<body><script type="text/javascript"> function setAttributeOnload(object, attribute, val) { if(window.addEventListener) { window.addEventListener('load', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }, false); } else { window.attachEvent('onload', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }); } } </script> <div id="navbar-iframe-container"></div> <script type="text/javascript" src="https://apis.google.com/js/platform.js"></script> <script type="text/javascript"> gapi.load("gapi.iframes:gapi.iframes.style.bubble", function() { if (gapi.iframes && gapi.iframes.getContext) { gapi.iframes.getContext().openChild({ url: 'https://www.blogger.com/navbar.g?targetBlogID\x3d35924813\x26blogName\x3dRefuting+Savages\x26publishMode\x3dPUBLISH_MODE_BLOGSPOT\x26navbarType\x3dSILVER\x26layoutType\x3dCLASSIC\x26searchRoot\x3dhttps://refutingsavages.blogspot.com/search\x26blogLocale\x3den_US\x26v\x3d2\x26homepageUrl\x3dhttp://refutingsavages.blogspot.com/\x26vt\x3d2480443366937242325', where: document.getElementById("navbar-iframe-container"), id: "navbar-iframe" }); } }); </script>

Refuting Savages

The Savagery of so-called "Realism"
11.13.2006

As I've made clear in the past, this site is dedicated to the exposure and ridicule of deemed savages and I intend to give you no less through my attempts at thoughtful analysis of world events transpiring before our eyes. Talk radio hosts like Michael Savage, Rush Limbaugh, and their media clones have their own measure of power and impact on our society, but despite their influence, they are not the policy makers in Washington. And it is for this reason that we must sometime, or often, visit examples of foolery outside the realm of the extension of the entertainment industry we call the news media.

I was among those cheering the sack of Donald Rumsfeld, and I am still somewhat optimistic that his replacement Robert Gates will bring a fresh perspective that can yield victory in Iraq. But as I look at Gates' history, I find myself worrying that Bush's appointment of Gates is a sign that he has given up on the dream of democracy in Iraq.

Gates is seen as a 'realist,' the type of person who is more willing to establish a dialogue with dictators who threaten America with their support for Islamic extremists rather than start wars with them. I have mixed opinions on this, as a glance seeking historical perspective reveals the ghosts of people like Neville Chamberlain, whose appeasement of Adolf Hitler led to the most terrible war in history. I recall the realist approach to the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s, in which we supported a certain Saddam Hussein who invaded Iran and, when beaten back, used chemical and biological weapons. Realpolitik yielded a United States arming Osama bin Laden against the Soviets, a man who would oversee the murder of 3,000 Americans two decades later. Realists fear that idealists will change the world, and seek to maintain the status quo by all means possible, but often are bitten by the unintended consequences of aiding the enemy of our enemy.

I want to make clear that I do not believe idealistic crusades like Iraq should continue to be United States policy, but neither do I believe that it is in our interest to bail and leave a project, once started, unfinished. Time magazine moans 'Civil war' in Iraq, and CNN reports of mortar exchanges between Sunni and Shiite neighborhoods, but the reason for these growing tensions is not the American military presence. Iraq has wandered down the road to madness through a series of blunders by the Bush administration following the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime, and not necessarily because of our continued military presence. Remember the stories of children being named for our President after the initial invasion, and the masses cheering in the streets as the statue of their once untouchable dictator toppled? It was a great risk to invade Iraq, and perhaps President Bush could have used some 'realists' on his staff as the nation prepared for war, but not for the aftermath of rebuilding a broken Iraq. But even under the right direction, Iraq today would not be a stable country capable of operating independently. New nations need to be nursed to heatlh before they can spread their wings, and the Iraqi republic is no different.

It is unfortunate that so many of our soldiers have died during the Iraq experiment, but the Vietnam comparisons are erroneous and border-line disgraceful to the hell our men went through in the jungles of Asia. Barbara Boxer warbles on NPR that a few soldiers a week are dying in Iraq, comparing the conflict to Vietnam, where 300-400 American soldiers were killed in action during a typical 7-day period. Iraq is not Vietnam, and doesn't even appear close to being Vietnam, but could approach the path towards no return if we continue in our current direction of inaction and eventual withdrawal. Has anyone stopped to wonder what the consequences of leaving Iraq too soon would be? Is anyone taking notice of the looming power next door in Iran, who already considers Iraq to be its backyard?

After the American invasion of Iraq, many said that we were responsible for the further destabilization of the region, but leaving Iraq could mean near-satellite state status for its people to the Iranian regime, which is the biggest supporter of international Islamic terror in the world, and would likely turn its newfound power on Israel. How's that for destabilization?

So, if we would really like to be realists, let's first be real with ourselves. Are we content with cutting our losses and leaving, even if what grows out of what remains could turn out to be far less favorable to our interests than staying? As for the conscience of the American left, which I consider myself a member of, can we stomach the sight of an all-out civil war for the vacuum of power left in our wake? Will our friends in Kurdistan, after all their progress, see their work wasted by our unwillingness to persevere? Will Iran listen to our threats over its nuclear program after we withdraw from Iraq, or will our perceived weakness embolden the radicals within the regime?

We are engaged in a clash of civilizations, with modern Western values pitted against an ultra-conservative strain of Islam, which is sweeping the world. Will we be a Chamberlain or a Churchill? Will we fight the battles now or years from now, when the influence of an anti-semetic, anti-women, anti-freedom of religion and speech strain of Islam has become much more dangerous? The time to fight is now, and our battle can be won by ensuring that a stable, secular democracy emerges in Iraq. It will be several years before anything of the sort takes place, and the process may require more lives lost. But let's be honest with ourselves. There is no comparison between Iraq and Vietnam. The Democrats were trying to win an election rather than trying to win the war. Now, they've been handed the reins, and America waits to see what will happen.

Let's be realists after all and understand that Iraq will be a long, hard fought battle, but it is a battle that must be fought.

posted by Henry Emerson @ 11:13 AM, ,