I spent the vast majority of my life in the San Francisco Bay Area and what I saw wasn't pretty; it was an unbridled, dedicated, unreasoning and unreasonable hatred of America and all that it stands for. The present defeatist attitude; the belief that we “can't win” in Iraq, is nothing more than a present day iteration of the same fervor we saw during the Vietnam War and the Cold War.
With today's report to the House of Representatives by General David Petraeus the questions were flying thick and fast from the members of the Salem Communications radio talk show team on exactly why MoveOn.org had taken out the full page ad in the New York Times entitled “General Petraeus or General Betray Us ?”
The answer should not be surprising. It should be obvious to all patriotic Americans, or at least to anyone who does not already believe the defeatist propaganda. Perhaps my view is biased because I grew up in that hotbed of the anti-war movement, Berkeley California. I spent the vast majority of my life in the San Francisco Bay Area, before moving to Texas about 5 years ago. What I saw wasn't pretty; it was an unbridled, dedicated, unreasoning and unreasonable hatred of America and all that it stands for. It appears obvious to me that the present defeatist attitude; the belief that we “can't win” in Iraq, is nothing more than a present day iteration of the same fervor we saw during the Vietnam War and the Cold War. It is not that they think we can't win; it is that they simply don't want us to win. It is the desire to see America brought down at any cost or any price. And the current version of this attitude is more vehement than the past in one critical respect; America outlasted the Soviet Union in the Cold War. Nothing could make these folks more angry except, perhaps if the Tiananmen Square demonstrations had brought down the authoritarian Chinese government. Now the defeat of the United States isn't enough; only its total destruction will suffice.
I know that this is hard for a lot of people to understand. It makes no sense to a rational person. To see America defeated would eventually spell the end of our republic, and the end of their dreams of a socialist paradise. Women's rights would be dead; homosexuals would be executed, and the likely return of African Americans to slavery would not be far behind. Lest anyone forget, Arab slavers took many more slaves from Africa than Europeans and Americans, and had been doing it for a lot longer. There is the possibility that without the Arab connection slavery might never have become an institution in the New World; it is, after all, an anti-Christian concept, but I digress.
What happened during the post World War II era was a mass shift in American public opinion to the left. While it never actually claimed a majority of the population, it was sufficient to have a substantial effect on national politics. It is well known that absent this vocal, combative minority American would have assisted the Saigon government to successfully resist Hanoi's Soviet backed conquest of the Vietnamese South and history would have been changed. Sadly, under Henry Kissinger's direction we snatched defeat from the jaws of victory, and a bloodbath ensued. To this day I still encounter people who say it was a great thing, and that the people killed deserved to die. This lack of human concern for the lives of others has been a recent hallmark of the political left who simply will not understand that the political creed they espouse is the antithesis of their purportedly humanistic ideals.
When Ronald Reagan was elected they shouted that we were heading for an Orwellian 1984 type world, which some now claim has happened due to our need for increased surveillance on contacts between people here and potential terrorist connections in Asia. Orwell's prediction has not happened, thank God, and President Reagan would have been one of the last people to try to implement it. His victory was slap in the face to the left who had envisioned a new era of total power following the demise of Richard Nixon. They failed to appreciate Jimmy Carter's bungling for what it was, making Reagan's election that much more distasteful. Then when the Berlin Wall came along with the USSR their Great Red Hope had disappeared. Now they are left to grasp at the only thing left; Islamic militants.
The fact that a victory by bin Laden, Ahmadinejad, and company would spell the end of all the “civil rights” that the American left hold so dear is secondary. They would sell their souls gladly to see American destroyed because to them it is the same “great satan” that the Iranians depict. Perhaps they think that they can win the mullahs over later. More likely, they would end up in line to have their heads cut off, but that's another story.
Entering Iraq was a necessary action by the United States. If not Iraq, it would have had to be another major nation in the same area. Transferring the target of the militants from the US homeland to another location was necessary. The soldiers serving there are paying the price for our safety here at home, and are doing it gladly. They know the risks, and are willing to take them. That has ever been the strength of our nation. Meanwhile, they are also making possible a major change in the region's political fabric. The Arab dominated nations have had little or no experience with democratic rule. They also have no concept of nationalism. Their loyalties have been to their families and tribes. Their political structure has been cross pollinated with the Islamic influence that is totalitarian in effect. This is why these nations have frequently devolved into dictatorships or similar authoritarian systems. They really don't know anything else.
The left, and perhaps other Americans as well want a reasonable time table for our leaving Iraq. The best estimate I can give is starting in 20 years. By then we should have a significant number of Iraqis who are sufficiently acquainted with western ideas, who have not lived under a dictator, and who have begun to develop a nationalism that is based on loyalty to the nation, and not to a single man. Americans have been lucky. We had the English experience to draw on and the rights secured against the monarch by the nobility when King John was forced to sign the Magna Carta. George Washington said that America would have no kings. We didn't need them; we were capable of self government, but a lot of people around the world don't know this skill as yet. For them it must be a patient time consuming process, and it will take lives.
The biggest problem that the Iraqis face if their neighbors who would like nothing better than to see the democratization process fail. This would enable them to fill the power vacuum with their medieval political system that masquerades as religion.
Meanwhile, if the left truly wants rights for women, gays, minorities of whatever stripe, and true freedom for everyone, they will support the American presence in Iraq. Until they do, their constant screaming about human rights will remain nothing but a charade, and their patriotism will be suspect, despite Mrs. Clinton's protestations to the contrary.
slaib@intellectualconservative.com
http://intellectualconservative.com
Read more articles by Steven D. Laib
Revolutionary War- nearly half of the country did not want war with Britain. The wealthy and powerful lead to the birth of this nation (those rich white guys of which many were slave owners that liberals love to hate). These men relinquished power to the people; an unknown concept at the time and still the guiding principle of America.
Civil War- Lincoln's approval numbers were dismal. Many northerners were sick of sending their young to die in defense of a Union that many thought would never be united regardless of the outcome. Can you imagine a war today to prevent California from leaving the Union? Actually no one would object would they?
World War I- America held fast to isolationism until it was discovered that Germany was courting Mexico to join them in an invasion of the United States. World War II- As our Allies suffered we did nothing. Article after article from the New York Times (aka liberal Bible) can be found on how we must leave Europe defend itself. After the attack on Pearl Harbor, most liberals still held fast to the belief that Hitler was Europe's problem and we should only deal with Japan. Liberals still believe America commited the greatest sin of WWII when we nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki. They refuse to value the lives of Americans over the lives of the enemy.
Cuban- Missile Crisis- Liberals first win as Kennedy allows an enemy 90 miles of our border with direct ties to our nations biggest threat. Kennedy is praised for his leadership here. I for one deem it as a large scale disaster of foreign policy. We allowed for the first time an enemy of the United States to dictate foreign policy. The seed had been sewn.
Viet-Nam- Liberal win of focusing the public sentiment towards the horror of war and not the results of victory versus defeat.
Gulf War- A quick victory where the constant concern over liberal backlash prevented George Bush from removing Saddam Hussein at this time. This was George Bush's greatest failure.
Clinton Presidency; Only a true liberal could allow a bombing at the trade center, bombing of the USS Cole, and bombing of a US embassy go unpunished. He avoided conflict at all cost. Ultimately his avoidance of protecting our country lead to 911.
Iraq War: George Bush 43 refuses to make the same mistake of his father and he is paying the political price. He has not led the war he should have; trying to wear kid gloves in war is impossible. History will be kind to GWB. Liberals feel he has pushed us to war without justification; conservatives believe he lead us to war without while not providing all the resources to win it. I believe he is too concerned with colletaral damage to win (aka Viet-Nam). His successor if a Democrat will prove the wisdom of this administration with the price of American Lives when he/she pulls out of the just war. We will be hit again.
Comment by Honker | September 11, 2007
With all respect Honker, I have to disagree on one small point. The problem in this war is not in Bush's handling of it (though it isn't teh greatest), but in our enemy finding encouragement, in the leftists' statements, that all they have to do is just cause enough carnage and we'll flee. (Coincidentally, that was the Viet Cong's strategy too.) If we had a limp wristed, but united strategy, for Iraq-the war would've ended long ago.
Similarly, the failure of Clinton was not in failing to respond, but in fleeing once the going got tough-further fueling this fantasy of teh jihadists.
Comment by WolvenBear | September 11, 2007
Honker, while the prospect of California or Vermont leaving the United States is certainly appealing, precedent has been set and should be adhered to. A recent article on Vermont secession quoted one of its advocates as saying that he hoped secession would be peaceful. So did the Confederacy, but Lincoln rejected its peace envoys (see William Marvel’s “Mr. Lincoln Goes to War”) and attempted to reinforce Fort Sumpter, which lead to South Carolina’s bombardment. In the absence of case law or a constitutional amendment allowing states to secede simple fairness demands that states which attempt to seceed be treated like Sherman treated Georgia. The thought of San Francisco being a 21st century Atlanta should warm the heart of anyone who hates socialism.
Comment by William Woodford | September 13, 2007
The best article on this mindset was referenced here http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2007/09/01/enough-with-the-obfuscation-already-part-two on IC a few weeks ago, and it is a chapter out of a book, Man in the Trap. The chapter is “The True Liberal, The Modern Liberal, and the Environmental Liberal” available on-line here http://www.orgonomy.org/article_terrorism_trueliberal.html . It was written in 1965! I found it truly amazing because he describes to a “T” a liberal I know.
Comment by sedonaman | September 15, 2007