Monday, December 18, 2006
The chase
Andy McCarthy at NRO has done a good job of laying out the desperate mindset of pro-war Americans. I've said pieces of this before, but McCarthy ties it together eloquently:
I am personally opposed to leaving Iraq right now, but I believe there are good faith arguments for doing so being made by a lot of patriotic people. They are not "cut and run" types (quite the opposite), and they hardly believe we have met our match or been defeated by our enemies.
Instead, they say: This is a broader war than just Iraq. The administration's narrow focus on bolstering a dubious Iraqi government does not recognize, much less provide a strategy for winning, the greater war against militant Islam and its state sponsors.
Many (but by no means all) of these people also believe a major problem we face is Islam itself: i.e., that in its most authentic and dynamic form, it is fundamentally anti-democratic, anti-West, and anti-Semitic.
Consequently, these folks collectively believe that the imperatives the Bush administration has made of supporting the Maliki government and democratizing the greater Muslim world – Iraq being a test-case thereof – are unwise. They see popular elections (which the administration tries to sell as democratic elections)raising Islamists to power, they see Maliki supporting Hezbollah and making nice with Ahmadinejad, and they say: Why the hell are we putting our best and bravest in harm’s way for this?
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Here's what it feels like:
We bought this Bushmobile on false advertising, claiming that it was a high-powered conservative vehicle that would take the war to the enemy. The slogan was "Either you're with us or you're against us." Now we've got two years left on the 8-year lease, and we've unfortunately found the Bushmobile has about 20 horsepower and seems perfectly willing to yield to all enemies, internal and external. We tried to make it go faster; we bought bonds, supported, campaigned and voted for the party, and expressed our opinions. All of the legal methods have been tried, and still it just putters along.
There are two possible outcomes.
One, we pull off the road and let the enemy take us with as little bloodshed as possible.
Two, a third-party candidate with enough fame and credibility emerges, and figures out how to release the parking brake.
Even then, it's not at all clear that our system would let him act or survive.
When the correct course of action is absolutely obvious from history and human nature, and when the existing government has proved itself to be totally incapable of pursuing the correct course of action ... at some point people will work outside the existing government to get the job done. That point hasn't arrived yet, but it will sooner or later. (Yes, we do already have people like Jimmy Carter working outside the existing government, but they are working for the enemy.) ¶ 12:20 AM
I am personally opposed to leaving Iraq right now, but I believe there are good faith arguments for doing so being made by a lot of patriotic people. They are not "cut and run" types (quite the opposite), and they hardly believe we have met our match or been defeated by our enemies.
Instead, they say: This is a broader war than just Iraq. The administration's narrow focus on bolstering a dubious Iraqi government does not recognize, much less provide a strategy for winning, the greater war against militant Islam and its state sponsors.
Many (but by no means all) of these people also believe a major problem we face is Islam itself: i.e., that in its most authentic and dynamic form, it is fundamentally anti-democratic, anti-West, and anti-Semitic.
Consequently, these folks collectively believe that the imperatives the Bush administration has made of supporting the Maliki government and democratizing the greater Muslim world – Iraq being a test-case thereof – are unwise. They see popular elections (which the administration tries to sell as democratic elections)raising Islamists to power, they see Maliki supporting Hezbollah and making nice with Ahmadinejad, and they say: Why the hell are we putting our best and bravest in harm’s way for this?
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Here's what it feels like:
We bought this Bushmobile on false advertising, claiming that it was a high-powered conservative vehicle that would take the war to the enemy. The slogan was "Either you're with us or you're against us." Now we've got two years left on the 8-year lease, and we've unfortunately found the Bushmobile has about 20 horsepower and seems perfectly willing to yield to all enemies, internal and external. We tried to make it go faster; we bought bonds, supported, campaigned and voted for the party, and expressed our opinions. All of the legal methods have been tried, and still it just putters along.
There are two possible outcomes.
One, we pull off the road and let the enemy take us with as little bloodshed as possible.
Two, a third-party candidate with enough fame and credibility emerges, and figures out how to release the parking brake.
Even then, it's not at all clear that our system would let him act or survive.
When the correct course of action is absolutely obvious from history and human nature, and when the existing government has proved itself to be totally incapable of pursuing the correct course of action ... at some point people will work outside the existing government to get the job done. That point hasn't arrived yet, but it will sooner or later. (Yes, we do already have people like Jimmy Carter working outside the existing government, but they are working for the enemy.) ¶ 12:20 AM
