The MSM is abuzz with the “news” that Bush said “we’re not winning” in Iraq. For the first time!
Yawn.
Look, we have not succeeded in controlling the violence in Iraq. We *did* oust the vile Hussein regime, we *did* create a democratic system, we *did* shepherd the Iraqis through the formation of a somewhat coherent government, and we *are* building up the Iraqi security forces. Militarily, we *did* succeed in marginalizing Al Qaeda to the point where it was not a significant player in the political process, but Al Qaeda finally succeeded in igniting the sectarian violence that has plagued the country since March.
Does the sectarian violence threaten the US military? Not much. Does it threaten the Iraqi government? Not directly. But it does create an environment of fear and unrest in the populace, and that is something we need to repair.
There is a tremendous amount of suffering among Iraqis, and we can’t leave until that has been resolved. But the sectarian component of the violence is a relatively new issue that has resisted resolution in part due to political constraints by the Iraqi government. This is a learning experience for that fledgling government, and it is slowly starting to respond to the problem. It’s also a learning process for the Iraqi people, who don’t really understand democracy, and whose institutionalized tribalism and corruption are longer-term threats to the democratization process.
Transformation of Iraq into a true democracy is going to take at least one generation, and probably two. One hopes that a US military presence won’t be required for that length of time, but that hope shouldn’t outweigh the real needs of the Iraqi people. If “winning” requires outlasting Al Qaeda, insurgents, and sectarian militias, then that’s what we have to do.
And of course a complete solution requires political and religious support as well. Some Dems have claimed that the military is superfluous, and that diplomacy and negotiation can bring peace to Iraq. Certainly we should bring the full complement of tools to bear on the problem, but right now one of the most useful tools in that kit is the military. Giving it up is tantamount to saying that you never intend to “win” in Iraq.
Which is where the rubber meets the road, isn’t it? When the MSM gets this exercised over Bush’s statement, it would be fine if that meant that they had a strategy for increasing our chances of winning. My objection is that they seem to be happy with the implication that we’re losing. In fact, they seem delighted.
December 20, 2006 at 11:39 am
Naturally the MSM parsed Bush’s statement. He said “We’re not winning, we’re not losing,”. Either they forgot the “not losing” portion in their anti-War lustful zeal, or they were being their normal obtuse selves again.
December 20, 2006 at 4:37 pm
Never mind that before the U.S. invaded Iraq that the Sunnis and
Shiites were living in relative Peace even to the point of inter-
marrying, just like Catholics and Protestants. What Dubya should
have done was gone in to Iraq, took out Saddam, arrested him
and charged him with crimes against humanity in the International
Court.
It is my fondest hope that one of the first items on the Democratic
agenda should be the impeachment of both Dubya and Cheney.
Buy the way, feel free to publish my e-mail address. Since I don’t
have an official web-site and I’d like to continue this discussion
Jerry Chandler
Omaha ne
December 20, 2006 at 4:47 pm
The draconian measures it took for Saddam to force Sunnis and Shiites to live in peace are nothing to look back upon fondly. His horrific crimes against the Shiites and elevation of the Sunnis were despicable. It is amusing that the latest liberal meme is that everything was dandy until we intervened. Back in March the meme was: “even a fool should have known that these sects would be at each others’ throats.”
It’d be nice if y’all stuck to one story.
December 21, 2006 at 9:11 am
I have trouble understanding the attitude conveyed in the original post and in subsequent comments. Some conservatives seem to be very comfortable pointing fingers (finding fault) with everyone except the administration they so strongly supported throughout this debacle that is Iraq. Liberals can’t keep their story consistent. The MSM is intentionally misleading the public. Where is your outrage at the performance of the administration?
Iraq is a disaster. There is no one to blame for it besides the administration and the Republican Party. The buck, on this one, has to stop there. This is a fundamental conservative value. Posts criticizing the MSM are reasonable (and perhaps well deserved) but where is the balance? Where is the outrage for those responsible? Surely you cannot think that all of the problems we face have been brought on by the MSM (or liberals, etc.).
It’s like we are all on a sinking ship and instead of blaming the Captain for being drunk at the helm and steering directly into an iceberg (because his senior staff advised him that this was the best course of action) you focus your criticism on the dining room wait staff. Why? Because you agreed with the decision to steer into the iceberg in the first place and now are having trouble admitting you were wrong (much like our President, Vice President, etc.)?
As long as conservatives (and I am one) choose to attack the media and liberals instead of the administration and Party that is truly at fault we will not get the accountability we need to retain a healthy democracy.
December 21, 2006 at 9:46 am
Iraq is a disaster.
This is the glib analysis of the situation so popular amongst liberals which is decidedly imprecise and unhelpful. What, exactly, are the problems? If you break down the problems and examine their root causes and possible remedies, the situation doesn’t seem nearly so irretrievable.
As far as blame goes, there is plenty to go around. But few critics acknowledge that the problems have changed over the past 3 1/2 years, nor the extent to which Iraq’s autonomy has complicated the situation.
I guess I’m going to have to put a post up on this, because the hysteria and finger-pointing have become ridiculous.
December 21, 2006 at 10:33 am
I scan the non-fiction shelf at my library several times a week, and I see “Fiasco,” the Geo. Packer book, Woodward, Suskind, etc etc etc — and yet there’s never one book about the great (or good or positive) things that are occuring in Irag as a result of this invasion. Quick – who do we blame for that? The liberal publishing industry! The liberal public libraries! The NYT!
Maybe there’s a simpler explanation: no books because there’s nothing good happening there to write about.
December 21, 2006 at 11:03 am
[...] In the comment thread for “We’re not winning in Iraq?” by geoff of Uncommon Misconceptions, FundiMental said: Iraq is a disaster. [...]
December 21, 2006 at 11:05 am
geoff: I don’t like your blog.
You make one post, which causes me to post three. And I have another in draft – about the ridiculous assertion that Bush et al. is to blame for the Iraq so-called “fiasco” – , but I think I’ve said enough.
Feh. So much for taking it easy from now on/
December 21, 2006 at 11:55 am
You really got wound up, Muslihoon. That’s good to see.
Mark in NJ: that’s a sad story. I’ll put up some good news for you soon. Right now, though, I’m pooped. Just shoveled snow for an hour and a half.
December 21, 2006 at 12:02 pm
My, my. Quite the selective memory these libs have. Regime Change was official U.S. Foreign Policy authorized by…wait for it…Bill Clinton! Maybe if Bill Clinton had taken OBL when he had the chance we wouldn’t be where we are today. But never mind that and a hundred other things that led up to 9/11…lets just blame Bush!
December 21, 2006 at 12:48 pm
Good point, Brew. I made a post out of it.
Hope you’re as amused as I was writing it!
December 21, 2006 at 2:40 pm
See my reply on Muslihoon’s blog.
Note that I didn’t yet see BrewFan’s “Clinton is to blame” reply, otherwise I would have addressed this sad, responsibility-shifting comment as well.
Re-read your comment here, BrewFan. You’re connecting 9/11 to Iraq. You’re connecting OBL to Iraq.
We’re talking about Iraq and whether or not it is a disaster. It cannot possibly be your defense that it is not a disaster because Clinton failed to get OBL and/or is responsible for 9/11. This comment is not rational.
December 21, 2006 at 5:22 pm
Regarding books:
There is a simpler explanation: blood and bad news and bias sell.
December 23, 2006 at 12:54 am
Regarding Muslihoon’s simpler explanation….I’m not talking about the Sierra Club bestseller list, I’m talking about the public library in my town.
The “bad news sells” argument, if true, might explain fewer books, but it doesn’t explain no books. And in 2004, didn’t >50% of the voters vote for Bush? Wouldn’t at least some of them be interested in a book about the good news in Iraq?
December 23, 2006 at 1:12 am
And in 2004, didn’t >50% of the voters vote for Bush? Wouldn’t at least some of them be interested in a book about the good news in Iraq?
This argument is specious. By the same light – aren’t 100% of the people pleased at happy news? Yet the news media focuses on crimes, troubles, and woes. Imminent disaster, inexorable calamity, and the base nature of humanity – this is the stuff of nightly news.
Take a look at the increase in the size and capability of the security forces or the fact that we’ve handed over security responsibility for 3 provinces over to the Iraqis. To be sure significant problems exist within those security forces, and the 3 provinces are likely to call for our help as the occasion arises. But the fact remains that this is significant progress.
Is it a bigger story to note this progress and to say that the National Strategy in Iraq is bearing fruit, or to report on violence, corruption, and logistical problems? I can say for certain that when I wrote on the former, my posts received little attention, but when I write on the latter, several among my handful of readers are immediately engaged.
Sex and violence sell. Peace and progress don’t. No matter who wins the election.