Friday, January 26, 2007

If We Win, Will the Public Know?

The g33QwyPHe emailed me this and I thought it worth comment.

The article notes that essentially the MSM and public in general are failing to even give the change in Iraqi strategy a chance to succeed.
The United States is talking itself into defeat in Iraq. Its political culture is now in a downward spiral of pessimism. In the halls of Congress, across endless newspaper columns, amid the punditocracy and on Sunday morning talk shows--all emit a Stygian gloom about America.

Yes, on any given day on some discrete issue (Prime Minister Maliki's bona fides, for example), the criticism of the American role is not without justification. But the cumulative effect of this unremitting ill wind is corrosive. We are not only on the way to talking ourselves into defeat in Iraq but into a diminished international status that may be harder to recover than the doom mob imagines. Self-criticism has its role, but profligate self-doubt can exact a price.

Maine GOP Sen. Susan Collins wonders "whether the clock has already run out." To U.S. presidential candidate Hillary Clinton the new strategy is "a dead end." For the Bush troop request, presidential candidate Joe Biden predicted "overwhelming rejection." (His committee resolution to that effect yesterday passed by three votes.) Presidential candidate Chuck Hagel: "We have anarchy in Iraq. It's getting worse." And not least, Sen. John Warner this week heaved his tenured eminence against the war effort, proposing another "non-binding" resolution against more troops.
The thing I find funniest is that the nay-sayers are all calling for continuing the previous strategy of the light foot print and letting the Iraqis stand up. There are some nuances such as Hillary Clinton's desire to also defund their military if they don't meet her expectations. This sounds more like the end of the US involvement in Vietnam more and more.

The Vietnam likeness has additional problems. When the South Vietnamese did stand up and take control and were even succeeding, no one noticed. Congress ignored them and the MSM failed to report their success, especially against the North Vietnamese. This went on to the defunding of support and the eventual collapse of the south. Question is, are we going to see the same thing in Iraq?

At present the MSM absolutely refuses to report any good news or when they do they give twice the time to the deaths that day. The politics involved are no real surprise. Further increasing the deserved derision of those that actually are taking the time to look the situation and the prospects for success.

There is also an important point made about the international perception:
Our slide to a national nervous breakdown because of Iraq is not going unnoticed. Australia's foreign minister, Alexander Downer, has been visiting across the U.S. this week. "I've been pretty worried about what I've heard," Mr. Downer said in an interview. Walking on Santa Monica beach Sunday before last, Mr. Downer said he encountered a display of crosses in the sand, representing the American dead in Iraq.

"What concerns me about this," he said, "is that it's sort of an isolationist sentiment, subconsciously, not consciously, and that would be an enormous problem for the world. I hope the American people understand the importance of not retreating and thinking the world's problems aren't theirs."
Isolationism has never served the US. And with the country in the state it is today, isolationism will cause the country to start to lose its edge in the world economy. The US is the primary security agent in the world. Withdrawal of that agent will cause market instability that the US really doesn't need. Not to mention the fact that the region providing the majority of the energy needs for the world is highly unstable, the US withdrawal would further exacerbate the instability causing economic troubles. If the US had sufficient patience to see Iraq reach stability or even near stability, the world economy would greatly profit.

And for those that think the concern for economic stability or advance isn't worth the blood and money, they should be directed toward how the world improves under stable or improving economies. Violence decreases, human rights increase, stability spreads.

If the US runs away from the Iraqi situation its worse scenario could end with the Middle East in a sectarian civil war spreading to adjacent countries. It may not spread to the point of crippling the world economy, but the increased instability and increased deaths would most certainly have a major effect on the world.

1 comment:

geekwife said...

It just seems to me that the Dems, past and present, are ruled by their emotions and willfully blind to facts. Their hearts may be in the right place (they want peace) but they seem unable to realistically look at the possible consequences of their actions. Couple that with BDS, and it makes me really nervous. Come to think of it, didn't we have Nixon Derangment Syndrome at the end of Vietnam? (Although that was probably warranted.)

But let's face it, the Dems go with emotion over reality regularly. Look at gun-control and minimum wage increase laws (and the new San Francisco paid-sick-days-for-all law - did you hear about that?) as examples of their desire to make a feel-good law which will somehow magically make things better without giving much thought, credence or analysis to evidence against it. I'm kind of surprised they don't just try to pass a law that says we all have to be millionaires. Poverty solved!