ARC's 1st Law: As a "progressive" online discussion grows longer, the probability of a nefarious reference to Karl Rove approaches one

Tuesday, January 09, 2007

I'm Not Sure Which is Worse: The Situation in Iraq or the Behavior of the Democrats

It is no secret that I was opposed to the Iraq war from the start. It was my opinion then, and now, that anyone with a lick of sense could see that what has come to pass was inevitable. Civil war was about the only possible result. Pax Americana was not feasible the way we went about things. My opposition was born of what has come to be called paleo-con thinking. Traditional conservative thought a la Pat Buchanan and Bill Buckley. I point this out only to establish my bona fides as both a conservative and an opponent of the war.

The question of whether to go to war has been mooted by time and events. What has not been mooted is how we fight the war. Were mistakes made? I think so.

We brought a knife to a gun fight.

This was not a war to fight with conventional forces in a conventional manner. In my opinion what was called for was covert war, asymetric warfare, of the dirtiest and wettest kind. Total all-out terror committed against the militant fascists and their secular allies like Hussein. We needed Bill Donnovan and Bill Casey not W.T. Sherman or George Patton. Kill the enemy and leave it to the Iraqis to sort out their own affairs after that.

But that is not the way we went. Other decisions were made based upon what we must assume was solid thinking. That the decisions turned out to be wrong is not something to second guess now. The issue is what do we do to rectify the situation?

That brings us to the Democrats. Do they bring anything helpful to the table? No. I am apalled. Their consistant anti-American stance, aided and abetted by the MSM, makes me cringe. It is clear that they think we have lost the war, though they lack the moral courage to even say that, and they want us to surrender as soon as possible by "redeploying."

And so we have Teddy (burrrrp, hic) Kennedy giving his prequel announcement of his opposition to the "troop surge" the President is likely to announce tomorrow. Imagine what the enemy, and our troops, must think of this sort of behavior. What is this man thinking?

And he is not the only one.

Frankly, I still think we are going about this is the wrong manner. I am not convinced that 20,000 or 100,000 more troops will make much if any difference. I do think certain individuals having unfortunate and fatal accidents could make all the difference in the world.

Chris Mathews asks an interesting question, "Can someone convince me that things will be any better five years from now then they are now?" A fair question that deserves a fair answer. Obviously more of same will not result in a good answer.

But the simple truth is, as Colin Powell pointed out: we broke it, we own it.



Your Co-Conspirator,
ARC: Monterey John

Comments (1)
St Wendeler said...

I supported the war and still have hope for the Middle East region. At the end of the day, allowing the region to foment in anti-Americanism and Islamofascism, combined with possible WMDs is not a recipe for American security in the 21st century.

And, the choice was not between invading Iraq and keeping the status quo. The choice was whether we would topple Saddam or whether he would be emboldened and resume his programs once the Oil-for-Fraud program ended).

With regard to the surge, I have a couple of issues. While I think additional troops will help in creating the security that has been needed since 2003, it's a change in the rules of engagement and the tactics on the ground that are needed. I'm heartened that General Petraeus will be the man leading this effort...

Time will tell.

I also think that it's good that we're coming through with economic assistance once security is established. Hopefully the funds are handled properly by the Iraqis.