Kerry Promises to Lose War by Surrender
I think surrender would be a big mistake.
______________________________________
Richard Holbrooke, one of Kerry's top foreign policy advisers, said on Fox News Sunday last week that in Iraq we've created "a mess worse than Vietnam." "Wait a minute, Mr. Ambassador. You're telling me that you think that Iraq is worse than Vietnam?" an incredulous Chris Wallace asked. "Yes. It is strategically worse than Vietnam," Holbrooke responded.
Well, if Iraq is worse than Vietnam, the only thing to do is get out. We are back in 1971, and, as Kerry memorably said then, "How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?" You don't. So at midweek, Kerry's allies at MoveOn.org released a 30-second ad, "Quagmire." The ad accuses President Bush of having "no real plan to end the war." "It will take a new president," the narrator concludes, "to get us out."
Get us out. That is in fact the real Kerry position, one might even say the real Kerry promise, with respect to Iraq. This became clear when the Democratic candidate spoke Thursday,
in Las Vegas, to the National Guard Association. Kerry of course attacked the president for his conduct of the war--but also for "living in a fantasy world of spin," for not acknowledging that we're basically losing the war.
Apart from a very few broad assertions, Kerry didn't offer evidence that we are in fact losing the war. Nor did he bother to explain a single thing he would do differently, now, on the ground in Iraq--because he's not interested in doing anything differently or better. He wants to get out. He didn't say, for example, that he would fight the counterinsurgency more aggressively, or that he would send in more troops, or that he would act more aggressively to bolster Iraqi civilian institutions. There is much in the way of constructive criticism that can be leveled at the Bush administration on these fronts--but Kerry didn't level it. He did promise to "add 40,000 new soldiers to our armed forces"--but, he hastened to add, "not to increase the number of soldiers in Iraq."
So Kerry has no plan, and indeed no intention, to win in Iraq. Kerry never used the verb "to win" or the noun "victory" when discussing Iraq in his Thursday speech. In fact, a look through his speeches suggests it has been months since Kerry used the words "victory" or "win" with respect to Iraq. In the most positive sentence in the National Guard speech, Kerry did say that "it is not too late to turn things around in Iraq and in our global war on terror." But "turning things around" turns out to mean doing whatever we have to do "so our troops can finally come home." Kerry will "end the war," as his friends at MoveOn.org put it, not win it.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/637efibk.asp
_________________
This is the same position Kerry had in the Vietnam War.
________________
What kind of a message would that send to the terrorists of the world?
Victor David Hanson does not think withdrawal would be a good idea:
_________________
Leaving Afghanistan to its own misery after the Soviet retreat, not going to Baghdad in 1991, turning boats around from Haiti, or quietly ducking out of Mogadishu all were less messy in the short term, but in the long term left even greater chaos. The ultimate wages were the Taliban, 350,000 sorties for over a decade above Iraq, the current mess in the Caribbean, and terrorist havens and worse in Africa. We forget how often in history a perceived stumble or the half-measure only emboldens enemies to try what they otherwise would not.
In contrast, on those occasions when we have shown the patience to stay engaged after victory — in Germany, Japan, South Korea, Panama, or the Balkans — there was less chance that Americans would be left with either perpetual autocratic enemies or terrorist sanctuaries.
We also have a moral stake in Iraq, whose people have suffered from 30 years of Baathist state terror and terrible fatalities in three losing wars. Our defeat of Iraq in 1991, our subsequent abandonment of the Kurds and Shiites to a wounded Saddam Hussein, twelve years of occupying Iraqi airspace, the corrupt U.N. embargo, and the recent final defeat of the Baathists brought untold misery to the Iraqi people.
In contrast, for the last year and a half, the United States has paid a high price to ensure the Iraqis a chance for the first humane and civilized government in the entire Arab Middle East. If it was callous to abandon the Shiites and Kurds in 1991, it is certainly right now to ensure that Saddam's gulag is not superseded by either a Taliban theocracy or a Lebanon-like cesspool.
Finally, for all the media-inspired pessimism, progress continues in Iraq. Despite all the killing, a logic of freedom persists, one that is slowly becoming a way of life for millions and that cannot be derailed by media-savvy murderers. Scheduled elections are on track. A culture of personal liberty is sprouting up, from Internet cafes to secular schools. Kurdistan is emerging as a federated republic. Indeed, Kurdish good will is proof that America wants no one's oil, promotes democracy, and is becoming once again a dependable friend. When the United States has chosen to confront the militias, it has won handily. It can do so again in Fallujah and Najaf should the interim government wish a final victory — and our political leadership at last allows the Marines to eradicate terrorist killers who have turned the city of Fallujah into a murderous sewer.
It is always difficult for those involved to determine the pulse of any ongoing war. The last 90 days in the Pacific theater were among the most costly of World War II, as we incurred 50,000 casualties on Okinawa just weeks before the Japanese collapse. December 1944 and January 1945 were the worst months for the American army in Europe, bled white repelling Hitler's last gasp in the Battle of the Bulge. Contemporaries shuddered, after observing those killing fields, that the war would go on for years more. The summer of 1864 convinced many that Grant and Lincoln were losers, and that McClellan alone could end the conflict by what would amount to a negotiated surrender of Northern war aims.
It is true that parts of Iraq are unsafe and that terrorists are flowing into the country; but there is no doubt that the removal of Saddam Hussein is bringing matters to a head. Islamic fascists are now fighting openly and losing battles, and are increasingly desperate as they realize the democratization process slowly grinds ahead leaving them and what they have to offer by the wayside. Iran, Syria, Lebanon, and others must send aid to the terrorists and stealthy warriors into Iraq, for the battle is not just for Baghdad but for their futures as well. The world's attention is turning to Syria's occupation of Lebanon and Iran's nukes, a new scrutiny predicated on American initiatives and persistence, and easily evaporated by a withdrawal from Iraq. So by taking the fight to the heart of darkness in Saddam's realm, we have opened the climactic phase of the war, and thereupon can either win or lose far more than Iraq.
The world grasps this, and thus slowly is waking up and starting to see that if it walks and sounds like an Islamic fascist — whether in Russia, Spain, Istanbul, Israel, Iraq, or India — it really is an Islamic fascist, with the now-familiar odious signature of car bombings, suicide belts, and incoherent communiqués mixed with self-pity and passive-aggressive bluster.
For all these reasons and more, something like "See ya, wouldn't want to be ya" is the absolute worst prescription for Iraq — both for America and those Iraqis who are counting on us in their historic efforts to reclaim their country from barbarism. Amid the daily car bombings in Iraq, murder in Russia, and slaughter in the Middle East, we cannot see much hope — but it is there, and we are winning on a variety of fronts as the world continues to shrink for the Islamic fascist and those who would abet him.
— Victor Davis Hanson is a visiting professor for the month of September and a fellow of Hillsdale College.
http://www.nationalreview.com/script/printpage.asp?ref=/hanson/hanson200409162229.asp
______________________________________
Richard Holbrooke, one of Kerry's top foreign policy advisers, said on Fox News Sunday last week that in Iraq we've created "a mess worse than Vietnam." "Wait a minute, Mr. Ambassador. You're telling me that you think that Iraq is worse than Vietnam?" an incredulous Chris Wallace asked. "Yes. It is strategically worse than Vietnam," Holbrooke responded.
Well, if Iraq is worse than Vietnam, the only thing to do is get out. We are back in 1971, and, as Kerry memorably said then, "How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?" You don't. So at midweek, Kerry's allies at MoveOn.org released a 30-second ad, "Quagmire." The ad accuses President Bush of having "no real plan to end the war." "It will take a new president," the narrator concludes, "to get us out."
Get us out. That is in fact the real Kerry position, one might even say the real Kerry promise, with respect to Iraq. This became clear when the Democratic candidate spoke Thursday,
in Las Vegas, to the National Guard Association. Kerry of course attacked the president for his conduct of the war--but also for "living in a fantasy world of spin," for not acknowledging that we're basically losing the war.
Apart from a very few broad assertions, Kerry didn't offer evidence that we are in fact losing the war. Nor did he bother to explain a single thing he would do differently, now, on the ground in Iraq--because he's not interested in doing anything differently or better. He wants to get out. He didn't say, for example, that he would fight the counterinsurgency more aggressively, or that he would send in more troops, or that he would act more aggressively to bolster Iraqi civilian institutions. There is much in the way of constructive criticism that can be leveled at the Bush administration on these fronts--but Kerry didn't level it. He did promise to "add 40,000 new soldiers to our armed forces"--but, he hastened to add, "not to increase the number of soldiers in Iraq."
So Kerry has no plan, and indeed no intention, to win in Iraq. Kerry never used the verb "to win" or the noun "victory" when discussing Iraq in his Thursday speech. In fact, a look through his speeches suggests it has been months since Kerry used the words "victory" or "win" with respect to Iraq. In the most positive sentence in the National Guard speech, Kerry did say that "it is not too late to turn things around in Iraq and in our global war on terror." But "turning things around" turns out to mean doing whatever we have to do "so our troops can finally come home." Kerry will "end the war," as his friends at MoveOn.org put it, not win it.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/637efibk.asp
_________________
This is the same position Kerry had in the Vietnam War.
________________
What kind of a message would that send to the terrorists of the world?
Victor David Hanson does not think withdrawal would be a good idea:
_________________
Leaving Afghanistan to its own misery after the Soviet retreat, not going to Baghdad in 1991, turning boats around from Haiti, or quietly ducking out of Mogadishu all were less messy in the short term, but in the long term left even greater chaos. The ultimate wages were the Taliban, 350,000 sorties for over a decade above Iraq, the current mess in the Caribbean, and terrorist havens and worse in Africa. We forget how often in history a perceived stumble or the half-measure only emboldens enemies to try what they otherwise would not.
In contrast, on those occasions when we have shown the patience to stay engaged after victory — in Germany, Japan, South Korea, Panama, or the Balkans — there was less chance that Americans would be left with either perpetual autocratic enemies or terrorist sanctuaries.
We also have a moral stake in Iraq, whose people have suffered from 30 years of Baathist state terror and terrible fatalities in three losing wars. Our defeat of Iraq in 1991, our subsequent abandonment of the Kurds and Shiites to a wounded Saddam Hussein, twelve years of occupying Iraqi airspace, the corrupt U.N. embargo, and the recent final defeat of the Baathists brought untold misery to the Iraqi people.
In contrast, for the last year and a half, the United States has paid a high price to ensure the Iraqis a chance for the first humane and civilized government in the entire Arab Middle East. If it was callous to abandon the Shiites and Kurds in 1991, it is certainly right now to ensure that Saddam's gulag is not superseded by either a Taliban theocracy or a Lebanon-like cesspool.
Finally, for all the media-inspired pessimism, progress continues in Iraq. Despite all the killing, a logic of freedom persists, one that is slowly becoming a way of life for millions and that cannot be derailed by media-savvy murderers. Scheduled elections are on track. A culture of personal liberty is sprouting up, from Internet cafes to secular schools. Kurdistan is emerging as a federated republic. Indeed, Kurdish good will is proof that America wants no one's oil, promotes democracy, and is becoming once again a dependable friend. When the United States has chosen to confront the militias, it has won handily. It can do so again in Fallujah and Najaf should the interim government wish a final victory — and our political leadership at last allows the Marines to eradicate terrorist killers who have turned the city of Fallujah into a murderous sewer.
It is always difficult for those involved to determine the pulse of any ongoing war. The last 90 days in the Pacific theater were among the most costly of World War II, as we incurred 50,000 casualties on Okinawa just weeks before the Japanese collapse. December 1944 and January 1945 were the worst months for the American army in Europe, bled white repelling Hitler's last gasp in the Battle of the Bulge. Contemporaries shuddered, after observing those killing fields, that the war would go on for years more. The summer of 1864 convinced many that Grant and Lincoln were losers, and that McClellan alone could end the conflict by what would amount to a negotiated surrender of Northern war aims.
It is true that parts of Iraq are unsafe and that terrorists are flowing into the country; but there is no doubt that the removal of Saddam Hussein is bringing matters to a head. Islamic fascists are now fighting openly and losing battles, and are increasingly desperate as they realize the democratization process slowly grinds ahead leaving them and what they have to offer by the wayside. Iran, Syria, Lebanon, and others must send aid to the terrorists and stealthy warriors into Iraq, for the battle is not just for Baghdad but for their futures as well. The world's attention is turning to Syria's occupation of Lebanon and Iran's nukes, a new scrutiny predicated on American initiatives and persistence, and easily evaporated by a withdrawal from Iraq. So by taking the fight to the heart of darkness in Saddam's realm, we have opened the climactic phase of the war, and thereupon can either win or lose far more than Iraq.
The world grasps this, and thus slowly is waking up and starting to see that if it walks and sounds like an Islamic fascist — whether in Russia, Spain, Istanbul, Israel, Iraq, or India — it really is an Islamic fascist, with the now-familiar odious signature of car bombings, suicide belts, and incoherent communiqués mixed with self-pity and passive-aggressive bluster.
For all these reasons and more, something like "See ya, wouldn't want to be ya" is the absolute worst prescription for Iraq — both for America and those Iraqis who are counting on us in their historic efforts to reclaim their country from barbarism. Amid the daily car bombings in Iraq, murder in Russia, and slaughter in the Middle East, we cannot see much hope — but it is there, and we are winning on a variety of fronts as the world continues to shrink for the Islamic fascist and those who would abet him.
— Victor Davis Hanson is a visiting professor for the month of September and a fellow of Hillsdale College.
http://www.nationalreview.com/script/printpage.asp?ref=/hanson/hanson200409162229.asp
Comments
Here's the poop straight from Hastert and Cheney...and they should know.
Edwards Calls Hastert's Remarks 'Politics of Fear'
Associated Press
Monday, September 20, 2004; Page A04
PHOENIXVILLE, Pa., Sept. 19 -- Democratic vice presidential candidate John Edwards on Sunday accused House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) of stooping "to the politics of fear" when he said al Qaeda terrorists may launch another terrorist attack to swing the Nov. 2 election in Democrat John F. Kerry's favor.
Hastert's comments, at a fundraiser Saturday night in his home state of Illinois, were reminiscent of recent remarks by Vice President Cheney that Edwards has called "un-American."
Could you comment on Bob's authority Victor Hanson.