Through the looking glass with Podesta, Takehy and Korb
This has got to be the at once the most chilling and the most silly thing I've read about Iraq for some time.
The three partisan Leftists who wrote the article- former Clinton advisor John Podesta, Council on Foreign Relations Fellow Ray Takehy, and Center for American Progress Fellow Laurence Korb- seem consumed with a lust for surrender that utterly blinds them to reality. The comparison of Iraq to Vietnam was silly back when it was first made; at the risk of repeating myself for the thousandth time, at the height of American casualties in Iraq we were on a pace to match our Vietnam casualties sometime in the next century. Furthermore- although the three authors of the article seem to have been marooned on a desert island for several months- there is an even greater difference between Vietnam and Iraq: we lost in Vietnam, but are currently winning in Iraq.
Yes, that's what I said. And it doesn't matter how many arbitrary benchmarks the government may or may not have met. No objective observer questions that substantial progress has been made toward stability in Iraq. Long-time critics of our occupation like Anthony Cordesman are coming to the conclusion that
But the authors of the Post piece haven't heard the news. They're still living in a time when the cause of the Iraqi government seemed hopeless. And they seem not to have noticed the precipitate fall in casualty levels in Iraq, both American and Iraqi. Iraqis who once fled their country are now coming home. Yet so great is the desire of Podesta, Takehy, Korb and those like them to see the United States fail in Iraq that they simply can't accept that an case which seemed compelling only a few months ago simply cannot be sustained today.
And this may be the most chilling paragraph I've read in some time:
Can it really be that men with the credentials of Podesta, Takeyh and Korb believe that all that is necessary for the quarreling factions in Iraq, which have been at each other's throats for centuries, to find their own solutions to their differences is for the American forces that are keeping them from each other's throats to bug out and let them have at each other? Do they actually believe that al Quaeda is going to turn all soft and cuddly and reasonable if those nasty Americans simply go away?
Do these gentlemen actually think one can negotiate with this?
What Podesta, Takeyh and Korb call "entirely possible" is in fact so highly unlikely that their glib willingness to try it out and see even in the face of the generally accepted likelihood that a premature American withdrawal would turn Iraq into another Darfur is nothing less than chilling. It raises the question of whether opponents of the war have more confidence of the ability of Iraqis to solve their own problems, merely care less about the fate of Iraq and its people than they do about America losing this particular war, George W. Bush's historical humiliation for having begun it maximized, and- they're quite frank about this one- electing a Democrat to the White House this November.
There's nothing wrong with partisanship. But when it speaks with a louder voice than compassion for the people of Iraq and at least a half-hearted desire to see one's own nation prevail in a war against barbarians, something is wrong. This article is, I think, a foretaste of the debate over Iraq we're going to have during the Fall campaign.
If so, I have sufficient faith in the decency of my countrymen to believe that Podesta, Takehy and Korb- and those like them- will be disappointed.
The three partisan Leftists who wrote the article- former Clinton advisor John Podesta, Council on Foreign Relations Fellow Ray Takehy, and Center for American Progress Fellow Laurence Korb- seem consumed with a lust for surrender that utterly blinds them to reality. The comparison of Iraq to Vietnam was silly back when it was first made; at the risk of repeating myself for the thousandth time, at the height of American casualties in Iraq we were on a pace to match our Vietnam casualties sometime in the next century. Furthermore- although the three authors of the article seem to have been marooned on a desert island for several months- there is an even greater difference between Vietnam and Iraq: we lost in Vietnam, but are currently winning in Iraq.
Yes, that's what I said. And it doesn't matter how many arbitrary benchmarks the government may or may not have met. No objective observer questions that substantial progress has been made toward stability in Iraq. Long-time critics of our occupation like Anthony Cordesman are coming to the conclusion that
No one can spend some 10 days visiting the battlefields in Iraq without seeing major progress in every area. ... If the U.S. provides sustained support to the Iraqi government -- in security, governance, and development -- there is now a very real chance that Iraq will emerge as a secure and stable state.
But the authors of the Post piece haven't heard the news. They're still living in a time when the cause of the Iraqi government seemed hopeless. And they seem not to have noticed the precipitate fall in casualty levels in Iraq, both American and Iraqi. Iraqis who once fled their country are now coming home. Yet so great is the desire of Podesta, Takehy, Korb and those like them to see the United States fail in Iraq that they simply can't accept that an case which seemed compelling only a few months ago simply cannot be sustained today.
And this may be the most chilling paragraph I've read in some time:
Beyond the impracticalities of the surge, it is important to realistically measure the costs and consequences of a categorical U.S. withdrawal. The prevailing doomsday scenario suggests that an American departure would lead to genocide and mayhem. But is that true? Iraq today belongs to Iraqis; it is an ancient civilization with its own norms and tendencies. It is entirely possible that in the absence of a cumbersome and clumsy American occupation, Iraqis will make their own bargains and compacts, heading off the genocide that many seem to anticipate. Opponents of the war seem to have far more confidence in Iraqis' abilities to manage their affairs than do war advocates. Moreover, a U.S. withdrawal would finally compel the region to claim Iraq, forcing the Saudis, Iranians, Jordanians and others to decide whether a civil war is in their interests. Faced with that stark reality, they may seek to mediate rather than inflame Iraq's squabbles.
Can it really be that men with the credentials of Podesta, Takeyh and Korb believe that all that is necessary for the quarreling factions in Iraq, which have been at each other's throats for centuries, to find their own solutions to their differences is for the American forces that are keeping them from each other's throats to bug out and let them have at each other? Do they actually believe that al Quaeda is going to turn all soft and cuddly and reasonable if those nasty Americans simply go away?
Do these gentlemen actually think one can negotiate with this?
What Podesta, Takeyh and Korb call "entirely possible" is in fact so highly unlikely that their glib willingness to try it out and see even in the face of the generally accepted likelihood that a premature American withdrawal would turn Iraq into another Darfur is nothing less than chilling. It raises the question of whether opponents of the war have more confidence of the ability of Iraqis to solve their own problems, merely care less about the fate of Iraq and its people than they do about America losing this particular war, George W. Bush's historical humiliation for having begun it maximized, and- they're quite frank about this one- electing a Democrat to the White House this November.
There's nothing wrong with partisanship. But when it speaks with a louder voice than compassion for the people of Iraq and at least a half-hearted desire to see one's own nation prevail in a war against barbarians, something is wrong. This article is, I think, a foretaste of the debate over Iraq we're going to have during the Fall campaign.
If so, I have sufficient faith in the decency of my countrymen to believe that Podesta, Takehy and Korb- and those like them- will be disappointed.
Comments