Ross Douthat, one of the bright lights of the rising generation of young conservatives (boy, it makes me feel old to write that!), professes himself dissatisfied with my forthcoming COMMENTARY article, “How Not to Get out of Iraq.” On his Atlantic blog he pounces on my admission that “the surge might still fail in the long run if Iraqis prove incapable of reaching political compromises even in a more secure environment.”
“This is not satisfactory. . . .” he writes. “[I]f we are to continue on our current path, we need to have less talk about the dangers of the alternative military approaches, and more talk about our options on the political front.” Unless we can come up with a good political solution, Douthat suggests, we might as well pull out. “As bad as admitting defeat would be, it’s preferable to asking thousands more Americans to die for what ends up being judged a mistake.”
But the whole point of the surge is to set the conditions for political progress. We’ve already seen considerable movement at the grass-roots level. There has not been comparable political progress in Baghdad, but it’s too early to expect that. First, the surge has to create a climate in which compromise is possible. Short-cut political solutions—Douthat mentions moving up the elections or instituting a “soft partition” (the latter is an option I discuss in “How Not to Get out of Iraq”)—won’t work absent a basic level of security, which American and Iraqi forces are just now in the process of establishing. This is a long-overdue correction to the failed strategy of the past four years: putting politics before security. Douthat seems strangely enamored of that plan.
If we’d taken the right approach from the beginning and emphasized security, as any seasoned counterinsurgency strategist would counsel, we would probably be much further along than we are today. Because we made so many mistakes in the first four years of the war, any strategy that we implement now, no matter how sound, faces daunting odds. But that doesn’t mean, as Douthat implies, that we should simply throw up our hands in despair and withdraw. At least the surge gives us a reasonable chance to succeed. Any other option would be virtually certain to result in a catastrophic defeat.
Follow the money.
Yes grumpy – follow the money from anti-semitic oil barons straight to the foggy bottom retirement fund.
But on you way, maybe you want to follow the polls as well which show that apart form the fever swamps where you roam with your fellow Buchananites, the American public far and away supports Israel, despite never receiving a check from the evil zionist overlords.
I am sure you have no problem with CAIR’s support of Keith Ellison and Darrel Issa. But Jews are apparently not allowed to support candidates who are pro-Israel.
Grumpy- is that Patrick Buchanan or an incarnation of him? As J. Lichty argues, Americans by and large “get” Israel, they “get” the Palestinians even if they feel bad about the state of the average Palestinians. Americans can tell the difference between a democracy whose concern for human life and desire for peace leads them to be at times foolishly patient, and an Islamic terror state.
Sarkozy, as Michael Totten notes, couldn’t even keep his mouth shut for one day before coming, however unwittingly, to the rescue of Hamas. And this despite the fact that he’s expressed great sympathy for Israel. America is different- and Israel is very lucky.
I know it was widely regarded as a disaster when the United States supported the elections from which Hamas emerged victorious, but I wonder whether it wasn’t necessary in the grander scheme of things to try the “Hamas way” before they could abandon it for good. Perhaps I’m being too sanguine here, but I’m hoping that the Palestinians in Gaza–or at least those who are honest enough–are learning that entrusting yourselves to a group like Hamas leads invariably to disaster. Sure, you can elect a ragtag band of murderers and terrorists–but you will suffer the consequences.
As long as Hamas was not in power, its firebrand thugs could claim that they would have defeated Israel *and* made the trains run on time. They could pose on the one hand as expert warriors and on the other as compassionate providers for their people. There must be some Palestinians right now who are witnessing how hopeless Hamas is against the might of Israel, and some who are none too pleased to see the wives and children led up the stairs over the Qassams and Grads on the first floor.
So, yes, it seems presently that the Palestinians are caught in the grip of a collective insanity, and some will never see reason. But perhaps when all is said and done, the great majority will have seen that Hamas could follow through on neither of its two basic promises. Perhaps, in a sense, they had to try Hamas’ way before they could really give it up. The people of Iraq eventually saw through the claims of the jihadists there. Dramatically different circumstances. But perhaps a glimmer of hope that the Palestinians too will learn that deals with the devil lead nowhere but hell.
Why aren’t Glenn Greenwald and Andrew Sullivan calling Harry Reid and Barack Obama thugs on this issue? http://rightwingnews.com/mt331/2009/01/greenwald_vs_goldfarb.php
no coincidence that this loser and his buddies are at 9% approval.
perfect example of how completely out of touch he is.
Lester,
If you think you’re more in touch than Harry Reid, I have news for you. Hamas and its apologists like yourself poll a lot worse than the Democrats in this country.
I don’t recall all this right to self-defence stuff when Serbia was a victim of KLA terrorism. Back then the liberals and neocons whined about Serbia’s allegedly disproportionate response even though their response was not as severe as Israel’s. Also the terrorist attacks against Serb police and civilians was carried out from internationally recognized Serbian territory, unlike the Gaza attacks by Hamas. It seems Israel has rights the Serbs are not entitled.
Andrew,
Serbia under Milosevic was a totalitarian state that deserved no support from any liberal or neoconservative.
As Robert D. Kaplan put it: “If Yugoslavia was the laboratory of Communism, then Communism would breathe its last dying breath here in Belgrade. And to judge by what [Slobodan] Milosevic was turning into by early 1989, Communism would exit the world stage revealed for what it truly was: fascism, without fascism’s ability to make the trains run on time.”
Anyway, the KLA never vowed to destroy Serbia, but Serbia violently expelled 90 percent of Albanians from their homes in Kosovo. Nearly half were driven out of the country entirely, and the goal was to drive 100 percent of them out. They were only able to return to their homes because NATO escorted them back.
The Serbs did to the Albanians what the Palestinians hope to do to the Jews. Everyone in the Balkans understands this, which is one reason Albanians in both Kosovo and Albania are such strong supporters of Israel.
While it is generally true MJT that Americans favor Israel over the Palestinians at almost a 6-1 rate, there was one recent poll that suggested that party lines with respect to this current war are indeed a worry for Israel.
As was reported by Contentions blogger Rick Richman, http://jpundit.typepad.com/jci/2009/01/trying-diplomacy-first.html
only 31% of democrats support a military action by Israel against Hamas as oppsed to 62% of Republicans.
Continued bi-partisan support for Israel, like that demonstrated by Reid is crucial, but by no means can it be taken for granted in the age of Obama. Israel cannot afford to become a partisan wedge issue.
I believe Grumpy Old Man should simply change his nom de plume to ‘Final Solution’ or Reichsführer given his overt disgust toward all things Jewish.
The Internet never fails to allow the most disgusting to have a voice.
only 31% of democrats support a military action by Israel against Hamas as oppsed to 62% of Republicans.
Those numbers sound sketchy to me. I’d be interested in seeing how that poll question was worded, and how the respondents were selected.
Yugoslavia? That’s an apples to oranges comparison. Seriously, if you are trying to compare the two situations then you really don’t have a clear understanding of the middle eastern conflict.
I would agree for the most part with Ahithophel that hopefully the Palestinians have finally gotten what they wished for but I doubt that they will realize it. The intensity and vitriol of anti-Israeli propaganda in the territories has created an entire generation that can no longer see how they must help themselves rather than kill Israelis however possible.
Michael, thanks for all you do.
Harry Reid’s analogy is incorrect and designed to please certain US constituencies. The right analogy would be to say: assume a group of people, say a large group of native Indian-Americans with an ancient claim to the land of Washington state, somehow invaded Seattle and exiled its inhabitants and confined them to a 5 mile by 15 mile strip of land, blockaded them, humiliated them, killed their wives and children with F-16 raids, destroyed their property. Now would these people now in Vancouver react by perhaps shelling the native Indians who moved into Seattle? I don’t know, you tell me… what would you do?
“Lester,
If you think you’re more in touch than Harry Reid, I have news for you. Hamas and its apologists like yourself poll a lot worse than the Democrats in this country.”
there are no polls about me that I know of.
have israel bombed any more of your friends like they did in lebanon? and have they scolded you for speaking out about it like they did before? rememeber when you had to shut your comments section down.
does EVERYONE remember how Totten had to shut his comments section down because he stepped out of line and got flamed for it?
go back and look at his blog it’s very instructive as to how the lobby operates. or did, when they had the cash
“only 31% of democrats support a military action by Israel against Hamas as oppsed to 62% of Republicans.
Those numbers sound sketchy to me. I’d be interested in seeing how that poll question was worded, and how the respondents were selected
”
I’d be interested to know exactly how many of those people have any idea what the israeli palestinian conflict is.
Lester,
I briefly shut down my comments years ago because I was being endlessly harrassed by Hezbollah, not from anyone in Israel or the “Jewish Lobby.”
#14, an idea. Change your name from LogicMan to IllogicMan.
Chris Bolt
you get a C+ for the wisecrack insult, but an F for the debating ability
The right analogy would be to say: assume a group of people, say a large group of native Indian-Americans with an ancient claim to the land of Washington state, somehow invaded Seattle and exiled its inhabitants and confined them to a 5 mile by 15 mile strip of land..
This is the second time this dopey analogy has come up today. Has this been published on some moonbat site or are you following a suggestion on ikhwan.tv?
Anyway, through a series of land trust treaties and laws, American Indians have acted on their rights to take possession of their lands, and to govern and profit from the area as they see fit. The Oneida nation owns a reasonable portion of Western New York state. Non-Indians can rent property within this nation, but they can’t own it.
Israel owns a comparatively tiny portion of the Middle East.
If Americans treated the Indians the way the Arab Nations treat Israel, we’d be sending suicide bombers into the casinos and throwing clumsy rockets at their tax-free cigarette stores. We’d be threatening any reporters who didn’t cover the story the way we wanted it to be covered. There wouldn’t be many people with Indian blood living among the Americans, because we’d have created a series of apartheid laws that would force them to emigrate.
If we fighting the way the Arab nations are ‘fighting’, and if the Indians did fight back, we would organize groups around the world to wail and cry and beg for a treaty that would include the ‘right of return’ to our lost, casino and tax-free-cigarette strewn land. We would condemn their religion and their culture, we would march through their neighborhoods bellowing, ranting and threatening their children.
In short, we would be acting like a bunch of racist zealots who can’t fight worth a damn. If we ever acted the way the Hamas supporters and their moonbat allies are acting, I would be embarrassed by my country.
Good reply Mary. The whole notion of a ‘Palestinian nation’ as it is known today is a fictional construct created by Yasser Arafat for the misery of Israel, not the good of the people living an area that’s called Palestine. Why don’t they fire rockets into Egypt to force *them* to open the borders and give them autonomy?
Mary Madigan
You missed the point of my analogy. In my analogy which is an imaginary scenario, the Indians were the Israelis and the Americans were the Palestinians. In your response, you reversed the roles. I don’t know what else to tell you except that your thought process is dwarfed by your unbridled fury.
Why don’t they fire rockets into Egypt to force *them* to open the borders and give them autonomy?
KellyC – a lot of people are asking why Egypt and Jordan can’t open their borders. Daniel Pipes wrote about the no-state solution
#24
“a lot of people are asking why Egypt and Jordan can’t open their borders. “
Because they are scared. Palestinians nearly destroyed two countries, Jordan and Lebanon.
You missed the point of my analogy. In my analogy which is an imaginary scenario, the Indians were the Israelis and the Americans were the Palestinians.
LogicMan – you said “assume a group of people, say a large group of native Indian-Americans with an ancient claim to the land of Washington state, somehow invaded Seattle and exiled its inhabitants..”
reduced to basics, you say, “assume a group of Indian-Americans claimed the land and exiled the inhabitants of Washington state..”, or
(people with ancient claim to land) Indian Americans=Israelis
(evicted people) Americans=Palestinians
I described a factual situation in which Americans did, in fact, give up land to an Indian tribe, the Oneida nation. In this description, the
(people with ancient claim to land) Native Americans/Oneida=Israelis
(evicted people) American=Palestinians
I then said, “If Americans treated the Indians the way the Arab Nations treat Israel”, or:
(people with ancient claim to land) Native Americans=Israelis
(evicted people) Americans=Palestinians and their Arab supporters
This isn’t fury or anything, it’s logic, “LogicMan”
In any case, the people in New York state who lost their land either sued to get it back or they moved on and lived quiet, ordinary lives. They didn’t become terrorists. People all over the world have lost things, and they’ve gotten over it. That’s why your analogy means nothing. The Palestinians are unique in their rabid, racist, violent response.
mr Totten- I was referring to
http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2006/07/17/blind-pig-pelted-with-acorns/
this. all saved in cache btw
LogicMan – Your analogy is flawed in one very important way. The American Indians were, as the Palestinians are, on the losing side of a war. Losers don’t get to dictate terms.
If the Palestinians are unhappy about the Jewish state in their midst, they should recall the history of one Grand Mufti of Jerusalem and his enthusiastic support for the war that has as one of its results the creation of the state of Israel.
lester – if you’re going to start referencing Raimondo (a rabid anti-semite in the Buchanan mold if there ever was one), you’ve already lost your argument. Go crawl back under your rock.
brian- so what if he’s an anti-semite? what does that have to do with anything?
also, the palestinains aren’t the losers. israel is surrounded by a billion muslims who want palestine to win and israel to lose. the only thing keeping them from achieving this is the US, who just got suckered into a war on israels behalf and are slowly but surely coming to their senses.
all palestinians have to do is wait.
lester -
Raimondo’s opinion matters because it causes him to pick sides incorrectly. Just as it causes Buchanan to incorrectly analyze the world around him and draw incorrect conclusions, and therefore suggest incorrect solutions.
> the only thing keeping them from achieving this is the US, who just got suckered into a war on israels behalf and are slowly but surely coming to their senses.
That you believe this tells me that you, too, are judging things based upon your anti Israel biases.
The United States is the only reason Israel hasn’t wiped everything west of the Jordan river off the map.
But then again, you probably believe that the Jews suckered the United States into invading Iraq, because we couldn’t possibly have had any genuine interest in the region.
“But then again, you probably believe that the Jews suckered the United States into invading Iraq, because we couldn’t possibly have had any genuine interest in the region”
absolutely that’s waht i think
and why would being an anti semite mean that you couldn’t coment or comment logically on foreign policy?
that would also mean that being a jew means you can’t comment logically on issues regarding israel. I doubt you’d want to concede that!!
lester -
The mere fact that you believe that the US was played by Israel in attacking Iraq means that you are not logical. Not one bit.
Being an anti-semite does not immediately disqualify one’s logic. However your anti-Israel position means precisely that you cannot comment logically on foreign policy, because it means that you have assigned a moral equivalence to Hamas, Hezbollah, and the PLO that they do not deserve.
As far as being a Jew impeding ones ability to comment on Israel? You’re free to dismiss it, of course. However you let me know when Israel or Judaism as a whole adopt as their core principle the organized elimination of an entire nation or faith.