Con fantasy. (Note: Neo-Cons are not Conservatives at all - they are virulently for big-government socialism and coercion - "compassionate conservatism") Conservatives rightly know that this policy is antithetical to forbidding U.S. military engagements from foreign nation-building, and of the adherence to exclusively protecting our national interest.
It is precisely by this over-reach, the rejection of traditional conservative foreign policy by which Neo-Cons have augered U.S. prestige into a marshy ditch. And it is precisely these morphed, utopian victory conditions which precipitated the fact that the Neo-Con administration can no longer tell you how victory will be achieved because its measure is nebulous at best - not to mention the impossibility of imposing a Mid-Eastern utopia.
Conservatives must ask, and Neo-Cons must answer, the following questions:
1) When in history has democracy successfully been imposed upon other people?
2) From what historical precedent do we believe this is possible in the Middle East?
3) From what authority do we believe that the U.S. Military shall be employed to achieve this?
After our commander-in-chief has polled everyone in sight as to devising his brand new strategy for extracting us from the quagmire, as we sit here poised to endure the Bush administration's looming "Surge" strategy for victory in Iraq, we must pose the ultimate challenge to our Neo-Con friends:
How large a surge, exactly, in American blood, lives, and treasure is required to achieve "victory" in Iraq? And how exactly will we know when we've achieved it!?
How can a successful strategy ever be devised when the definition of victory keeps morphing into something which has yet to be defined (as witnessed by month after month of polling), its measure is vague at best ("stay the course"), its justification has near evaporated ("create democracy"), its authorization is non-existent (coercion "makes us safer"), and its viability has never been proven possible through historical precedence?
Is it not time for true Conservatives to be heard by denouncing this tragic Neo-Con folly in Iraq, and support a rational military pull-back in Iraq - reallocating resources to the larger War against Islamo-Fascism, and securing our national borders from invasion?
Brace yourselves, the Neo-Cons (right-wing totalitarians) will relentlessly howl "surrender", "cut and run", and the like when confronted by ANY attempt to detract them and expose their Middle East fantasy. And Conservatives should roundly expose these slogans as Neo-Con Propaganda which, by design, they virulently employ at every turn not only to brow-beat the Left (impossibly), but expressly to shame Conservatives into to continuing to go along for the ride.
Is it not time for Conservatives to stand up and call it like it is in Iraq?
~Jefferson Paine~
1.First of all it is not being imposed upon the Iraqi people. They voted for it in overwhelming numbers that put our own election turn out to shame. If it was imposed upon them they would not have been allowed to vote for it and if they had voted against it the interim government would have had to go back to the drawing board. I was there when this happened as security for the embassy and believe me we all held our breath when the vote occured, because of all the very long sessions that went into coming up with this form of Democracy(we had to stand guard outside the offices in the green zone and many of these times we had to be rotated out due to the length, 12-20 hours of meeting times).
2.From what historical precednt could we determine that Democracy would work anywhere that it had not been before to include the united states? Until something is tried you can not say it will not work.
3.The US Constitution grants the President the right to use the US Military to protect America's intrests abroad. Some feel that this does not work in this situation, but I believe it does. Regardless of the reason we are in Iraq we cannot leave until the coutries fledgeling government can stand up for itself. Not so much for their sake, but for ours. If we leave now you will see an all out civil war between the Sunni's (led by AL Qaeda) and the Shite's(led by Iran). Which ever side wins we loose. If the Sunni's (Al Qaeda win) they have a new base of operations, not to mention oil revenue, to launch more attacks against America and if the Shite's (Iran)win you are creating a much larger Iran and it will be much harder to launch any kind of attack against a fanatical leader hell bent on bringing about the 12th Imam and has called for the destruction of the United States. In other words either outcome is bad for us and therefore it is in our intrest to make certain this does not happen.
As for Iraq, policies do need to be changed. Obviously the status quo is not working and all this partisan bickering from both sides does not do any good. We also need to see a change in the propganda war. As of now all we see day in and day out in the MSM is what the terrorists want us to see and what is meant to demoralize our nation and get us to say enough is enough. We also need to stop tying the hands of our military. Being thoughtful of civilian damages is one thing, but if we went to the extents we go to today during World War II we would all be speaking German about now. We have to stop looking at this war on terror through Western eyes and realize that our enemies see our compasion as a weakness. I do believe that we should try to minimize civilian casulaties, but if a terrorist is at a funeral for a dead terrorist (i.e.Afghanistan) we bomb the crap out of them then and there.
Posted by: TrueSoldier on December 28, 2006 06:55 PMLest I be misunderstood, by “pull back” I mean to regroup, in the War against Islamo-fascism, into an effective formation other than sitting ducks for terrorist insurgents – but, nonetheless, I mean a smaller Mid-East force dedicated to protecting Kuwait and the oil fields for instance, while continuing to provide the Iraqi government with advice, training, and the blueprints for democracy – but not unending American bloodshed and mega-$billions of our wealth while our nation remains a gaping sieve.
Remember the old adage, “You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make it drink.”? We’ve led Iraq to water’s edge a while ago – let’s see if she has the will to gulp up some democracy. If there are so many droves of Iraqis yearning to be free, great, let’s see them secure it for themselves. Only then will true democracy take root – if we continue to supply “security” then we’ll probably wind up maintaining yet another Korea, Bosnia, or Germany, where we take the risk and bullets while their governments give back typically soft, unappreciative, and resentful support.
Our form of government IS being imposed on Iraq – do you actually think that would have happened spontaneously without U.S. intervention and occupation? The vote was wonderful, but by itself, does not constitute the sort of democracy we’re trying to create. E.g. A majority could always vote to subjugate the minority. If we believe in providing them American democracy, then why would we have disarmed all of the “good” factions in Iraq, while we maintain our own second amendment? But, the answer to this question only helps make my point..
Again, don’t get me wrong, if democracy somehow flourishes in Iraq and somehow benefits the U.S., then great – but I have grave doubts about this happening anytime soon (this century?). How much American blood and wealth will it cost in order for this to occur is what I’m asking?
Historical precedent is important because it informs us of the probability of success. Sure, there’s a first time for everything, but what indications are there that peace and harmony will break out in Iraq at this point? And, it’s not true that history cannot inform us until we try. Japan was the model for imposing Western style democracy – but the conditions for its successful implementation were radically different than we find in Iraq.
I’m not disputing the President’s legal authority to employ the U.S. armed forces; a large number on the Right are now questioning his political authorization for unending nation-building, and most Americans are now seriously questioning his judgment – especially after firing the SecDef the DAY AFTER the previous election, changing the perennial “we’re winning” to the slogan “we’re not winning; we’re not losing”, and abjectly failing to secure our own borders in this nation while cutting back-room deals with the likes of Vicente Fox and slandering the new Minuteman movement as “vigilantes”. Shame on Neo-Cons..
So, what if the Sunnis and Shiites cut each others’ throats. Sorry – not my fault. Let them expend untold lives and resources fighting each other over there. The U.S. military is charged with keeping us safe here.
We'll see how well the new surge strategy works out (and add it to the acculmuating lessons learned - historical precedence).
I think the metastasizing insurgency of illegal aliens is a much more virulent problem facing our nation than the realistic risk of "terrorism" at this point. This is where we should be directing the majority of our national security efforts into the forseeable future.
Again, time will tell. But, the hour is late - and unless we wake up to the slow-motion implosion of Amercian society, perhaps too late.
Posted by: Jefferson Paine on December 29, 2006 12:26 PMPagar,you hit the nail on the head. Between the MSM and the majority of D's it is no wonder why things have gotten even worse in Iraq. Though here is an intresting fact that was not shared in the MSM.
This last October was not the bloodiest October in Iraq since the 03 invasion. 2005's October had more US deaths that 2006 and of course the month of October is marks the holy month of Ramadan where if you die as a martyr during Ramadan you automatically go to the preverbial head of the line in heaven.
As for the MSM did you all see that CNN has the terrorist sniper videos as an on demand feature through Sunday night. In other words you can go click on it any time on your cable tv and watch it over and over again. How much you want to bet you wont see the same thing with the video of Saddam's hanging when it becomes available(and it will be due to the Iraqi govt announcing they will video tape the whole thing from him leaving his cell until he stops twitching)?
Posted by: TrueSoldier on December 29, 2006 04:17 PMWhen the message from the left to the US military and the US Border Patrol is that;
we have the power to destroy you, if you insist on defending the United States-
That is a chilling message.
Here's the chilling question though: We've all known this for YEARS, so why has Bush so utterly shirked his Constitutional duty in leaving us wide open still, while continuing to spend untold numbers of lives and American treasure grasping at "security" in a foreign land instead??
Posted by: Jefferson Paine on December 29, 2006 05:08 PMThen at some point they got the word that supporting terrorists was more important than supporting America.
Posted by: pagar on December 29, 2006 05:32 PM