Comments?   Hate Mail?
 Click Here!

An Exclusive Insider Editorial - April '08

IRAQ THE DISASTER - OR IS IT?

How the American Left Tells You What to Believe

everal months ago, we ran an editorial titled “The Eight Biggest Mistakes of the Iraq War” (Volume 4 Issue 7 2007). One of those mistakes cited was allowing the war to be articulated by the political left — who were fully convinced by the second day of fighting, that we were in a “quagmire” — although the routing of the Iraq forces was probably the fastest, most decisive victory over a major army in the history of warfare.

Why? Because the political left in this country really cannot imagine a legitimate use of our military. Any effort made to defeat our enemies or enhance American security will immediately be decried as arrogant, unsuccessful, unjust imperialism.

It really doesn’t matter how well the war goes, how few our casualties, how little the collateral damage or how important the end gain. The left has the defeatist scripts ready even before the first bullet flies. It’s right there — Chapter 1 in their playbook.

Chapter 2, of course, is to begin fretting about the welfare of the enemy. Are the conditions endured by our captured enemy pleasant enough? Do they have good lawyers? Do they have Korans and prayer rugs? Cable TV?  Have they been embarrassed or inconvenienced in any way? 

There were actually those on the left who smugly suggested we shouldn’t be pleased or proud of a victory, because, after all, given the superiority of our military, it was not a fair fight. In fact, the same people that claimed just months prior that we could not win and we would need 100,000 body bags to bring home our dead, now called our military's brave victory a cowardly slaughter.

The left’s obsession with losing would be laughable had the constant cacophony not permeated and then molded our national consciousness. Almost frantic with concern that we had won a clear victory, the left went completely berserk when the president landed on the carrier USS Abraham Lincoln in October of 2003 and spoke under a banner stating: “Mission Accomplished.”

While the “mission” referred to was clearly the capture of Baghdad and the utter defeat of the Iraqi military, then Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D-SD) called it “one of the most significant embarrassments of the entire Iraq experience so far.”

America had just won the most decisive victory in the history of modern warfare. While most of the country cheered, all the American political left could think about was trashing the president over the wording of a silly banner. Of course, the left did not miss the opportunity for further whining when the president, wearing a flight suit and landing on deck in the right seat of a Navy S-3B Viking, claiming it a “show of bravado.” Heaven forbid we should ever show any of that.

The left’s embarrassing outcry became so loud and so sustained that Bush himself, along with his chief advisor Karl Rove, foolishly admitted that they “regretted” the “mission accomplished” sign. Why? The admission did nothing to quiet the left. On the contrary, it served to embolden and encourage the “politics trump country” Democrats in the House and Senate. (“But we support the troops!”)

Too often, the left freely and continuously announced the war as a mistake and a failure, never missing an opportunity to broadcast the casualty count, another insurgent atrocity or alleged prisoner abuse as evidence. The administration, out of weariness, frustration or misguided strategy, simply failed to respond, lending credibility to the cries of the defeatists.

The effect of all of this national bleating has been far more serious than the left’s intended result of dropping the stock of the Bush administration.

Think aid and comfort to the enemy. Think encouragement and direction for Al Qaeda and Iran and those that are just itching to destabilize Iraq and force us out of the region with our tail between our legs.   Al Jazeera, the media mouthpiece of Islamic fanatics could have fired their journalists and simply taken all of their material direct from American liberals.  

Consider for a moment the effect on the moral and commitment of our enemies if this country had maintained a continuous solidarity rather than the endless discordant yapping from the left. This conflict in Iraq may have ended long ago and those American soldiers lost in recent skirmishes may still be with us. Our enemies know well they cannot beat us on the battlefield. But they can wear away our national will with daily IED attacks and marketplace suicide bombers as the American left screams, “Defeat!” “Failure!” “Surrender!”

Too many in this country have accepted the liberal premise that the war in Iraq is a failure. It’s not. We've made mistakes to be sure, but only judged by the defeatist refrain from the left is Iraq an utter failure.

If you judge the Iraq conflict a failure because we’ve sustained a little over 4,000 combat deaths consider this: In World War II, we sustained 400,000 combat deaths. In the South Pacific battle of Okinawa alone, we lost 12,000 men. Vietnam? 55,357 deaths. The Allied losses in the WWII Battle of Normandy (D-Day)? 52,300+ combat deaths.

While every one of those 4,000 American heroes is a terrible loss, the Iraq conflict certainly cannot be called a failure because of our casualty count. Our losses have been extraordinarily small compared to other American conflicts.

But it’s been 5 years.  Iraq is still suffering from sectarian violence and acts of violence against the coalition. Yet we have stabilized much of the country.  We've established a permanent, democratically elected government and Iraqi forces have successfully taken over much of the security work once done by coalition forces. The surge has worked.

Does the progress we’ve made in Iraq over the past five year period represent success or failure? The polls in this country point to failure. Is this opinion born of fact or the constant harping of the defeatists on political left?

Let’s compare Iraq to post-war Germany in 1945 where General Eisenhower issued a bold proclamation, “We come as conquerors but not as oppressors.”

Of course, Eisenhower had a terrific advantage over George Bush. He didn’t have to play the politically correct game for the liberals that would later force our victorious troops to refer to themselves only as “liberators.” In 1945, it was OK to be a winner - a conqueror.

In fact, Allied troops in Germany made no pretense of the reason they were there. They had not come to liberate the Germans; they had come to conquer. The military was in complete, unapologetic control. There was no defensive, politically-left inspired nonsense about “bringing democracy to Germany.”

Yet if you are judging the war in Iraq a failure because we’ve been there five years and the country is still unresolved, compare to Germany. We occupied the country under strict military control for ten years — and our military is still there 63 years later because it has been strategically important for national and world security.

According to a recent treatise authored by David Stafford, author of Endgame 1945: The missing Final Chapter of World War II, “Two years after Allied victory, Germany was in desperate straits, facing an economic crisis that threatened to nip democracy in the bud. Self-government did not come until 1949 and Allied troops remained in West Germany as occupiers until 1955 - a full decade after the defeat of the Third Reich.”

“There was plenty of looting and disorder when U.S. forcers entered Germany. In fact, it was on a scale far greater than anticipated or now remembered, most of it due to the rage that millions of slave laborers that had been deported to Germany... vented on their captors upon liberation.”

Germany, “on it’s way to becoming one of the most successful... democracies of the Western world,” much like Iraq, was still in chaos five years after the war's end.

What about the end gain? Is a complete victory in Iraq important? Is it worth the cost? How does it compare to post-war Germany? We hear presidential candidates talk about a precipitous withdrawal. We hear about time-lines. We’ve heard the mission constantly devalued. All that’s important, we hear, is to get out fast.

We were in post-war Germany to stabilize Europe while making certain the Nazis were completely defeated. We were also there to fill a power vacuum which would certainly have been filed by the Soviets had we failed to make the effort.

Had we just “[brought] the troops home,” as the left is now screaming for in Iraq, the balance of world power would have shifted so far to the Communists that the Cold War could have quickly turned hot. At the very least, the world would have remained a more hostile, anti-West environment.  The Cold War may not ever have been won and the superpowers may still be building their stocks of nuclear weapons.

The end gain we strive for Iraq is no less critical. The Mideast is at least as much a hot spot as was post-war Europe with active combat between Hamas and Israel occurring daily. The balance of power - so critical to keeping the lid on — would tilt immediately towards Iran should we prematurely pull out of Iraq. A more powerful, confident and influential Iran is about the last thing we should hope for the Mideast — if we don’t wish our involvement to escalate from dealing with daily skirmishes to fighting another full-blown war.

If you feel Iraq is an utter disaster that compels us to withdraw in defeat now — because the defeatist American liberal left has told you nothing else for five years — perhaps it’s time to take another look.  This time take the long view.

Remember too, that plain-speaking Harry Truman, much like George Bush, had an extraordinarily low public approval rating during the period of rebuilding Germany. (the lowest in presidential history) Yet Truman is considered now by scholars and historians to be among the top ten presidents. Don’t be surprised if George Bush and his Iraq War and reconstruction is similarly reconsidered.

Comments?   Hate Mail?   Click Here!