Andrew Sullivan Misses the Point
Andrew Sullivan had this to say about the 2,000th military death in Iraq:
But the second temptation is to move the goalposts on this war and to expect the impossible. If someone had told me three years ago that by October 2005, Saddam Hussein's murderous tyranny would be over for ever, that Iraq would have a new constitution that emerged from a democratic process and that it will soon have a democratically elected parliament and government, I would have been thrilled. If I were further told that the inevitably embittered Sunni Arab minority had decided to throw itself into democratic politics to amend the constitution and protect its interests in a future Iraq, I would be amazed by how swiftly democratic habits can take root in a post-totalitarian country. If I had been told that, despite extraordinary provocation from Jihadist and Sunni Arab terrorists, the country had not dissolved into civil war, and that unemployment was dropping, I'd be heartened. If I had also been told that the United States had not suffered another major terror attack since the fall of 2001, I would have refused to believe it. The fact that the administration has made countless, terrible errors in the aftermath of the invasion and miscalculated badly on how the Baathists and Jihadists would fight back, should not distract us from these underlying realities. In 2002, I feared U.S. casualties approaching 10,000 in a brutal, urban war for Baghdad. The enemy gave us a simmering insurgency instead, shrewdly calculating that that was their best defense. They were right in the short term. But that makes it all the more imperative to prove them wrong in the long term. For the sake of the 2,000 who have already died; and the countless, innocent civilian Iraqis who have borne an even greater burden, let's do all we can to make this work.
And it's very well said. But he first talks about us having to avoid the temptation to move the goalposts for this war. The problem is it's the Administration that's constantly moving the goalposts! Had ANY of the reasons noted above been the primary reason for the war, the conservatives would've cried foul immediately. None of the reasons noted above were the justification for the war until after all the lies about WMD evaporated in a cloud of bullshit. None of the items noted above would've sold the American public then.
Further, the connection between the war in Iraq and the war on terror made in Mr. Sullivan's statement is very disappointing. Why is it that this is so damned difficult for even the most intelligent folks on the right to understand? In the middle of a reasonably well thought out discussion about Iraq he throws in "(Had I) also been told that the United States had not suffered another major terror attack since..." Sorry man, that dog won't hunt and the American People see it for the load of crap it is. 9/11 was the excuse for going into Iraq, nothing more. There isn't a connection. Never was, never will be.
As to all of the progress being made there, I just don't see it. Most of what I'm hearing these days tells me that their constitution is so watered down it isn't worth the paper it's written on. Further, because someone will ultimately need to clean up the mess and kill all of the "terrorists" now in the country, I believe we've likely traded one oppressive regime for another one in the very near future. For this and other reasons, I seriously doubt the history books will be kind to this Bush Presidency.
In my opinion, Mr. Sullivan's 2002 vision of how this war would roll out over time is really irrelevant. The fact that the Iraqi military disappeared into the woodwork as soon as the US tanks rolled in actually supports the theory that most of the drumbeat leading us to war was a complete fabrication. Think about it. Mr. Sullivan also seems to miss the fact that a terrorist state has now been created in the residual vacuum and for every "terrorist" we kill we seem to create 20. The math isn't working in our favor.
Lastly, as the ink is just now drying on indictments related to the crimes associated with the lies and intimidation tactics used by the Administration, you'd think a person of character would discuss the significance of the 2,000 deaths in relation to the means used. Successful ends may justify the means at times, but here? Doubtful.
Sadly, Mr. Sullivan chooses to go the typical Administration route and connect unconnected dots. In doing so, he indirectly supports a man I believe he's honestly embarrassed to have leading his party. Aren't we all?
But the second temptation is to move the goalposts on this war and to expect the impossible. If someone had told me three years ago that by October 2005, Saddam Hussein's murderous tyranny would be over for ever, that Iraq would have a new constitution that emerged from a democratic process and that it will soon have a democratically elected parliament and government, I would have been thrilled. If I were further told that the inevitably embittered Sunni Arab minority had decided to throw itself into democratic politics to amend the constitution and protect its interests in a future Iraq, I would be amazed by how swiftly democratic habits can take root in a post-totalitarian country. If I had been told that, despite extraordinary provocation from Jihadist and Sunni Arab terrorists, the country had not dissolved into civil war, and that unemployment was dropping, I'd be heartened. If I had also been told that the United States had not suffered another major terror attack since the fall of 2001, I would have refused to believe it. The fact that the administration has made countless, terrible errors in the aftermath of the invasion and miscalculated badly on how the Baathists and Jihadists would fight back, should not distract us from these underlying realities. In 2002, I feared U.S. casualties approaching 10,000 in a brutal, urban war for Baghdad. The enemy gave us a simmering insurgency instead, shrewdly calculating that that was their best defense. They were right in the short term. But that makes it all the more imperative to prove them wrong in the long term. For the sake of the 2,000 who have already died; and the countless, innocent civilian Iraqis who have borne an even greater burden, let's do all we can to make this work.
And it's very well said. But he first talks about us having to avoid the temptation to move the goalposts for this war. The problem is it's the Administration that's constantly moving the goalposts! Had ANY of the reasons noted above been the primary reason for the war, the conservatives would've cried foul immediately. None of the reasons noted above were the justification for the war until after all the lies about WMD evaporated in a cloud of bullshit. None of the items noted above would've sold the American public then.
Further, the connection between the war in Iraq and the war on terror made in Mr. Sullivan's statement is very disappointing. Why is it that this is so damned difficult for even the most intelligent folks on the right to understand? In the middle of a reasonably well thought out discussion about Iraq he throws in "(Had I) also been told that the United States had not suffered another major terror attack since..." Sorry man, that dog won't hunt and the American People see it for the load of crap it is. 9/11 was the excuse for going into Iraq, nothing more. There isn't a connection. Never was, never will be.
As to all of the progress being made there, I just don't see it. Most of what I'm hearing these days tells me that their constitution is so watered down it isn't worth the paper it's written on. Further, because someone will ultimately need to clean up the mess and kill all of the "terrorists" now in the country, I believe we've likely traded one oppressive regime for another one in the very near future. For this and other reasons, I seriously doubt the history books will be kind to this Bush Presidency.
In my opinion, Mr. Sullivan's 2002 vision of how this war would roll out over time is really irrelevant. The fact that the Iraqi military disappeared into the woodwork as soon as the US tanks rolled in actually supports the theory that most of the drumbeat leading us to war was a complete fabrication. Think about it. Mr. Sullivan also seems to miss the fact that a terrorist state has now been created in the residual vacuum and for every "terrorist" we kill we seem to create 20. The math isn't working in our favor.
Lastly, as the ink is just now drying on indictments related to the crimes associated with the lies and intimidation tactics used by the Administration, you'd think a person of character would discuss the significance of the 2,000 deaths in relation to the means used. Successful ends may justify the means at times, but here? Doubtful.
Sadly, Mr. Sullivan chooses to go the typical Administration route and connect unconnected dots. In doing so, he indirectly supports a man I believe he's honestly embarrassed to have leading his party. Aren't we all?
posted by crackerdog at 5:57 PM
<< Home