Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Silat on February 25, 2006, 12:01:12 AM
-
It didnt work.
Now this isnt coming from your run of the mill conservative.................
February 24, 2006, 2:51 p.m.
It Didn’t Work
"I can tell you the main reason behind all our woes — it is America." The New York Times reporter is quoting the complaint of a clothing merchant in a Sunni stronghold in Iraq. "Everything that is going on between Sunni and *****es, the troublemaker in the middle is America."
One can't doubt that the American objective in Iraq has failed. The same edition of the paper quotes a fellow of the American Enterprise Institute. Mr. Reuel Marc Gerecht backed the American intervention. He now speaks of the bombing of the especially sacred *****e mosque in Samara and what that has precipitated in the way of revenge. He concludes that “The bombing has completely demolished” what was being attempted — to bring Sunnis into the defense and interior ministries.
Our mission has failed because Iraqi animosities have proved uncontainable by an invading army of 130,000 Americans. The great human reserves that call for civil life haven't proved strong enough. No doubt they are latently there, but they have not been able to contend against the ice men who move about in the shadows with bombs and grenades and pistols.
The Iraqis we hear about are first indignant, and then infuriated, that Americans aren't on the scene to protect them and to punish the aggressors. And so they join the clothing merchant who says that everything is the fault of the Americans.
The Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, elucidates on the complaint against Americans. It is not only that the invaders are American, it is that they are "Zionists." It would not be surprising to learn from an anonymously cited American soldier that he can understand why Saddam Hussein was needed to keep the Sunnis and the *****es from each others' throats.
A problem for American policymakers — for President Bush, ultimately — is to cope with the postulates and decide how to proceed.
One of these postulates, from the beginning, was that the Iraqi people, whatever their tribal differences, would suspend internal divisions in order to get on with life in a political structure that guaranteed them religious freedom.
The accompanying postulate was that the invading American army would succeed in training Iraqi soldiers and policymkers to cope with insurgents bent on violence.
This last did not happen. And the administration has, now, to cope with failure. It can defend itself historically, standing by the inherent reasonableness of the postulates. After all, they govern our policies in Latin America, in Africa, and in much of Asia. The failure in Iraq does not force us to generalize that violence and antidemocratic movements always prevail. It does call on us to adjust to the question, What do we do when we see that the postulates do not prevail — in the absence of interventionist measures (we used these against Hirohito and Hitler) which we simply are not prepared to take? It is healthier for the disillusioned American to concede that in one theater in the Mideast, the postulates didn't work. The alternative would be to abandon the postulates. To do that would be to register a kind of philosophical despair. The killer insurgents are not entitled to blow up the shrine of American idealism.
Mr. Bush has a very difficult internal problem here because to make the kind of concession that is strategically appropriate requires a mitigation of policies he has several times affirmed in high-flown pronouncements. His challenge is to persuade himself that he can submit to a historical reality without forswearing basic commitments in foreign policy.
He will certainly face the current development as military leaders are expected to do: They are called upon to acknowledge a tactical setback, but to insist on the survival of strategic policies.
Yes, but within their own counsels, different plans have to be made. And the kernel here is the acknowledgment of defeat.
(c) 2006 Universal Press Syndicate
-
Originally posted by Silat
"I can tell you the main reason behind all our woes — it is America." The New York Times reporter is quoting the complaint of a clothing merchant in a Sunni stronghold in Iraq. "Everything that is going on between Sunni and *****es, the troublemaker in the middle is America."
Wow, imagine that, a member of the Sunni party, the minority party that has been ruling over the majority ****es, ruling through violence, torture and killing is now unhappy that America has messed up everything for the Sunnis. Yeah, I am sure they are unhappy, no longer abusing their position, no longer reaping the benefits of the oil money while the Shia and Kurds suffer and die.
What can be more biased or stupid than a journalist posting such an article and not pointing out or at least recognizing the obvious, instead trying to sway pubic opinion through biased reporting in the extreme.
squealing liberals make me sick with this stupid crap.
-
Shi'ites?
-
There is no more US v Iraq war. That's effectively over. Done.
It's Iraq v Iraq now.
-
Originally posted by Dago
Wow, imagine that, a member of the Sunni party, the minority party that has been ruling over the majority ****es, ruling through violence, torture and killing is now unhappy that America has messed up everything for the Sunnis. Yeah, I am sure they are unhappy, no longer abusing their position, no longer reaping the benefits of the oil money while the Shia and Kurds suffer and die.
What can be more biased or stupid than a journalist posting such an article and not pointing out or at least recognizing the obvious, instead trying to sway pubic opinion through biased reporting in the extreme.
squealing liberals make me sick with this stupid crap.
Dago you do know who Buckley is ???
-
He was Reagan's hand picked ambassador to Afghanistan.
He's a super Reaganite, like George Will.
-
Nope, dont know if this refers to William F, to George, Harry or Larry.
Doesnt matter, I see the article as what I think it is, despite who wrote it, and I see his agenda.
I did notice you didnt include the authors name other than to put "Buckley" in the header, nor did you provide a link. I wonder if there could be more than one person named Buckley in this world? Why, in our crazy society there might even be someone with Buckley for a first name.
-
Sounds like he is a foaming Conservative instead of a fricken Liberal Dago.
-
Realizing that Silat is a "foaming" liberal, you know which way the
bias will lean :D
-
Buckley is nothing more than a Bush hating Lib.
shamus
-
hey boss, i had to interview 100's of people but i found someone that thinks it's all america's fault.
great , write the story, breaking news, front page stuff, prime time, Pulitzer prize.
-
News story, I don't think so. Editorial piece, very likely. Long on opinion type statements and short on reporting rather than interpreting.
-
Originally posted by Rino
Realizing that Silat is a "foaming" liberal, you know which way the
bias will lean :D
Silat a liberal? Ya sure? What was the first hint? :rofl
-
silat claims that he is not a liberal socialist. Somehow.... this seems dishonest to me.
lazs
-
This thread cracks me up.
Dago calls the author a liberal......funny funny stuff.
Mav dismisses it as just an editorial, while true it is an editorial, it was written by one of the most conservative authors out there, in fact, arguably one of the most influential conservative authors out there given what his position was at the National Review (which will never, ever be confused as a liberal rag).
And no comments on the content of the article at all.....just attacks on Silat.
Those ears must be plugged pretty tight....
As far as the article, ole William F. Buckley has laid out a pretty good synopsis as to what Bush faces and what he must do. As I interpet it, he is acknowledging that our current thought process with regards to the ME is not a succesful one and that admission needs to be made so that we can re-orientate our next tactical and strategic steps. I don't see him advocating a pull out at all, but simply that the current strategy and the strategy that got us into Iraq wasn't well thought out, and I see him advocating for the Administration to come at this problem from a different angle, so to speak.
-
Originally posted by Maverick
News story, I don't think so. Editorial piece, very likely. Long on opinion type statements and short on reporting rather than interpreting.
Good one MAV - That's hitting a 16 penny nail home with a 32oz hammer in one shot! :aok
-
Buckley certainly has it nailed down pretty tight. However, even he fails to see the world as clearly and concisely as I do.
I am even better than I know I am....
-
Hehe Yeag, I must bow to that! :D
-
Wonder how much George Soros paid him? :D Joke aside - I remember the excuses James Carville made for Zel Miller after he gave his speech at the RNC in 2004. It was one the best speeches I have heard in a long time and he wrote a book base in its theme. Carville stated "He was out of his mind, he was ill, suffering from old age, didn't know what he was saying." I'd like to say the same about Buckley but he makes some strong opionated statements tha I cannot ignore. I will however never look at the Iraqi war as a failure - never.
-
Originally posted by Rino
Realizing that Silat is a "foaming" liberal, you know which way the
bias will lean :D
I hear foaming liberals are great for cleaning toilets, like scrubbing bubbles, but more caustic and with less sense of humor!:D