Mr. Rauch’s Narrative
- 09.07.2007 - 3:32 PMIn his column in the most recent issue of National Journal, Jonathan Rauch admonishes Congressional Democrats:
Here is something that Democrats might want to think about before rushing to shut down the surge: If they managed to ram through a withdrawal or timetable on party lines this fall, when most Republicans think the surge is working, they would be flayed for a generation as the party that seized certain defeat from the jaws of possible victory. For years to come, Republicans would insist that Democratic pusillanimity emboldened jihadism, an ugly narrative that some are already rehearsing. (Last month Peter Wehner, who recently left the White House for a post at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, sent out an e-mail pointing to jihadists’ claim that America is a “weak horse” that runs when bloodied. He continued, “If the critics have their way and deny General Petraeus the time he needs to help bring about a decent outcome in Iraq, the jihadists will be right.”)
Mr. Rauch doesn’t explain (perhaps because he can’t) why he considers this narrative “ugly”—a word clearly meant to suggest partisan political strategy—rather than accurate. The reality is that we know, from their own past words, that weakness emboldens jihadists. Here are the words of Osama bin Laden (from his 1998 interview with ABC’s John Miller):
We have seen in the last decade the decline of the American government and the weaknesses of the American solider, who is ready to wage cold wars and unprepared to fight long wars. This was proven in Beirut when the Marines fled after two explosions. It also proves they can run in less than twenty-four hours, and this was also repeated in Somalia. . . . [Our] youth were surprised at the low morale of the American soldiers. . . . After a few blows, they ran in defeat. . . . They forgot about being the world leader and the leader of the new world order. [They] left, dragging their corpses and their shameful defeat.
Let’s lay out the logic for Mr. Rauch in an easy-to-follow manner: If jihadists have declared Iraq to be the central front in the larger war we are engaged in—as they have—and if we retreat because we have been bloodied in Iraq—as leading Democrats want—then it’s reasonable to assume that a precipitous American withdrawal, led by Democrats, will embolden the jihadists.
If retreating from Vietnam, Beirut, and Somalia led terrorists to conclude America was the “weak horse”—the term is bin Laden’s—what does Rauch think a defeat in Iraq would do for the cause of radical Islam? Depress morale? Make jihadists more fearful that America will respond to terrorist attacks?
Pusillanimity, whether it comes from Republicans or Democrats, emboldens jihadists. That assertion is true, not ugly, and the sooner we accept it, the better off we will be. It is simply silly and sloppy for Rauch (an otherwise serious man) to make the charge he does.
| »Back to Contentions | »Back to Commentary |
September 7th, 2007 at 4:35 PM
What Mr. Wehner is basically saying is that we should let the jihadists run our foreign policy.
If pulling out of Iraq is the right thing to do — and it is, given that the “surge” has not worked (Iraq is more violent than it was last year) — then it does not become less right because the jihadists will call us “weak.” We were right, strategically, to pull out of Somalia, and it does not matter one whit whether it made Bin Laden call us “weak.”
To say that we should stay in Iraq to avoid making the jihadists disrespect us is to advocate a policy of terrorist appeasement. But terrorist appeasement is, indeed, the conservative/Republican position. Liberal Democrats want to do what’s right for American national security, regardless of what the jihadists think of us; Republicans want to appease jihadists by making them “respect” our “strength,” and it’s for this reason that Republicans can’t be trusted to protect America.
September 7th, 2007 at 5:58 PM
My column can be read here.
Responding to Pete: I don’t think it’s an “ugly narrative” to say, for instance, that war critics advocate a course that will have the effect of weakening America’s position in the war on jihadism. But the operative word in the sentence he objects to (”Republicans would insist that Democratic pusillanimity emboldened jihadism, an ugly narrative”) is “pusillanimity.” Isn’t cowardice a pretty nasty charge? Aren’t there reasons other than “because we have been bloodied” (as he puts it in his post above) to think a change of strategy might be warranted?
I had no problem with the tone of Pete’s email until I hit the end, where I think he crossed a line. He didn’t conclude by writing, for instance, “If the critics have their way and deny General Petraeus the time he needs to help bring about a decent outcome in Iraq, the jihadis will be handed a propaganda gift.” He wrote, “If the critics have their way…, the jihadis will be right.”
I think Pete probably agrees with me that there are more choices than just (1) “retreat because we have been bloodied in Iraq” and thereby prove Osama right to hold Americans in contempt (2) support the president’s current strategy. At least among adults, the debate is (or should be) about strategy in a complicated global chess game, not about cowardice.
September 7th, 2007 at 6:07 PM
An addendum: I should clarify that I don’t for a moment think Pete is a smear campaigner, and that he’s among the least “ugly” people I’ve ever known. I’m just saying that the grown-ups in this debate–and Pete certainly is one–need to be careful about our rhetoric.
September 7th, 2007 at 8:16 PM
This “Franklin” appears to be, besides many other things, also a member of the reality-based community.
September 7th, 2007 at 11:20 PM
“Liberal Democrats want to do what’s right for American national security, regardless of what the jihadists think of us.”
Leaving aside the notion that letting Iraq into holy terror awarm with jihadis and their Iranian agents is “right for American national security,” there is one small idea that we may not want the Islamists to think: to think they can win. Because until they are dissuaded of that, there will be war.
September 7th, 2007 at 11:21 PM
uhm, that’s “that letting Iraq fall into holy terror aswarm …”
September 7th, 2007 at 11:21 PM
What Mr. Wehner is basically saying is that we should let the jihadists run our foreign policy.
No, I believe he is saying, in part, that we should take into consideration the statements and actions of the jihadists when we make our foreign policy.
Shouldn’t we?
September 7th, 2007 at 11:21 PM
Franklin writes: “If pulling out of Iraq is the right thing to do … “.
Isn’t it fascinating how the old phrase “god willing” has been replaced with “the right thing to do” by the secular Left?
September 7th, 2007 at 11:24 PM
Franklin has a great career before him in self deprecating humor.
He defines resisting when attacked as appeasement, and fleeing from attack as showing independence and I suppose bravery. Wow!
Rauch seems to believe that it is better to be pusillanimous than to notice that someone else is pusillanimous. That is just plain nasty!
He seems to be another humorist!
Does any of this pass anywhere for serious thought?
September 7th, 2007 at 11:36 PM
The fact is, whether the surge is working or not, there is very little that Congress can do. Even if they cut off funding, the president could use money from other places within the pentagon budget to fund the surge for as long as he’ll be in office. The troops that make up the surge will hit their 15 month deployment limits sometime in the spring of ‘08. We’ll likely reduce our forces back to pre-surge levels then anyway. In a few months, the landscape will change and will be in the middle of a presidential election. Someone will inherit this albatross and that someone will likely be a Democrat. Republicans will say it’s all the Democrats fault regardless of what happens because they will never admit that invading and occupying Iraq was a bad idea poorly executed. The jihadists are not going to be deterred by anything other than a bullet through their head. Franklin is right, who cares what Bin Laden says? Since when do we base our foreign policy on the utterings of a crazed sheik? We should do whatever we can to cut our loses and make the best of bad situation. Jihadists are not a threat to our country in the same way that Nazi Germany was a threat to Europe. We give them too much credit. 19 guys attacked us on 9/11 using box cutters as weapons. We were sleeping then. We’re not sleeping anymore. The war on terror should be fought quietly, using intelligence and few guys with guns. Killing the leaders of Al Qeada and those that fund them, train them and give them shelter should be our goal. It’s amazing how effect a few targeted killings can be. Killing a couple of Saudi sheiks just might send a message to the guys who keep these people fed, clothed and safe. Iraq is a sideshow that doesn’t effectively alter the path that we and the jihadists are on. Even if we succeeded in Iraq tomorrow, those guys would still be out there, planning the next big thing.