The Dems & Ahmadinejad
It's hard not to wonder how the Dems feel when they realize that America's adversary, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, advocates the same strategy for Iraq that they do.
Could the Dems possibly believe that he's just misunderstood -- and actually has America's best interests in mind?
Could the Dems possibly believe that he's just misunderstood -- and actually has America's best interests in mind?
posted by LadybugUSA at 11:59 AM
10 Comments:
Let's get something out that Democrats, Republicans, you, and I can agree on: Ahmadinejad is a disgusting little germ and a blight on Iran and Islam.
What you don't want to admit is that the one person Ahmadinejad thanks Allah for bringing into his life is George W. Bush. The war in Iraq is over, Iran won, Ahmadinejad won. We lost. We lost in the sense that any possibility for an outcome that could even begin to balance the spilled blood and lost treasure was doomed when we arrived in Baghdad without a “Marshall” plan to secure the peace. We can up the stakes and take him out, but other than that, the range of outcomes that our options permit all have Iran coming out ahead. If you're wondering why he always has that idiot grin on his face, that's why. His future has narrowed to "wait and win" or "get squashed". Of course, to squash him we have to resign ourselves to a future bleaker than we face now. Military action against Iran is the “nuclear hand grenade” option; we can do a lot of damage, but we can’t throw it far enough to escape the consequences.
Democrats do not share his goals, only his recognition of that reality. Face it; the Bush admin's incompetence and ineptitude have strengthened him in the region and inside Iran. He realizes that the current situation is not sustainable, and that the only way to enjoy his winnings is for some resolution other than region wide conflict. That’s the only chip we have to play with him. The “We don’t negotiate with evil, we defeat it” un-diplomacy has run its course and it’s time to find a common ground with our adversaries. No matter how Iraq ends up, we are still the 800lb economic/political/military gorilla on the world stage. We know it, Ahmadinejad knows it, and the rest of the world knows it. We can negotiate with a germ without changing that fact. Ronald Reagan hated the USSR and all it stood for, but by sitting down with them and talking, he helped it collapse with a whimper instead of a bang. The stakes and the circumstances are different, but it’s time to take a lesson from that playbook.
What an incredibly wrongful viewpoint. First, is that we've lost anything. Well, yes, we have lost the will to do what's right for fear of negative world opinion. Bush understands right vs wrong in the Middle East far more than any Democrat has shown, short of Joe Lieberman. I won't debate the details of our strategies. That's a totally subjective area. But the fact of our going in to do what we set out to do is still a good idea for all concerned. If Mahmoud is smiling about anything, it's that he knows that a big chunk of our people have no stomach for making the necessary sacrifices to win and that he need only wait out the discomforts until the lib whining has once again handed victory to those like himself. He and others like him count on it. They take it for granted.
Here's a good gauge of the resolve of some in our midst: How many have died? How long has it gone on? It's as if these two points are the definitive measure of success or progress or righteousness of our actions. This isn't the "pay any price, bear any burden" of which JFK spoke. This reminds me of how some look at marriage: "for better or worse...unless it's REALLY bad!" It's now, "bear any burden...unless it's really heavy." It's not any mythical incompetence on the part of Bush, armchair quarterbacks have it way too easy second guessing the ability to deal with this new type of enemy, it's the pantswetting and handwringing of the Bush-bashing left who have interfered in any way possible in the WOT. When all you know-it-alls can work your "resolutions" with the common gang-bangers in this country, then perhaps I'll consider that you might have a workable option for the bigger thugs of the world stage. BTW, you don't know jack if you think Reagan just talked Russia into collapse. But even so, there is absolutely no comparison between that situation and this.
That shuffling you hear Brian is carol riffling through her talking points. I don't think they had a heading of "intelligent discourse" listed in the official packet this morning.
More's the pity.
Very well put sir.
D.T.
The “We don’t negotiate with evil, we defeat it” un-diplomacy has run its course and it’s time to find a common ground with our adversaries.
I'm glad someone brought that up. To our leftist friends I'll ask: "what do you think is the common ground?"
A follow up: "What are you willing to give up to get there personally?"
Art, you miss the point. Here’s the question: Is our Iraq policy a failure or simply one that hasn’t succeeded yet? I say that it is the former in the same way that having a blacksmith fix broken pottery with his hammer is a failure. The decision to have him stop pounding is not a lack of will power or strength, it is acceptance of the reality that he will not succeed. You speak of “necessary sacrifices to win” without even attempting to show how the sacrifices are going to produce the win. Our intentions and goals in Iraq are the best. But when they are disconnected from a practical assessment of what is possible, likely or within our means, they are meaningless. Our actions in Iraq have become the moral equivalent of an ambulance running over pedestrians in a rush to get a critically injured person to the hospital.
Herman Goering had this situation pegged, see http://www.snopes.com/quotes/goering.htm
As far as incompetence goes, I think that the record is clear that good advice and planning were thrown under the bus when they didn’t fit the neo-con agenda. Read Thomas Ricks’ book, “Fiasco” and/or Woodward’s “Denial”.
Reagan didn’t do anything to get the USSR to collapse. That event was inevitable before Reagan ever took office. I think Gwynne Dyer sums it up well at http://www.gwynnedyer.net/articles/Gwynne%20Dyer%20article_%20%20Ronald%20Reagan.txt If the formatting scrambles the link, go to http://www.gwynnedyer.net/articlesdirectory.htm and pick “2004” and then the article of 6 June 2004. In summary, Reagan had very little to do with the collapse except to prevent it from being a catastrophic one. The lesson is applicable: when Reagan saw that dialog was necessary, he held is nose and he DID it.
elarson,
1) Iran does not want Iraq to fragment.
2) Iran does not want to take over Iraq. To attempt to do so would mean endless conflict with the Sunni's, both within Iraq and the rest of the Muslim world.
3) Syria does not want Iraq to fragment. Neither do they want Iran to take over.
4) Turkey does not want Iraq to fragment. They have enough problems with the Kurds in Turkey. Neither do they want Iran or Syria to gain ascendancy.
5) Saudi Arabia does not want Iraq to fragment. Neither to they want the Iranians or the Shia in Iraq to get too strong.
6) Ahmadinejad is the current face of Iran, but he is not Iran. The Imams run the show and have internal problems with an exploding youth population that is more interested in Ipods and the latest Hollywood movies than they are in spreading radical Islam. He wants his international prestige and to stick it in W's eye, but he is not willing to become an international pariah to get everything he wants. His position in Iran is riding the tiger. So long as he can keep the tiger fixated on external enemies, it won’t turn its claws on him.
We’re not the French facing the Germans at Versailles at the end of WWI or again at the beginning of WWII, but we are at the point where we have to chose to face him at the bargaining table or the battlefield.
It appears the liberal way of defeating the enemy has been identified by Brian. We just export our filth on ipods and from Hollywood and wahlah Islamascism is defeated. I don't think we can wait out these guys the way we waited out the former Soviet Union. Although Brian gives no credit to President Reagan for that either. Wasn't being steadfast throughout all the constant criticism worth anything? President Bush has set the stage for victory in Iran if only the American people could stomach it. How could we have ever gone after Iran unless we are based right there? Iraq was the logical choice, the easiest to defeat and right next to our real enemy, the seat of Islamo-Nazi fascism,sworn enemy of the U.S.A. for 30 (Thirty) years, Iran. If losing in Iraq is defined as Sunni's killing Shi'ites and vice versa, I guess we lost centuries ago because the 'Religion of Peace' needs a constant flow of blood, even their own or the Satanic influence moves on to communism or paganism or wherever it can to germinate.
The lesson is applicable: when Reagan saw that dialog was necessary, he held is nose and he DID it.
He also walked out of said talks when it suited him.
The following, I presume is what you assume is our common ground:
"X" does not want Iraq to fragment, where X = Iran, Syria, Turkey or Saudi Arabia. Most of the fragmentation concerns of each of "X" involves, I suspect, a fear of a Kurdish state as much as anything.
The 6th point you make goes to Iran's motivation. Then there is this "but we are at the point where we have to chose to face him at the bargaining table or the battlefield."
How do you view the consequences of military action against Iran's mullahocracy?
Here's another question:
How do you think Ahmadinejad's belief in the coming Mahdi informs his rhetoric?
What do you know about Ahmadinejad's beliefs about his own role with regard to the Mahdi?
elarson,
Not being willing to talk at all is much worse than walking out of a process that you recognize the need for and value of. The talking resumed.
Consequences?
Let's start with a total shutdown of oil going through the Persian Gulf, prices rising to $200+ per barrel. Instant recession if not depression. Turmoil throughout the entire region. Total alienation of the Iranian population instead of the just the leadership. A total inability for the US to follow up in any meaningful way. We could start a process of change, but we couldn't control it or direct it in any way. Or are you going to believe the predictions of the same people who predicted an easy time in Iraq?
Ahmadinejad's beliefs in that regard: Irrelavant. The putz is a talking head, a puppet for the real power. His only significance is that he is occupying an office that could otherwise have been a center for pushing back against the Mullahs instead of doing their bidding. I suggest that you check out Juan Cole's blog site "Informed Comment" at http://www.juancole.com/, and search out what he has to say about Ahmadinejad.
Regards, Brian.
Post a Comment
<< Home