Those who oppose the entire concept perhaps experienced a trembly moment of late when American Generals Peter Pace and John Abizaid described their fears of a civil war in Iraq. The press and others seemed to immediately seize upon those words as final proof that Bush is, er, "we" are losing the war.
Call it an Iraq "Civil Wargasm".
Add it to the backlash against Israel for defending themselves against the same brand of terrorists, if you like. Nothing seems to strike more enthusiasm from the anti-war left and media than the thoughts of civil war in Iraq. A breakdown into chaos clearly signals a Bush (not American) failure, so expect to see a few more reruns of the "mission accomplished" graphic for good measure.
The comments were also a chow-call for political opportunists. Hillary tried to score some much needed points from her left base by harrassing Rumsfeld, but based on the muted reaction from the left blogosphere it didn't work. As long as her criticism remains focused on tactics she'll get the Leiberman treatment. Only a complete mea culpa and call for retreat is good enough. Hagel will get more props than Hillary.
It's funny, people say the Muslim world is hopelessly divided, Shia/Sunni and such. Yet the west is just as divided, sometimes to an insane level. Ironically those same divided Muslims seem united towards the goal of us losing, while the same cannot be said for the west, begging the question as to which side is more hopelessly divided.
To be fair, all leftists can't be thrown in the same divisive breadbasket, even though the reality should be obvious to us all.
But in spite of the above perhaps we should entertain the question as to why Pace and Abizaid shed their happy faces at this particular time. Was it al-Maliki's reaction to the goings-on in Beirut and the Bekaa Valley? Are they beginning to realize the Shia-based government we allowed to form might tend to side more with Tehran than Washington on such matters, even though we made their governance possible?
Short of it being some kind of strategical move, maybe they're just frustrated with a situation that seems to be a lose-lose no matter which way we go. Those old 1980s cries to just "turn that place into a parking lot" must ring distractingly attractive in their darker moments.
Saddam has never stopped fighting the "the mother of all battles". After all these years the outcome is still in doubt, even as the Butcher sits quietly in his jail cell writing poetry and eating Doritos.
MORE 8/5/06
The American Thinker has a parting letter from retiring Col. William Ivey, who's spent the last year or so serving as an advisor in Iraq after his intial Army retirement. Here are some pertinent snippets:
The Government leaders have said the right things, but now need to follow through with action. They must take concrete steps to unify Iraq and eliminate sectarian violence. They have about six months to get it right and show some progress. Our DOD, DOS, and DOJ advisors are working hard to make it happen.He seems to be suggesting there really is a timetable in effect with his use of "six months to get it right". What occurs if they don't?
I think it is important to remember that Al Qaida chose to fight us in Iraq, not the other way around.That should put to rest the idea that Bush went to Iraq to draw AQ into a single point battle.
But his point should not be lost. Had the country been full of peace-loving people interested in prospering after emerging out from under the dictator's footprints then only a small American force would be needed at this point.
Since that didn't happen the naysayers like to blame Bush's lack or foresight or his presumed lack of gravitas (although he still got better grades than Kerry at Yale) but in reality the problem was we never fully eradicated the Saddamists, who've allowed the AQ trouble-makers to wreak havoc to their benefit.
No comments:
Post a Comment