Lots of talk going on over the just-released report by the Iraq Study Group, but not too many making the following point made by Elan Journo:The Iraq Study Group has issued many specific recommendations, but the options boil down to a maddeningly limited range: pull out or send more troops to do democracy-building and, either way, "engage [with]" the hostile regimes in Iran and Syria. Missing from the list is the one option our self-defense demands: a war to defeat the enemy. If you think we've already tried this option and failed, think again. Washington's campaign in Iraq looks nothing like the war necessary for our self-defense.Read on here and find out Elan's answer. He makes another important point, which also goes to his answer, and it is this:
What does such a war look like?
Those who say this is a "new kind of conflict" against a "faceless enemy" are wrong. The enemy Washington evasively calls "terrorism" is actually an ideologically inspired political movement: Islamic totalitarianism.Good point -- a point so fundamental that it should never be forgotten, as it has been too often.
Meanwhile, Yaron Brook makes the point that capitulation is the only way to describe the Iraq Study Group's proposals.
The Iraq Study Group endorsed the increasingly popular notion that America should ask Iran and Syria to help bring peace and stability to Iraq.It's the same 'shortcut' that's been tried for the last sixty years ... and just look at where it's got us.
"But Iran and Syria are our enemies," said Dr. Yaron Brook, executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute. "These countries are responsible for the maiming and deaths of numerous American soldiers in Iraq. For months Iran and Syria have been fomenting terrorist activity against American troops and Iraqi civilians, providing terrorists with training, weapons and explosive devices. "The United States should be bombing, not 'engaging,' these terrorist regimes.
"Any U.S. appeal to Iran or Syria for help in Iraq would be suicidal and immoral. By evading the evil of these regimes and pretending that they're peace-seekers who share our goals, the United States would be encouraging and rewarding their aggression. Dispensing with moral judgment is not a short-cut to achieving peace; it is a sure way of unleashing and goading the killers to redouble their efforts against us."
LINKS: What real war looks like - Elan Journo, Ayn Rand Institute
Iran & Syria are our enemies - Yaron Brook, Ayn Rand Institute
The long, long trail of appeasement, capitulation and death - Not PC (Sept 11, 2006)
RELATED: War Religion Politics-World
14 comments:
"Washington's campaign in Iraq looks nothing like the war necessary for our self-defense."
Yep now they've created the hydra they've gotta figure out what to do about it. Don't you love the stupidly circular nature of it all?
I wonder what next horror will be spawned in the interests of 'self defence'.
I'd like to point something else out, PC.
"Missing from the list is the one option our self-defense demands: a war to defeat the enemy."
So... the current war will NOT defeat the enemy? So you admit that you "what defeat" post was really just PR spin and the reality is that the US is losing? Come on, the two are mutually exclusive. Or can we doublethink our way out of it as the neo-cons are fond of doing?
I think you're confusing enemies, Hamish. In fact, it's clear you're confusing enemies.
I agree with your post PC. I even done one on my blog about it and gave you a hat tip.
Hamish, I agree with PC's reply to your post.
PC, I enjoy your site but the commentary on foreign policy can be remarkably simplistic.
Iraq has turned into a disaster - something no true libertarian could support. It is the New Fascism Ayn Rand spoke of, whereby massive amounts of American money are spent on the welfare of Iraqis (which has little to do with American security).
Correctly identifying the enemies nature (Islamic fascism) doesn't suppose that we must immediately begin a war. The aims are relevant here - and Iraq has nothing to do with American self-defence (read Rep Ron Paul). Libertarianism means non-interventionism in foreign affairs and Iraq is the complete opposite. Unrelenting hostility to third-rate dictatorships may be moral, but thinking that hard power (i.e. bombing them) is the only way to accomplish this is stupid. International politics requires prudence and revolutionary moral rhetoric can not by the only guide for action.
My personal view, without space for justifying really it, is that America should settle for any stable non-threatening regime in Iraq no matter the impact on Iraqi welfare. The alternative is thousands more dead U.S soldiers just to defend a government like al-Maliki. US soldiers shouldn't be dying for others freedoms, let alone others slavery.
I think any'pundit' who suggests the US continue to sacrifice its men and women in Iraq should be sent over there themselves.
They went into Iraq with no exit strategy - sheer idiocy which may yet push them into recession.
But hey --we could always buy dinar and bet on Iraq.
I think any 'pundit' who comments without reading the links, or understanding them, will be left struggling to understand the point.
And that includes you, Ruth (for it is she), who given her own behaviour here should know better than to throw around the word "idiocy."
Regarding the end game, or exit strategy, or whatever you want to call it, you might also like to read this: my own piece from November 2001, on the occasion of the fall of Kabul.
'The Roots of Peace.'
Snip:
If terrorism is to be toppled then the governments of Libya, Sudan, Jordan, Syria, Iran and Iraq must be toppled and replaced - and NOT with the fascist-leaning puppets that the US has supported in the past, and looks like doing again in Afghanistan.
If Bush can't set up successful civil governments in these countries, then he may have to call off the War Against Terrorism early, just as his father called off the Gulf War early for the self-same reason.
As you may recall, the Gulf War ended in 1991 with the US reluctant to finish the war as they should have - with the toppling of Saddam Hussein. When Bush senior stopped the turkey shoot on the road to Baghdad, it wasn't just a loss of courage - it was also the realisation that they had no end-game, that they wouldn't know what to do when they got there.
Our current statesmen may not know how to go about successfully rebuilding a conquered country, but we only need to travel back half a century to find some statesman who did know how...
I think you're confusing enemies, Hamish. In fact, it's clear you're confusing enemies.
Don't patronise me. You completely contradict yourself - one post in which the there the Iraq conflict is going swimmingly, the other where defeat in Iraq is inevitable unless the strategy changes. If you want to fiddle with the exact meaning, fine, but I don't have time for it.
Kane, I happen to agree with James. Pithy labels like "Islamic totalitarianism" might make you sound like the situation is simple and solutions might be possible - but that's incredibly naive. Even more laughable is the idea that invading more hostile territory would help.
Here is a quote from John Stuart Mill:
"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things: the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth a war, is much worse... A man who has nothing which he is willing to fight for, nothing which he cares more about than he does about his personal safety, is a miserable creature who has no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself." (Dissertations and Discussions 1867 Vol.1 p. 26.)
I don't know whether invading Iraq was the best option but the terrorist acts in New York, Madrid, London, Russia etc tell us that Islamofascists will use WOMDs on the West if and when they can.
This is the nightmare scenario we face whether we choose to face up to it or not. It may sound like a Hollywood script but imagine ten or twenty WOMDs smuggled into Western cities. Two go off and demands are made or else. This could happen and must be prevented at all costs.
I find it hilarious that phrases such as "war against terrorism" are still bandied about in regard to the middle east in particular Iraq.
Just who are the enemy in Iraq? The US aren't fighting anyone there - it's just a bloody nightmare gone arse-up policing operation. The US are essentially keeping the fighting factions apart and failing miserably in the process.
Anyone that seriously still believes the US are staging an anti-terrorism operation in Iraq has lost the plot. It was never even that in the first place, there was no terrorism in Iraq before the US were there - the fact that it has somehow become that now is just a sick branding exercise (which is no longer working).
What you wanna bring freedom to the east - what the fuck are you talking about - freedom to buy cheap porn, set up some Las Vegas in Basra?, clog Iraqi motorways with flash new SUVs all on hoc against the booming suburban property market. There are people in the world that aren't interested in all this trashy shite.
It fucking amazes me: those perched on their ridiculous moral lame donkeys spouting "ray-jeem" change in the name of values of "commercial freedom" and happy motoring in suburbia for all as the solution to the worlds woes, had you not poked your nose into the hornets nest in the first place ramming our supposedly "not negotiable" way of life down everyone elses throats we may have found ourselves in a more peaceful century.
The Iraq situation is all about entitlement, and the theft of enjoyment, provided the oil deliveries keep flowing and while there is any threat of that situation not continuing the US won't be out of there anytime soon.
...freedom to buy cheap porn, set up some Las Vegas in Basra?, clog Iraqi motorways with flash new SUVs all on hoc against the booming suburban property market. There are people in the world that aren't interested in all this trashy shite.
Steve, you sound like some sort of Red Guard. I shudder to think what sort of world your kind would impose on us if given the chance. And what's with all the foul language? You just sound grubby.
"Don't patronise me. You completely contradict yourself.."
Not so much patronising you Hamish as pointing out where you've missed the point -- although if you continue to miss it so vehemently I'm more than happy to begin patronising you.
Antarctic Lemur said...
[Is Mai Chen involved yet?]
Probably, that is a question for 'Ruth' to answer, because Mai Chen is Ruth's lawyer.
Post a Comment