"How did it come to pass that an opposition's measure of a president's foreign policy was all or nothing, success or "failure"? The answer is that the political absolutism now normal in Washington arrived at the moment--Nov. 7, 2000--that our politics subordinated even a war against terror to seizing the office of the presidency." - Daniel Henninger - WSJ 11/18/05
"the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts." - George Orwell

Friday, April 20, 2007

Be Patient Harry, There’s Still Time to Lose

In this mornings post from Sigmund, Carl & Alfred (posted somewhere at RCP, so vote for it) the question or better yet the subject under discussion is whether or not the horrific action taken by Cho Sueng Hui was “an act of terror or a crime.”

In reading “Coming Full Circle: Crime and Terror,” I am struck by the ease of comparison with which, one can make between the killing spree of a mentally tapped individual and that of a belief system, namely Islamic extremism, that wishes to do us harm. Can what happened at Virginia Tech Monday serve as a microcosmic glimpse of a world as an example, can used as a means of discerning or envisioning what might happen on a global scale left untreated?

The Iraq Theater has become just such a thing. From the beginning bitterly opposed by many on the Left and more forcefully so now; the battleground recently described by the Senate Majority leader, Harry “scared soiled” Reid, with “this war is lost.”

Setting aside an intense hatred for President Bush; the obviously political maneuverings of the political Left; the burning question that truly needs an honest answer is, “can we ever justifiably defend ourselves with proactive force?”

The United States went into Iraq with the intention of overthrowing a clear and if not present, then a very near future danger. With most European nations, namely Jacques Chirac’s France overtly thwarting the effort, posing as a man of peace and in honesty lacking, only protecting his nations economic interests; sought to protect the undeniably Fascistic and terroristic Saddam Hussein.

Self-led to believing themselves as peaceful, this peace movement, or better yet the Union of Moral Equivocates justified doing nothing by saying ‘who are we to judge?’ Painting the President of the U.S. and all those in agreement with them warmongering, blood for oil, terrorists and the real enemy.

The recent death in the streets of Iraq is proof in the pudding to Reid and others that this little sideshow Saturday morning serial Iraq adventure is a lost cause and lost. Is this honestly his belief or is he, as he and many leftward lurching politicos seem more likely intent on this self fulfilling prophesy becoming truth. ‘See? We were right all along….’

Many yell back at Harry and his hipsters that their stance and statements only embolden the enemy and weaken our resolve. If qaeda can only inflict more death and mayhem, the naïve and nihilistic infidel will win it for them. Why can’t Harry and the others go far enough in their equivocation to more seriously consider that angle as more than merely rhetoric? It is hard to ignore that once the main stream media felt it more difficult to ignore positive up ticks in Baghdad that it would make our enemy more vicious and inhumane, which makes them put their tactics of playing to the press all the more necessary. It is also equally hard to ignore that this game plan works on those that are there intended viewers.

Due more to the intransigence of our homeland naysayers and a lack of will on our political leadership to take the fight to the enemy without concern for media backlash, the battlefield in Iraq has dragged on long enough with no apparent end in sight to add to the rolls of those that want us out. Had we taken the tactic of and/or reacted more forcefully we would today still be in Iraq, but with a clearer view of what it might actually be like to step in down a bit. Instead, time has gone past long enough that has allowed Reid and his restive bunch to suggest redeployment with no consequence as a media viable alternative to the tactics now being employed.

Just a short week ago, Delaware senator Joe Biden, writing in the Washington Post suggested in an OpEd piece his offering of the same “glass half full” vision, but with a difference. Joe has a plan; a plan in his own words that has “been promoting for a year.” Oddly though, it sounds eerily similar to our present plan that is beginning to show indications of forward moving results. His sees his vision of “making federalism work for all Iraqis,” as “a strategy that can still succeed and allow our troops to leave responsibly.” The only missing piece appears to be the need to mention the military presence, like the one there now that will be necessary to accomplish his plan. This, sadly is the tactic the Democrat party has made a staple of their diet. As the president’s actions have repercussions, talk gets better press and does not have repercussions…at least not at first.

This inaction can have unforeseen repercussions especially when one considers as stated by SC&A:

“Terror is strategic weapon, designed to inflict fear- and thus increase leverage in negotiations or bargaining. Terror isn’t always the world away we think it is. In our society, terror has been used by striking workers and by strike busting management, to put pressure on the ‘other side’ and to improve negotiating positions.”

This very terror in the streets of Iraq is having the desired effect that being a “leader” of a Western, enemy nation admitting defeat and calling for retreat. Consider the recent abduction of the Royal Navy and Marine personnel by Iran; claiming the personnel were in their waters while everyone on the planet knowing this was not so, British authorities and leaders were frozen into inaction, but they sure tried to talk big, but talk is cheap. The U.N. couldn’t even bring itself to condemn this act and the condemnation itself would have just been talk as we all know that is all the U.N. does.

The Iranian leadership knows this and with the inability of the U.N. to even verbally chastise Tehran they were home free to play to kidnapping in such a way that they appear the victim.

This is all following over three years of talk with Iran regarding their “peaceful nuclear” intentions. Iran has never said it would give up its ambitions, but has become emboldened by the day into grandstanding that it never will; however with an olive branch offering interest in talking which allows the inactive ones the feeling vindicated in the knowledge that a favored outcome is still possible.

Tie the return of the “15 victims of a misunderstanding” in with their having been paraded around on Iranian state TV more as guests than hostages; add to that the return of Jalal Sharafi and showing him on Iranian state TV decked in hospital garb giving the impression that he was mishandled by his “abductors,” and you have an Iran adding the colorful hues of victim hood to their nuclear ambitions.

No sooner did Ahmadinejad announce the industrial production phase of their nuclear intentions and he was threatening that Iran may be forced to rethink its “peaceful” intentions when he said to the aggressive and pushy Western powers, ‘"Iran has so far moved in a completely peaceful path and wants to continue following this path, they should avoid doing something which forces this nation to review its behaviour."’

So continue to talk, continue to call Iraq a “defeat” Harry and we won’t have to play with this funny idea of defending ourselves proactively anymore. We’ll either have no choice at some point but to take action after an attack or we won’t have any choice but to partake in another long term cold war; a cold war with the global warming effect of a nuclear weapons armed radical Islamic Republic that we can only hope loves their children too; sadly though, we pretty much realize they don’t.

  • DeMediacratic Nation Blogrolls

    Please give this Post/Blog a Vote - Top Blogs

    © blogger templates 3 column | Webtalks