Who's for Pulling Out?
I listen to Michael Medved on the way to school. He has an interesting format for a conservative talk show host. The drive is about 1 hour and 35 minutes, so usually I listen to one half of his show. The interesting thing about it is the majority of his callers disagree with him. So, basically the format is Medved espousing his conservative views on a news story or recent development. (Medved is an articulate and intelligent reformed liberal who saw the error of his left-wing, youthful thinking) Then he takes callers who rail against his perceived wrongfulness. It makes for some remarkable insights into the liberal minds roaming our country.
Last week, I started to put an idea together after hearing a phenomenon that happens quite regularly on his show (my further description negates the use of the word phenomenon). The idea that hit me is that not all those who are for pulling out prematurely from Iraq are on the left. There seems to be a loud and dangerous section of the right that sees a withdrawal of our troops immediately as a good thing. And this idea of cutting and running is not confined to the "nutjobs". Pat Buchanan sees withdrawal as inline with his isolationist thinking. Although you have to grill him a bit to find it (see link). I can imagine and almost understand the left wing calling for immediate withdrawal of our troops from Iraq , but hearing self-proclaimed, patriotic "conservatives" call for the same I do not comprehend. Mind you, their respective reasoning is different.
First off, liberals show mock support for the troops but ask for their withdrawal, as if their withdrawal would save them from their duty. That mock support is there only as long as the wind blows correctly, politically corrrectly. If we were to leave now and leave the struggling democaracy of Iraq to be dependent on the fledgling miltary that remains, how would we appear to the rest of the world, let alone Arab dictators. I will tell you how we would appear, just like we did under Gerald Ford and the democrat congress of 1975. Could you imagine if the mindset took hold today that took hold of our country 30 years ago. Bottom-line on Vietnam: we did not lose, we left. We left an ally and let millions of people die in and around the region. Which is precisely what would happen if we did the same in Iraq.
Quick history refresher: The Tet offensive, 1968, Walter Cronkite in February of that year, declared that the Tet Offensive was our "defeat", that he feared the whole war would end in a stalemate. Hindsight, in this case is a wonderful thing. The VietCong and much of the NVA were dessimated in the south after their holiday offensive in January 1968. The brashness of the attack is what humbled old Wally. New documents recently declassified from the old Soviet Union and discovered by Stephen J. Morris, a professor from Johns Hopkins University, show that even their Soviet "comrades" did not believe the NVA could win the war, ever. Now, keep some things in mind, after the Tet Offensive of '68, which we and the South Vietnamese repelled, there was the Easter Offensive of '72, which was also repelled mainly on the ground by the South Vietnamese army with help from our air power. The Paris Peace agreement in '73, for which Kissinger won the Nobel Peace Prize, should have sealed it. The turnout would have been much like Korea 20 years prior. With the agreement, our direct involvement was to end. Each side was to respect the borders and sovreignty of the other. The South was our ally, the North was aligned on a doctrinal basis with the Soviets. If not for the sweeping victories by the democrats in Congress after the elections of '74, if not for a weakened Republican president in place by default (see Watergate), if not for Cronkite and his media comrades, and if not for a confused and dissillusioned public, the treaty-breaking offensive of '75 would have been repelled like the rest. Instead we left one of our allies to become non-existent. No sanctions were ever levelled against the North Vietnamese government for breaking the peace agreement of '73. Surprising, since the U. N. is normally so useful? Bottom-line: disgrace, and a decade long apathetic walk to the tune of the liberal pied-pipers.
Still, others are for a similar result in the Middle East. There are those who are still deluded by the ideas and ideals of the '60's. The liberals realize the power they gained by converting minds through doom and gloom, which further effected public policy. They see the same power available if they can change minds today through the same doom and gloom. But, what of the conservatives spouting similar doom and gloom.
I hear their reasoning a lot lately. Why should our men and women being dying for a group of people who hate us? It is an isolationist argument. Nothing is going to change over their, they won't be able to handle democracy and freedom! That is a racist argument. And even, Bush is a neo-con who started this war for political gain and Israel! Anti-semitism can be seen on both sides. Let us work in reverse, the idea that this war was started to somehow serve Bush's, zionist masters is rediculous. Israel was not at war with Iraq. We should have attacked Palestine if that were logical. But, to be honest, why not support the wishes of Israel in this case. Up until a few months ago, it was the only democracy in the region. And, can you think of a better ally to have in the world, i.e. Mossad. Secondly, to believe that the people who inhabit Iraq can not handle a publicly elected government and their own affairs is a backdoor way of saying they are not smart enough, not strong enough, or they are just not as good as us. When you break it down its racist (and you can hear it on the left as well). Finally to the idea of our fighting men and women dying for an unworthy cause, I say BUNK! What could be more worthy than freeing an entire nation, let alone two. These men and women are volunteers and the finest we have, and they believe in freedom. What could be more useful than spreading democracy. Our soldiers and marines fight is not needless. If you believe that argument, which is just the rehashing of anti-war rhetoric circa. 1968, then what about WWI, the Spanish-American War, and Tripoli. We were in no danger prior to those conflicts. If its worthy enough to fight the Barbary pirates on the "shores of Tripoli", then fighting the savages on the streets of Fallujah is more than worthy.
For a conservative to believe we should cut and run now is more than stupid, it goes against our principles. It is almost cliche' to hear the same hogwash, thirty five year-old hogwash, about our efforts in the Middle East.
We will finish what they started, we will not stop fighting until the fighting is done.
We owe it to the fallen. We owe it to our children. We owe it to their children. We are right, the cause is just...no matter what either side says.
Last week, I started to put an idea together after hearing a phenomenon that happens quite regularly on his show (my further description negates the use of the word phenomenon). The idea that hit me is that not all those who are for pulling out prematurely from Iraq are on the left. There seems to be a loud and dangerous section of the right that sees a withdrawal of our troops immediately as a good thing. And this idea of cutting and running is not confined to the "nutjobs". Pat Buchanan sees withdrawal as inline with his isolationist thinking. Although you have to grill him a bit to find it (see link). I can imagine and almost understand the left wing calling for immediate withdrawal of our troops from Iraq , but hearing self-proclaimed, patriotic "conservatives" call for the same I do not comprehend. Mind you, their respective reasoning is different.
First off, liberals show mock support for the troops but ask for their withdrawal, as if their withdrawal would save them from their duty. That mock support is there only as long as the wind blows correctly, politically corrrectly. If we were to leave now and leave the struggling democaracy of Iraq to be dependent on the fledgling miltary that remains, how would we appear to the rest of the world, let alone Arab dictators. I will tell you how we would appear, just like we did under Gerald Ford and the democrat congress of 1975. Could you imagine if the mindset took hold today that took hold of our country 30 years ago. Bottom-line on Vietnam: we did not lose, we left. We left an ally and let millions of people die in and around the region. Which is precisely what would happen if we did the same in Iraq.
Quick history refresher: The Tet offensive, 1968, Walter Cronkite in February of that year, declared that the Tet Offensive was our "defeat", that he feared the whole war would end in a stalemate. Hindsight, in this case is a wonderful thing. The VietCong and much of the NVA were dessimated in the south after their holiday offensive in January 1968. The brashness of the attack is what humbled old Wally. New documents recently declassified from the old Soviet Union and discovered by Stephen J. Morris, a professor from Johns Hopkins University, show that even their Soviet "comrades" did not believe the NVA could win the war, ever. Now, keep some things in mind, after the Tet Offensive of '68, which we and the South Vietnamese repelled, there was the Easter Offensive of '72, which was also repelled mainly on the ground by the South Vietnamese army with help from our air power. The Paris Peace agreement in '73, for which Kissinger won the Nobel Peace Prize, should have sealed it. The turnout would have been much like Korea 20 years prior. With the agreement, our direct involvement was to end. Each side was to respect the borders and sovreignty of the other. The South was our ally, the North was aligned on a doctrinal basis with the Soviets. If not for the sweeping victories by the democrats in Congress after the elections of '74, if not for a weakened Republican president in place by default (see Watergate), if not for Cronkite and his media comrades, and if not for a confused and dissillusioned public, the treaty-breaking offensive of '75 would have been repelled like the rest. Instead we left one of our allies to become non-existent. No sanctions were ever levelled against the North Vietnamese government for breaking the peace agreement of '73. Surprising, since the U. N. is normally so useful? Bottom-line: disgrace, and a decade long apathetic walk to the tune of the liberal pied-pipers.
Still, others are for a similar result in the Middle East. There are those who are still deluded by the ideas and ideals of the '60's. The liberals realize the power they gained by converting minds through doom and gloom, which further effected public policy. They see the same power available if they can change minds today through the same doom and gloom. But, what of the conservatives spouting similar doom and gloom.
I hear their reasoning a lot lately. Why should our men and women being dying for a group of people who hate us? It is an isolationist argument. Nothing is going to change over their, they won't be able to handle democracy and freedom! That is a racist argument. And even, Bush is a neo-con who started this war for political gain and Israel! Anti-semitism can be seen on both sides. Let us work in reverse, the idea that this war was started to somehow serve Bush's, zionist masters is rediculous. Israel was not at war with Iraq. We should have attacked Palestine if that were logical. But, to be honest, why not support the wishes of Israel in this case. Up until a few months ago, it was the only democracy in the region. And, can you think of a better ally to have in the world, i.e. Mossad. Secondly, to believe that the people who inhabit Iraq can not handle a publicly elected government and their own affairs is a backdoor way of saying they are not smart enough, not strong enough, or they are just not as good as us. When you break it down its racist (and you can hear it on the left as well). Finally to the idea of our fighting men and women dying for an unworthy cause, I say BUNK! What could be more worthy than freeing an entire nation, let alone two. These men and women are volunteers and the finest we have, and they believe in freedom. What could be more useful than spreading democracy. Our soldiers and marines fight is not needless. If you believe that argument, which is just the rehashing of anti-war rhetoric circa. 1968, then what about WWI, the Spanish-American War, and Tripoli. We were in no danger prior to those conflicts. If its worthy enough to fight the Barbary pirates on the "shores of Tripoli", then fighting the savages on the streets of Fallujah is more than worthy.
For a conservative to believe we should cut and run now is more than stupid, it goes against our principles. It is almost cliche' to hear the same hogwash, thirty five year-old hogwash, about our efforts in the Middle East.
We will finish what they started, we will not stop fighting until the fighting is done.
We owe it to the fallen. We owe it to our children. We owe it to their children. We are right, the cause is just...no matter what either side says.
posted by Daedalus at 5/08/2005 09:06:00 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home