It is incumbent upon the hawks to very specifically define the war aims as they see them.
I have been a paleoconservative non-interventionist since well before the start of the Iraq War, and I have been trying to support and spread that view among my interventionist conservative brethren for many years. The non-interventionist side seems to be winning converts, if the comments and debate at conservative websites is any indication, and presidential candidate Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) has given us a candidate to rally around. But unfortunately the Iraq War and the amorphous War on Terror retains broad support among the GOP base, and is still fervently supported by a group of uber-hawks. (More on the uber-hawks in a future essay.)
I am a veteran of many internet battles defending the conservative credentials of a policy of non-intervention, so I am very familiar with the arguments of the war supporters. I frequently see pro-Iraq War arguments that use words like “victory” and “winning” to support the pro-War side. We can’t leave until we achieve “victory.” Conversely, supporters of the War use words and phrases like “surrender” and “cutting-and-running” to describe opponents of the War and advocates for withdrawal.
But this line of argument raises a very significant question. “What exactly would ‘victory’ entail?” This is a serious question. It is not raised just to be argumentative. When I raise it, people often act as if the answer is self-evident so I must be just making trouble. But the answer is not self-evident. It is especially not obvious when addressing the larger War on Terror and not just the Iraq War. Austin Bramwell addressed this “What is victory” issue brilliantly in his American Conservative piece “Good-bye to All That.” (I don’t agree with the whole article because part of it is a not so veiled slap at paleoconservatives, but the first half of the essay is devastating.)
Does victory mean toppling Saddam? Done. Does victory mean ensuring Iraq doesn’t have weapons of mass destruction? Done. Does it mean a stable and Western style democracy in Iraq? Good luck with that. Does it just mean a stable but perhaps not democratic Iraq? Good luck with that as well. Does it mean modernizing and westernizing all of the Middle East? Does it mean stamping out all vestiges of “Shari’a-observant Islam” or more crudely put, wiping out “Islamo-fascism.” Most War on Terror supporters I have talked to cannot give a coherent answer. Instead they resort to talking points and boiler-plate accompanied by foot-stomping and eye-rolling.
“I would rather fight them over there than fight them over here.” “If we leave Iraq unfinished they will follow us home.” This latter jewel has been repeatedly spouted by Senator McCain, who aspires to the highest office in the land. Work that out for me, Senator McCain. If they could come here then, why can’t they come here now? In fact, it might even be easier since we are distracted with the War.
The more sweeping the goal, such as stamping out Shari’a Islam, obviously the more time, treasure and lives it will cost to achieve. Some uber-hawks who have attempted to define victory say we must eliminate the motivation and the capability of the “enemy” to resist. (See here and here for two admirable attempts at specificity.) I admit this is at least a strategy and an aim, although a rather vague one, but it is only slightly less sweeping and unattainable than Frum and Perle’s silly little notion that we should have as a war aim the end of evil. Sorry guys, but since the Fall we have evil ever with us.
These sweeping definitions of victory are a prescription for “perpetual war for perpetual peace.” The war they envision would cost untold amounts of money and lives, ours and theirs. It would last perhaps generations. The American people do not support the current limited war in Iraq. How do the hawks and uber-hawks propose to sell their grand strategy? The War has already cost the GOP the House and Senate. If this thing is still dragging on in ‘08, the Republicans risk a crushing defeat. Once stalwart Republicans are getting cold feet and mass defections on the War are likely if the surge fails. Politically this strategy is untenable unless they are planning a coup. (And this is coming from someone who is no political pragmatist, but I readily admit when I am jousting at windmills with little chance of success. These guys are serious.)
Also, the military, especially the Army, is being stretched to the breaking point. Top generals are now conceding this. Do the hawks plan a draft to support their grand war aims?
And even if we pursued the War on Terror with gusto, it is not clear that that would necessarily make us safer. The now much discussed concept of blowback, thanks to presidential candidate Ron Paul, is a real phenomenon no matter how much the oblivious War supporters insist Muslims hate us only because we liberated women and produce dirty movies.
Talking points and the ritualistic demonization of Muslims does not a war aim make. It is incumbent upon the hawks to very specifically define the war aims as they see them. What countries should we attack and/or invade? What regimes should we change? Syria? Iran? Saudi Arabia? Should Pakistan be allowed to keep its nukes? Etc. Let’s put this on the table for all to see. I think many have been deliberately vague and have relied on talking points because they know if they were honest about their aims the public would not buy it. So better to get us entangled and then scream “cutting-and-running” when anyone suggests it is time to bring the boys home.
In all fairness, the war supporters could ask, “What exactly is my plan?” Good question. My next essay will outline what a conservative non-interventionist foreign policy would look like.
"What is indisputable is that intel was spun and messaged to emphasize a possible threat so they could sell their War."
I'll be happy to dispute it. Of course, you have to make some effort to show that this happened first, so that I have something more to dispute than your unfounded assertions.
Dan,
Oh jeez, that was all over the map. Lemme try to respond.
1) You don't like our government. I am sure to see you running for the next election right? Other wise you can kindly shut up about any and all politics. What can you possibly have to add, since you obviously don't plan on serving in the Congressional reserves. Since this is your pathetic argument in a nutshell, I'm not a soldier, therefore, if I don't sign up immediately, I MUST shut up. So, basically, you can't debate my argument and must tell me to enlist or be silent. BRILLIANT! You're so edgy…because every liberal for the past 5 years hasn't come up with that one!
Considering you yourself admit you were not a soldier, but a psychologist, perhaps you might like to enlist someone else to make this argument?
Oh, and props on mocking my screen name. I tell you what. My real name is Kenny. So if I take your advice and die for some freak reason…you can go around yelling "Oh, my God, al Quida killed Kenny!", and everyone will be terribly impressed.
2) Why does Clinton matter? The answer is simple: If Clinton also thought that Saddam had WMDs, and his information was what Bush used to lead us into war, then one can't reasonably say Bush lied us into war. One could make the argument that Bush was stupid enough to buy Clinton's lies, but that's not what you're trying to do. You're trying to say that the people who argued for Saddam's removal years before Bush even ran were "lied into war" by the great manipulator. This is to accredit Pope Benedict to convert to Christianity all the people who were Catholic before he became pope. Quite silly when you think about it.
Oh, and for the record, the new and revised history taught by "all those liberals" is that Saddam never had WMDs and Bush lied us into war.
My memory sucks…so you'll have to remind me…Which one of us is parroting this nonsense?
3) Conservative and liberal have no meaning in a foreign policy context? What are you talking about?
Liberal- cede all decisions to the UN.
Conservative (or what passes for it)- Use the UN as a guide, but if neccessary, do it yourself.
Of course that's the ridiculously over simplified version, but the point is still clear. There's a huge difference between the right and the left on world politics. To argue otherwise is to see no difference between the land and the sea.
4) Some rant about morality. Yawn.
I'm sorry, please show me some example of evil that went away on it's own? I know that I'm relatively new to politics, but please enlighten me. I'm only aware of the good examples that had to be confronted to be destroyed. You know: Hitler, USSR, communists in general, etc. If there's some grand example of a bad guy being placated away, please produce it.
I'll turn on my tape of crickets playing in the meantime.
5) For the sake of argument, I'm going to ignore the very real part that al Quida is using silly arguments like yours as justification to kill our troops. Every soldier in our army today, serving in Iraq, is a volunteer, about 95% of which joined after we first invaded. So, despite the threat of dying, and knowing they would most likely go to war, they still signed up…knowing they would have to fight. Ignoring all other considerations: you don't care what the troops want. They want to kill the bad guys, set up a new regime, and leave Iraq a better place than they found it. So in your "our soldiers are children, too stupid to make decisions for themselves" worldview, you don't give credence to one of (if not the) most important consideration if one "cares about the troops": what the troops themselves want.
And since the troops have made it abundantly clear they'd like detractors to kindly step to the side, and stop getting in their way, I'll repeat for a THIRD time…"Maybe you should stop complaining?"
6) OH MY GOD! IRAQIS HAVE DIED IN THE WAR? I THOUGHT THEY WERE IMMORTAL BEFORE THIS!
This argument is sooooo stupid, it's beyond belief. So, you argue that we never should've saved the Iraqis from a genocidal tyrant who killed his people for the sheer fun of it, and now we should leave them to the likes of al Quida and Muqtada al Sadr to butcher them again. But YOU'RE the humanitarian here? Please.
"Let's not save Iraqis from slaughter. Ok, fine if we MUST save them from slaughter, then let's turn right back around and leave them to possibly worse fanatics, which will lead to…slaughter."
You can stop using the Iraqis in your argument now. So you can save this noise about "caring about the Iraqis". It sounds just about as stupid as if someone hadn't stepped in to stop a lynching "out of concern for the black community."
7) (Just cause it's a perfect number.) And bravo on not successfully addressing a single argument against you! High five!
I have no problems admitting I'm mocking you relentlessly. I also have the added bonus of being right. When I call you a fool, I also tell you WHY I'm calling you a fool. When I say you are trying to revise history to your purposes, I provide the proof to back up my claims. You in turn tell me to join the army and point to some irrelevant schmuck who wrote an irrelevant book two years after the war to prove that people…don't like war I suppose.
“Oh, my God, al Quida killed Kenny!”
WB: This was priceless! Take care, Phil
PatyrickW,
Read this. It is part I of III. At the bottom is a link to Part II and III. Part I is mostly set up. Part II and III are the meat. Read this from a Pentagon insider and then tell me there was no spin.
http://www.amconmag.com/12_1_03/feature.html
Also see here.
http://dir.salon.com/story/opinion/feature/2004/03/10/osp_moveon/index.html
"I witnessed neoconservative agenda bearers within OSP (Office of Special Plans)usurp measured and carefully considered assessments, and through suppression and distortion of intelligence analysis promulgate what were in fact falsehoods to both Congress and the executive office of the president."
Also see the list of books I listed for WB.
Phil,
You are a smart guy and all (or at least you keep telling us so PHD and all). How would you define victory in Iraq?
Troy
Alright Dan,
Once more. Providing opinion pieces of people who come forward over a year after the fact saying they thought they intel was fishy…means nothing.
Let's look at the list of people who used to say that Iraq was a major threat to the world, who now argue that they said no such thing: Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton (Bill Clinton, as a former President has the common decency to admit that he was convinced that Saddam had WMDs), Barbara Boxer, Hanz Blix, George Tenet, etc.
I'll take your complete ignoring of all my points that completely prove your completely worthless assertions wrong, as a subtle acknowledgement of you having no clue what you're talking about.
As such, I feel no further need to humiliate you by reposting (it somehow didn't make it onto the discussion) all of your reframings of the debate.
Awesome.
Troy: I look at what guys like you define as "success", and do the exact opposite.
Phil,
That’s cool. I didn't ask you though how you define success I asked how you would define victory in Iraq. Could you in all your wisdom enlighten me on that?
You referred to people like me in you post. Just curious have we met? I don’t remember having the pleasure.
Troy
"I’ll take your complete ignoring of all my points that completely prove your completely worthless assertions wrong, as a subtle acknowledgment of you having no clue what you’re talking about."
You keep telling yourself that, WB. I didn't have time to reply to your logic twisting diatribe, and it wouldn't matter if I did. You are committed to the GOP talking point version of history.
The Lt Col KK articles are not opinion pieces. They are what she observed first hand. And she did publish some stuff anonymously at David Hackworth's site while it was going on, so it is not after the fact second guessing. See the KK article at Wikipedia for links.
Has it occurred to you that the people you list are politicians or political people and they didn't want to get on the wrong side of the war fever that was sweeping the nation? Like I said, I never believed it, and the paleocons I discussed it with never believed it. It was a grossly transparent sham from the beginning to provide an excuse to attack Iraq.
Troy, I see you got the same non-answers I got.
Troy: No, I think I'd remember you. Like the people in my Looney Liberal Chronicles, some folks are unforgettable. Others just start out their comments the way you did, which is enough to help place them in the proper company.
Since you’re having trouble grasping the related concepts of Victory/Success (which is understandable since Dan echoes your confusion), and looking at what I’ve written specifically on the subject in my previous essays appears to be beyond your comprehension skills (otherwise you wouldn’t have to ask me that question), I’ll reduce the matter to its essence in the hope that it’s in an understandable form for you and Dr. Phillips.
If people “like you” — who can’t figure out what victory/success in a war means — advocate one policy, we should immediately adopt the opposite. If you think we ought to surrender or withdraw from a conflict, then the correct policy is stay and fight. If you think Islamo-fascists are just misunderstood people who mean us no harm and will leave us alone if we just tell them we mean them no harm, then the proper policy is to assume that these people want to kill us (regardless of our good thoughts) and kill them first. If you want to bring back the Articles of Confederation, then we should continue to support the Constitution. Etc.
It’s the same prescription I’ve advocated when dealing with Democrat and Looney Liberal policies. If Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi support a position, then embrace the opposite course. This is also true of UberCons and other “True Conservatives” who agree with the logic that “In a foreign-policy context, ‘liberal’ and ‘conservative’ don’t have any real meaning and never have.” When dealing with extremes on either side of the political spectrum, their policy positions tend to merge, even though they have different reasons for getting there.
By the way, to save on keyboard wear, I’ll just go ahead and give you the Dan Phillips evolving response regarding the above quote that he cited in support of his philosophy. It’s based on the actual give-and-take of my past interactions with him.
1. ‘I didn’t say that. I just quoted someone who said it.’ When that line of argument doesn’t work, go to #2.
2. ‘I have no obligation to comment on the stupidity of something I didn’t directly say.’ When that line of argument doesn’t work, go to #3.
3. ‘The quote was probably a joke, and not meant to be taken seriously.’ When that line of argument doesn’t work, go to #4.
4. ‘Since I (Dan Phillips) told you about the quote, it shows that you (Phil Jackson) aren’t well educated about the matter. I can’t help it if you’ve misunderstood the intent.’ [Note: Fail to “clarify” the intent that’s supposedly misunderstood]. When that line of argument doesn’t work, go to #5.
5. ‘All Phil Jackson does is repeat himself. We need to move on to something new’ (without addressing the issues Phil has raised). When that line of argument doesn’t work, go to #6.
6. Say something like ‘Troy, I see you got the same non-answers I got.’ When that line of argument doesn’t work, just say something like ‘UberCon, Uberalis’, and change the topic again.
I’ve got family in town for the next few days (genetically related to me, so they pass the tribal-purity test), so I won’t have a lot of time to keep playing with the Uber-boys. But I’ll keep you in my thoughts.
All the best, Phil
Troy: No, I think I'd remember you. Like the people in my Looney Liberal Chronicles, some folks are unforgettable. Others just start out their comments the way you did, which is enough to help place them in the proper company.
Since you’re having trouble grasping the related concepts of Victory/Success (which is understandable since Dan echoes your confusion), and looking at what I’ve written specifically on the subject in my previous essays appears to be beyond your comprehension skills (otherwise you wouldn’t have to ask me that question), I’ll reduce the matter to its essence in the hope that it’s in an understandable form for you and Dr. Phillips.
If people “like you” — who can’t figure out what victory/success in a war means — advocate one policy, we should immediately adopt the opposite. If you think we ought to surrender or withdraw from a conflict, then the correct policy is stay and fight. If you think Islamo-fascists are just misunderstood people who mean us no harm and will leave us alone if we just tell them we mean them no harm, then the proper policy is to assume that these people want to kill us (regardless of our good thoughts) and kill them first. If you want to bring back the Articles of Confederation, then we should continue to support the Constitution. Etc.
It’s the same prescription I’ve advocated when dealing with Democrat and Looney Liberal policies. If Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi support a position, then embrace the opposite course. This is also true of UberCons and other “True Conservatives” who agree with the logic that “In a foreign-policy context, ‘liberal’ and ‘conservative’ don’t have any real meaning and never have.” When dealing with extremes on either side of the political spectrum, their policy positions tend to merge, even though they have different reasons for getting there.
By the way, to save on keyboard wear, I’ll just go ahead and give you the Dan Phillips evolving response regarding the above quote that he cited in support of his philosophy. It’s based on the actual give-and-take of my past interactions with him.
1. ‘I didn’t say that. I just quoted someone who said it.’ When that line of argument doesn’t work, go to #2.
2. ‘I have no obligation to comment on the stupidity of something I didn’t directly say.’ When that line of argument doesn’t work, go to #3.
3. ‘The quote was probably a joke, and not meant to be taken seriously.’ When that line of argument doesn’t work, go to #4.
4. ‘Since I (Dan Phillips) told you about the quote, it shows that you (Phil Jackson) aren’t well educated about the matter. I can’t help it if you’ve misunderstood the intent.’ [Note: Fail to “clarify” the intent that’s supposedly misunderstood]. When that line of argument doesn’t work, go to #5.
5. ‘All Phil Jackson does is repeat himself. We need to move on to something new’ (without addressing the issues Phil has raised). When that line of argument doesn’t work, go to #6.
6. Say something like ‘Troy, I see you got the same non-answers I got.’ When that line of argument doesn’t work, just say something like ‘UberCon, Uberalis’, and change the topic again.
I’ve got family in town for the next few days (genetically related to me, so they pass the tribal-purity test), so I won’t have a lot of time to keep playing with the Uber-boys. But I’ll keep you in my thoughts.
All the best, Phil
Phil,
You posted twice silly your not supposed to do that man.
BTY I never read anything you have ever wrote before it is probable all really facinating if you are as smart as you purport to be see so I will check it out.
I will ignore your insults and try again. How would you define victory in Iraq? The question is of great importance don't you agree?
Thank you Phil for your patience. I know it must be most difficult for brilliant people "like you" to have put up with people "like me". I just want you to answer to question and so now I am giving you still another chance.
Thanks Phil and enjoy your "genetically related" ones.
Troy
Dan Phillips writes:
"Some uber-hawks that I joust with reject the whole democratization thing, because they rightly see it as Utopian, but in its place they embrace a strategy of total war against potential jihadists that borders on genocidal."
It is not that most hawks see it as Utopian, but entirely impossible to implement given the nature of Islam itself. If Islam's goal is to rule under sharia law, and they choose it democratically, do we not have to accept sharia (totalitarian in nature) law as a viable construct of rule?
There is no universal truth when it comes to democracy. Some folks just can't get a handle on it, as it goes against their grain. This has been Bush's mistake in thinking from the beginning.
Mr. Phillips' question is an excellent one, or would be if it were relevant. It is not the war’s supporters who need to justify this war. Rather, it is those who stand against the war, who vilify those who do support it, who demand countless justifications that sow disunity and blunt our ability to wage an effective campaign, and who endlessly derail and obstruct the effort (be it effective or not) who must answer for such obstructions. We who support the war did not fire the opening salvo, and many of us have cautioned against unmeasured and dissipative responses that do nothing to resolve it. Try to remember, it was the U.S. that was attacked on 9/11 (and multiple times prior to that) and that it is militant-Islam that declared and continues to wage war against us. To argue we must justify what has been a thoroughly restrained self-defense is ludicrous.
Phillip's argument makes this a neo-con / paleo-con debate based on a fixed, non-interventionist paleo-con group-think. I would answer him that self-defense is no more neo-con policy than paleo-, and is not neo-con policy to wage war for war’s sake. Similarly, it is not neo-con philosophy to be ‘interventionist’ in the affairs of other countries except when not intervening rebounds harmfully on us. If anything, there is just greater flexibility in neo-con thinking regarding when it is acceptable taking a fight to the enemy or intervening in his affairs.
Non-interventionists constantly bewail that the only justifiable war is one that is purely defensive. This stipulation restricts the defender to only returning fire when fired upon, and restricts the area of operation to the defenders sovereign territory. It leaves us no moral latitude for dealing with an enemy who ignores such niceties. So, if an enemy sits offshore lobbing rockets at my cities, isolationist logic dictates it is unethical for me to do more than return fire on those ships killing my people. It leaves me no room to attack his other forces massing to overwhelm me or for invading his country and shutting him down. Similarly, it does not permit me to attack a nation that is clearly shielding my attacker, making me wait until and unless he comes back out in the open. This makes no sense as it perpetually gives the advantage to the enemy and makes it impossible to defeat him or his means of aggression. Only by taking the fight to the enemy can we deal an effective blow that defeats his ability to wage war, discredits enemy leaders and their ideas, and discourages other aggressors from capitalizing on his success.
Paleo-conservative isolationism differs from liberal isolationism in that it puts less emphasis on justification and more on the means to effectively wage war and without any allowance for rehabilitating the enemy. Again this makes no sense, because, without discrediting and replacing the culture that gave rise to the aggression (as in militant-Islam), we are forced to fight the same enemy again and again; and over the same territory.
Phillips's argument does not rest entirely on justification for war, however; instead, he makes war contingent on but one acceptable outcome … victory; and then goes on to place limitations on said victory. If there is no assurance of victory, if there is no ‘plan’ neatly scripting a beginning, middle, and end of the conflict, or if there is any deviation from the script once written, then there is no justification for the harm inflicted and the effort is condemned as ‘rash’. Rush Limbaugh recently called this the “sit-com mentality of Americans”, by which he means we are conditioned to needing a script or can’t deal with it. Our enemy suffers from no such limitation; and sees this as a war lasting generations without end until total victory is achieved. We can predict the outcome of war even less than Mr. Phillips can predict an outcome for peace or isolation.
(cont.)
(cont.)
There is an expression called the ‘fog of war’, by which is meant both the outcomes and the direction of war are inherently unstable. The enemy does all he can to upset our neat time-tables, counter our tactics, and thwart our strategies because he, too, has a stake in the outcome. This makes it imperative we stay flexible and adapt to changes to achieve some kind of victory. Rather than having a neat plan, the effective commander must be adaptable and always keeps his enemy off balance. This makes it irrational to define at the outset exactly what conditions will give us victory or what ultimate victory will consist until we are close to having it. At best, we can calculate relative probabilities for several alternatives, by which we can only tell which are more or less feasible. The range of alternatives include: annihilating the enemy and his base of operations (in this case, 1.6 billion Muslims without regard for innocence); waging a limited war that destroys his leadership, discredits the ideas and values fueling the aggression, and leaving a void we can fill with something less aggressive; waging a defensive only war that leaves the enemy largely intact to hammer us again and again; or we can just surrender as a means of avoiding any further unpleasantness. Only the last option has any certainty associated with it: the certainty we will be subjected to the same demoralizing oppression that militant-Islam’s other victims have fallen to, that militant-Islam will stamp out any further liberalizing of Islam, and the near certainty our children will be converted to murdering fanatics.
I am sure Mr. Phillips (or someone else against the war) will gleefully remind us Iraq, Afghanistan and Al Qaeda do not have the kind of power it takes to win a war against us. It is this that makes him (and pacifists on the left) scoff at the very idea this war has any legitimacy. This is, again, the sit-com mentality speaking. Even without the power to conquer, miltant-Islam has demonstrated it is capable of inflicting grievous harm. It does not matter they can’t overthrow us in a day, all that matters is they have attacked and have not relented, and we will not be safe until someone drives a spike through this particular demon’s heart. Militant or otherwise, Islam has always been a significant threat to its neighbors and competitors. Despite its relative weakness, Islam has been applying steady pressure against the West for 14 centuries; and has, at times, made very large breakthroughs. It has been applying the same or greater pressure to Asia and Africa, and with larger results. Modern transportation and communication has destroyed the distance over which this pressure was formerly asserted, and has, thereby, been rendered fully global. Islam is not one person or one group or one nation, and does not rely on the focus of individuals, the way freedom does, to sustain it. This gives it its unique capacity for sustained warfare, and ought not be underestimated.
(cont.)
(cont.)
A further point Mr. Phillips drums on is the futility of transforming a country like Iraq into something we can live with and rely upon. He states it as though obvious, and only a lunatic would challenge it. Yet, he gives us no grounds for this assertion. I, too, have had some doubts we’d succeed in transforming Iraq into a free-republic, but that is not the same as denouncing the effort to do something positive. Freedom is not the sole preserve of America, and many Iraqis have a genuine desire for Western style freedom, especially after having suffered under Ba’athist oppression. Whether they can overcome their cultural conditioning is yet to be seen, but writing them off without giving them a shot at it is the kind of hypocrisy I expect more from a socialist. You call yourself a (American) conservative, yet do not seem to ‘trust’ certain fundamental truths on which that tradition is founded; among them an enduring belief all men are created free by our common creator. How, then, can you doubt your fellow humans yearn to be as free as you are or to have the blessings you were born to? How can you not want us to use this opportunity to expand freedom? Yes, Iraqis are carrying some cultural baggage that blunts their appreciation for how freedom works, but that does not negate the same basic instinct beats within them that can be used to transform their culture. Until now, their sources of information have been severely censored to present but one reality. Now, they are being learning our ideas stripped of Ba'athist propaganda, and the effect has been electrifying. More important they've been experiencing Western democracy from its best representatives, our young soldiers. Having liberated Iraq from an oppressive regime we bear some responsibility to leave Iraqis better equipped to stay free than we found them. I don’t know if we will succeed in this, but it is clear it would be wrong to abandon Iraq with no more than an admonition; and inviting the fanatics to attack us all over again, affirming them in the conviction “it is a matter of when, not if, they succeed”.
The fact is we can’t rely on any foreign nation, even the ones most like us. Yet, we have and do put trust in other countries all the same, because, to do otherwise, isolates us to such a degree we’d suffer economically, socially and politically. Take this same reasoning to an extreme and we should logically trust no one and revert to a dog-eat-dog condition. Society is built almost entirely on trust, and, if we are to change the paradigm among Muslims, we must build in them some trust for playing by our rules. Sixty-years ago we fought an all-out war against fascist Germany, Italy and Japan. There were isolationists, then, who saw Japan’s culture as irreconcilable with ours and impossible we’d ever establish good relations. Instead, Japan largely reformed itself and has been a decent ally since. Their culture and the way they practice democracy is still something of an enigma to us. Yet, it works and doesn’t seem to impair good relations. The German people proved the more intractable; despite having the greater affinity with Americans and British. Yet, no one argued we should not try to reform either Germany or Japan at the time (only how to go about it and that it would take far longer than it did). Iraq is making slow progress toward ‘democratization’. This is less because Iraqi culture has farther to go (no further than Japanese culture) than it is because we did an incomplete job of defeating the main enemy before starting rehabilitation. This is a political dilemma created by the left and other isolationists, who repeatedly disrupted strategic and tactical options open to us (not unlike the hamstringing we saw in Vietnam that made it impossible to finish what we started). Without the will to win, there can be no victory, no matter the excellence of the plan. With a united front and the will to win, we stand a better than excellent chance of winning … and of converting enemies into allies.
I find it interesting Mr. Phillips dismissively compares “… neo-cons and mainstream conservatives …”, as though having a slightly older pedigree trumps numbers. I hate to burst his bubble, but paleo- has become synonymous with fringe. Paleo-conservancy has, unfortunately, retreated behind a wall of isolationism that regards all interaction with foreign states, peoples, cultures, or groups (be they hostile or benign) as undesirable, corrosive, or a sell-out. Similarly, Phillips makes a great fuss (repeatedly) of the rest of us being “uber-hawks”, as though being plain ‘hawk’ were insufficient or insufficiently insulting. ‘Hawk’ already describes an extreme position, beyond which we cannot logically go; making his ‘uber’ prefix redundant. I have already answered we are not ‘hawkish’ for having defended ourselves or chosen a course of action effective in thwarting the enemy’s objectives and ideology (a hawk would demand we nuke the whole Muslim world and be done it). Being conservative (in the American sense) has nothing to do with foreign entanglements (other than we be not overly fond of them) and everything to do with preserving founding values and freedoms. It has been a frequent complaint that: anyone who is not ‘isolationist’ is, de facto, unworthy to be called a ‘conservative’; which is patently absurd. I do not indulge in labels like paleo-, neo, and uber-hawk, with which to divide and intimidate. I recognize as ‘conservative’ that which reveres and preserves our way of life. Everything else is just someone’s opinion.
Troy, if you want to know how not to be a universalist, internationalist masquerading as a conservative, advocate the opposite of what Phil advocates.
Phil, I stand by the quote I posted. In foreign policy we generally have unilateralist, internationalist, interventionists who call themselves conservatives (and/or Republicans) but aren't, and multilateralist, internationalist, interventionists who call themselves liberals and really are. Look at how many of the candidates running for President in both parties belong to the Council on Foreign Relations. Wow, such diversity of thought. Just because something is called conservative or is popularly conceived as such does not make it so if we look at first principles.
Mr. Stapler, I will have to respond to your long comments later.
“You posted twice silly your not supposed to do that man.”
*** I guess the editors at IC liked the comment so much they let a duplicate stand.
“How would you define victory in Iraq?”
*** Again, read my articles. I’ve repeatedly addressed this issue there. We’re in a generational conflict with an Islamo-fascist ideology that uses terrorism as its main weapon. Iraq is but one facet of this conflict.
“Thank you Phil for your patience. I know it must be most difficult for brilliant people ‘like you’ to have put up with people ‘like me’”.
*** It is. But I have the stamina to persevere.
“Thanks Phil and enjoy your ‘genetically related’ ones.”
*** Will do.
“Phil, I stand by the quote I posted. In foreign policy we generally have unilateralist, internationalist, interventionists who call themselves conservatives (and/or Republicans) but aren’t, and multilateralist, internationalist, interventionists who call themselves liberals and really are. Look at how many of the candidates running for President in both parties belong to the Council on Foreign Relations. Wow, such diversity of thought.”
*** The quote is: “In a foreign-policy context, ‘liberal’ and ‘conservative’ don’t have any real meaning and never have.” Which again is why Ron Paul and Nancy Pelosi have the same foreign policy goals, objectives and strategy?
“Just because something is called conservative or is popularly conceived as such does not make it so …”
*** Dan. No need to be so hard on yourself and other Uber Conservatives. We all know that just because you say you’re the “True Conservatives” doesn’t mean you really are.
“Which again is why Ron Paul and Nancy Pelosi have the same foreign policy goals, objectives and strategy?”
Maybe I’m getting soft, but I know that Dan will fail to grasp the fun I was making of his position in the quote above when I chose Ron Paul this time instead of Dick Cheney. So let me just spell it out. The fact that two kooks both want us out of Iraq for different reasons, to accomplish different objectives, and do this as part of different strategies does not meant that ‘liberal’ and ‘conservative’ have “no meaning and never have.” As I said before, extremists always converge when you’re discussing outcomes (both the Michigan Militia and the Weather Underground want to overthrow the US government, but I’d hardly say their core liberal/conservative philosophies are irrelevant.)
The logic/wisdom of Dr. Phil Jackson:
"If people "like you" — who can't figure out what victory/success in a war means — advocate one policy, we should immediately adopt the opposite. If you think we ought to surrender or withdraw from a conflict, then the correct policy is stay and fight."
AND
"It's the same prescription I've advocated when dealing with Democrat and Looney Liberal policies. If Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi support a position, then embrace the opposite course. "
Troy
Phil said:
>>Again, read my articles. I’ve repeatedly addressed this issue there.
Where give me the URL
"The fact that two kooks…" Phil, you are getting desperate. Calling people names does not an argument make.
I keep forgetting that when I deal with Dan I have to keep explaining fundamental issues.
“Foreign policy” is not “Do I support the Iraq War — Yes or No?” There’s the question of why and how? Ron Paul has philosophical objections to any US overseas military action; Pelosi has political/strategic objections to the Iraq war because Bush is the President. Put a Democrat or liberal in the White House, and Pelosi’s objections go away. The same is not true for Ron Paul.
Paul is also philosophically crazy enough to actually act on his principles and pull US troops out of Iraq regardless of the practical consequences should he have the power. Pelosi, a liberal hack, would not necessarily follow through on her actions. Having used Iraq to gain power, she’d no longer feel compelled to act according to her pre-election pronouncements.
This is why political philosophy matters. Despite my dislike for Paul, I will acknowledge that as an uber-conservative, he actually believes what he says (no matter how crazy his policy ideas are). As a Liberal, Pelosi is unencumbered by the need to act principally or consistently. This is why political philosophy matters in foreign policy. Al Gore will support NAFTA because the Clinton Administration saw it as part of a triangulation strategy; Rush Limbaugh will support NAFTA because philosophically he’s committed to free trade regardless of who is in power. Despite the fact that Gore/Limbaugh converge on a specific policy outcome, neither would implement the same day-to-day foreign policy despite this common agreement on NAFTA. Limbaugh would use NAFTA to spread the free market. Gore would use NAFTA to add foreign campaign contributions to his presidential election efforts.
The issue of political philosophy only becomes an issue when you think that only your fringe philosophy is truly “conservative”, and everyone else is just a variation of “liberal”. You see no role for political ideology to shape the goals, strategy, or process of foreign policy because your world view does not allow for anything other than your philosophy to be called Conservative.
Troy
I’m not your personal tutor. The IC archives are full of my articles, and all have titles that suggest their content. My Looney Liberal Chronicles also have chapter titles. And I comment frequently in many posts dealing with the war on Islamic fascism.
Show a little initiative. If you’re having trouble with your reading comprehension skills, ask your mom to explain my articles to you. I am perseverant, but even perseverance has its limits.
Dr Phil,
Just send me the URL where you addressed the issue or just copy and past from a previous post. I am not going to sit here and search through everything you wrote when you can take me directly to the post. The subject matter of the article is War Hawks Need to Define “Victory” so it would be nice if you would actually address the issue at hand.
>> If you’re having trouble with your reading comprehension skills
Cute Phil I enjoyed that. Now answer the question.
Troy
Dr. Phil is indeed getting desperate. Let’s take a look at some of the insults in just the last few posts:
-two kooks
-extremists
-philosophically crazy
-liberal hack
-crazy
-Dan will fail to grasp
All of this from someone who is trying to portray himself as a most profound intellectual for example:
-Since you’re having trouble grasping
-my previous essays appears to be beyond your comprehension skills
-I’ll reduce the matter to its essence in the hope that it’s in an understandable form for you
-Since you’re having trouble grasping
-If you’re having trouble with your reading comprehension skills, ask your mom to explain my articles to you.
And this coming from a guy who reduces everything to these gems of insight:
“If people “like you” — who can’t figure out what victory/success in a war means — advocate one policy, we should immediately adopt the opposite. If you think we ought to surrender or withdraw from a conflict, then the correct policy is stay and fight.”
And this reflection
“It’s the same prescription I’ve advocated when dealing with Democrat and Looney Liberal policies. If Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi support a position, then embrace the opposite course. ”
And he wants me to go back and read his archives?
Most of my friends agree with the war and they can hold there own in a debate in a real give and take debate. We argue about it without calling each other names. Dr. Phil on the other hand – where did Intellectual Conservative find this guy?
Anyway Dr. Phil I am glad you are staying in the conversation even though you never really entered the debate. I have enjoyed this whole exchange so much that I was a little worried when you said, “I’ve got family in town for the next few days (genetically related to me, so they pass the tribal-purity test”. Thank you so much for the five additional posts since then.
I better stop now otherwise Dr. Phil is going to call me a poopy head bringing back repressed memories from junior high.
Troy
Troy:
You neglected to repeat your opening message to me, which set the tone for the great intellectual debate you were seeking: “You are a smart guy and all (or at least you keep telling us so PHD and all). How would you define victory in Iraq?”
As a certified smart guy, I can easily recognize a kook, hack, and other “poopy head” as you seem to prefer to be described. I’ve found that people who ask obvious questions when the answers are in front of them, or who won’t take the time to find the answer a smart guy will give them when he’s already written on the subject, are either dishonest, disingenuous, or have taken too many rides on the short bus to ever understand the answer anyway.
Being as generous as I could with your own description of yourself as an uninformed guy who writes marginally literate sentences (“BTY I never read anything you have ever wrote before it is probable all really facinating if you are as smart as you purport to be see so I will check it out.”), I did not automatically assume that you are a special needs child, but it appears that I may have to rethink that position. Otherwise, why would you say that you’re going to see what I wrote about the subject to answer the question you asked, then turn around and say now you’re not going to read it after I told you repeatedly where the answers were?
This is the problem with a kith & kin based social structure. Too much inbreeding dilutes the gene pool, rather than expands it.
Dr. Phil,
Where have you answered the question? Is really this the answer?
“It’s the same prescription I’ve advocated when dealing with Democrat and Looney Liberal policies. If Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi support a position, then embrace the opposite course. ”
I made my decision not to read you after reading your above quoted logic. If that is what passes for wisdom what is the point?
The title of Dan Philip’s article was War Hawks Need to Define “Victory”. Why have you still not answered the question?
Thanks once again for posting Phil. Is the family still in town?
Troy
Troy: The family's doing fine. Give my regards to your mom.
Best regards,
Phil
Phil, I started out my essay saying that what is meant by victory is not self evident. Stamping your feet saying it is does not make it so. Is a functioning democracy in Iraq needed? What if that takes 5 more years? Will we need indefinite troops there to keep down the fighting? If so, would that be alright with you? It is certainly not clear what victory would mean in your multi-generational war wet dream.
But you pride yourself on being a practical and pragmatic thinker who evaluates all the facts at hand to arrive at your thoughtful conclusions unbound by excessive ideology. So Mr. Practical Man of the World, if the people are against the War in Iraq and more are jumping ship each day, how in the heck do you expect to sell a multi-generational War against Islam? Persuasion? A coup? Pray for more terrorism to reignite war fever? And are you going to support a draft to sustain it? We clearly can not do it with the forces we have which are being strained to the breaking point.
Troy, you don't understand since you are a novice at the arguing with Phil business so let me clue you in. Phil's opinions are the gold standard, you see. The worth of other opinions is measured by their distance from or proximity to Phil's opinion. (That makes a non-interventionist like me a blithering idiot.) Hence, if you want to know what victory means read what Phil has said about it. Don't bother yourself with the pesky opinions of others who have written books on the subject, just see what Phil "Sci-Fi" Jackson has said, and that is all you need to know.
Dan: don't be so hard on yourself. I've never used the word "blithering".
Take care, Phil
Phil,
You will be happy to learn that we will be at war with Iran soon:
http://tinyurl.com/ys8mr4
May be why the troops are supporting Ron Paul's campaign
http://tinyurl.com/2nlrhx
Troy
So Dan,
By your own admission, (for whatever reason), you have no desire to respond to my comments. I don't care what non-sensical justification you claim for your pathetic lack of argument, but the bottom line in…you have no leg to stand on.
Even ignoring the blatant crap you spew every time you return to your keyboard…the facts are:
1) You claim the Bush lied us into war.
Fact: Before Bush ever started running, Clinton and all above mentioned people were arguing for attacking Iraq.
Regardless of motive, this proves that the idea to invade Iraq and out Saddam existed before Bush announced his candadacy. You don't have a leg to stand on here.
2) You Claim Bush manipulated info
Fact: The biggest pieces of war intelligence came from the English (Saddam has sought uranium in Nigeria) and France (Those tubes are perfect for centrifuges) respectively.
3) "I never believed it!"
Reality: Who cares?
Your some schmuck who has no war experience yet slams others who don't as well. So who cares?
Pointing to your own opinion as basis of fact is irrelevant.
Heck, under this absolutely moronic frame of debate:
I once believed that there was a monster in my stereo (I was 6 btw), so therefore, that absolutely foolish opinion MUST be entered into the debate as FACT, because someone once believed it.
At the end of the day, you refuse to debate the issues because you know you're trying to lie to everyone who reads your crap. In an honest debate, where you can't just pull any nonsensical piece of crap you want out of thin air, but have to debate the facts…we both know I'll win. You have the added disadvantage of knowing I was an anti-war guy turned pro-war by being wrong (I have no problem admitting I have the facts backwards.) So if you wish to debate facts…you're already done. You've lost.
I'm sick of idiot saying they've debated my facts when all they've done is shift the debate.
You've been proven wrong on the issue of your article no less than three times:
1) No neo-con (Republican) has defined victory.
2. (When provided a link here, to prove to you that Bush hadindeed defines victory you:) Demanded that desk jockeys define victory.
3) (When told that most "desk jockeys" defer to WAR generals to define policy) You demanded that Limbaugh and Hannity define it,
4) (When proved with evidence that at least Hannity has defined it) You Demanded MYSELF or Dr. Jackson define victory.
And let's not forget that absolutely stupid moment when you mocked my IC screen name. Please, you couldn't defend your position against Terry Shiavo, stop pretending you are my debating equal.
Stop mascarading as anything other than an anti war shill.
WB, I never said one word about Terry Schiavo. You have me confused with someone else.
You asserted that it was common knowledge or everyone believed (or something like that. I don't have time to look back) that Saddam had WMDs. No they didn't. Hence the reference to myself and others in anti-war right circles who never believed it. That is the problem with absolutist assertions. They are easily disproved.
And off course the idea of "regime change" in Iraq pre-dated the Bush administration. It was clearly articulated in the '98 PNAC document, and it existed long before that in the minds of the neocon world domination crowd. Can't you see that that actually HURTS your case? That 911 created a convenient pretext for a preordained war. And no all the people you mentioned did not advocate "invading Iraq." Clinton and Dean wanted to invade Iraq before Bush did?
Did you even read the Lt Col KK articles I linked to?
Liberius is using a bogus quote from Einstein. Many anti-Semites use it. Just check google.
His quote:
“Anti-Semitism is nothing but the antagonistic attitude produced in the non-Jew by the Jewish group… The Jewish group has thrived on opposition and on the antagonism it has forever met in the world”
Here's the proof it's bogus:
http://sungenisandthejews.blogspot.com/2007/03/refusing-to-admit-obvious-sungeniss.html
http://sungenisandthejews.blogspot.com/2007/04/jacob-michael-prophet.html
At least he left off the last sentence most anti-Semites use…one that was totally made up. But the first two sentences in his quote are separated by EIGHT PARAGRAPHS. Read them in context and they DO NOT say what he implies.
Treebeard,
Thanks for catching that. Though you should realize that using bogus quotes is part of being "open-minded."
Another book for anyone who doesn't want to "wallow in ignorance" and who is "open-minded":
"The Anguish of the Jews" by Fr. Flannery, a Catholic priest.
The idea that the Jews always "had it coming" and that there "crimes" always preceded anti-Semitism is repugnant and ignorant.
BTW….
I'm not a Jew.
I don't think Jews never did anything wrong, even in the middle ages, in regard to Palestine or anything else for that matter.
I think if Jews were in the majority and held power like non-Jews have for so long, they most likely would have committed the same kinds of atrocities somewhere along the way against others. (For instance, Jewish history when Christians were in the minority isn't exactly stellar…and I'm not sold on all Israeli military actions, like the recent one in Lebanon).
Sadly, these things are human nature….not gentile nature, not Jewish nature…HUMAN NATURE.