By: Panos

Panos — Sun, 09 Sep 2007 12:35:47 +0000

interesting

By: C

Sat, 13 Jan 2007 23:29:19 +0000

Edit: “when the far right can produce a writer as thoughtful and as eloquent” should be “when the far left can produce a writer as thoughtful and as eloquent.” Silly me! Anyway, hope your drive was safe; have a good weekend.

By: C

Sat, 13 Jan 2007 23:15:52 +0000

P.S. Do forgive any typos; this bleary-eyed law student is worn-out.

By: C

Sat, 13 Jan 2007 23:14:40 +0000

Thanks, Keith.
I don’t recall citing Krauthammer as an “authority” here. I do, however, enjoy greatly his turn of phrase on the Syria-Iran point (a point to which you don’t reply in your blog post – any reason?). I think you’ll find that Krauthammer, whatever your label for him may be, in fact gives more thoughtful analyses of his opinions than you give him credit for; and in any case, when the far right can produce a writer as thoughtful and as eloquent-with-the-zingers as Krauthammer, I’ll be sure to quote them as well.
As for your other comments, they’re surely interesting, and clearly born from the constant suspicion of “the great and evil right” which so elegantly colors many of your blog posts. That you use “neo-con” as a perjorative term throughout your writing, unfortunately, alienates more moderate readers such as myself – I suppose I find more value in hearing both sides out than in picking a fashionable shouting-point from which to blast.
Where the “ideal moment” is concerned, I find your reasoning interesting – pick the right moment based on the opinion of the American people. Forgive me, but if we picked our timing in any of our past major wars based on the oft-changing whims reflected in Gallup polls, I daresay the greater good would suffer. And besides – for every poll that shows one tremendous extreme in terms of Iraq, there is another, its mirror, to counter it. On the whole, I find poll-following a rather weak leadership tactic – but then, I suppose we’re entitled to our differing opinions on this one.
You seem mystified that Bush didn’t take the advice of AEI’s Fred Kagan – though the article you cite came out only a week ago and probably could not have been a major part of Bush’s plan (even if we are to assume that American presidents pay serious attention to every think-tank product on the market). In any case, I think you’ll find Kagan’s commitment to a “national commitment to victory” one well-mirrored in Bush’s plan. Perhaps it bears reminding that Bush is to work now with an opposite-party Congress; the kind of recommendations you see made by Kagan would of course be necessarily tempered now.
As for “policymakers on both sides” championing a minimal troop deployment over the past few years, that is simply true – great many politicians on both sides of the aisle have done just that. To point out John McCain (the perennial cowboy) as dispositive, forgive me, is most certainly to point out the exception that proves the rule.
“A bit slanted”? I’d say it’s more slanted than that. But to each their own; I have high hopes – or perhaps am steadied in my optimism by the underlying knowledge that there is no ‘second string’ on this one.
It is true that – for politicians like McCain, whom you mention – to support the ‘surge’ seems fairly politically unpopular. Yet if you place as much faith in the polls as you seem to, you cannot ignore those numbers which say that most Americans still believe that the cause is a good one, and that there is great meaning in making Iraq safe for a democratic government.
In sum: We went in for all the wrong reasons, this must be acknowledged. Bush, in particular, has made many mistakes, and there are many, many flaws in what has been a rocky two terms.
But in my opinion, it would be a terrible mistake not to make a substantial and sustained effort toward success. I believe it’s a fight worth fighting, and one which, despite the dramatically low popular tolerance for wartime casualties (which I trace directly back to the events in Somalia of 1993), demands more than our passing attention. If it means preventing ethnic cleansing, so be it. If it means building schools and patrolling roads, so be it. If it means more casualties – and it will – then we have to brace ourselves. Yes, it will get worse before it gets better. But this is a new ballgame. Contrary to popular belief this isn’t Vietnam – and walking away from Iraq won’t mean that friends of terror across the globe will suddenly stop hunting us. Now is the time for serious leadership – leadership motivated not by finger-in-the-wind checks on the American mood, but by a will to democracy, a will to the rights of all to live free from totalitarian oppression, and a will to make possible for someone else the kind of safety and security we enjoy here at home.

Comments on: Blog-on-Blog: Response to the Reliant on Bush’s Troop “Surge”

By: Panos

By: C

By: C

By: C