von

Djerejian:

I want to stress that there are aspects of neo-conservative doctrine that cannot be dismissed out of hand. The world has seen impressive waves of democratization through the 19th and 20th Centuries, and it’s not implausible in the least to hope for further progress on this score, as many neo-conservatives hope and trust. But we have to move forward keenly aware of the resources available to bring to the fore, and we have to inject common sense and realism into our liberty exportation exercises. Spouting on about ending tyranny in the world, in toto, and arrogantly assuming people are clamoring for the American way of life in Damascus and Teheran and Caracas and Le Paz, strikes me as idiotic in the extreme. Let me be plainer: people who are chanting off the roof-tops for another regime change adventure (they know who they are) need to, quite simply, and put somewhat crudely, STFU. And not a moment too soon.

Some serious folk like George Will and William Buckley and Henry Kissinger understand this, but others, like, say, the merry gang of profoundly unserious commentators (a select few aside) at places like The Corner are still in la-la land, where the big issues of the day are enshrining an American right to torture, or buying Danish ham, or talking about the rice pilaf at Gitmo, or so very cheaply beating up on Jill Carroll’s supposed Stockholm syndrome, and other such low-brow fare. WFB is above this inanity, and privately is likely embarrassed, to the extent he even pays attention, when the likes of Derbyshire revel in alerting us that he doesn’t give a damn that 1,000 Egyptians are dead in a ferry disaster. But there are not many left like WFB around to chide, let alone develop, the next generation of conservative commentators, who have become increasingly cretinized in a climate rife with Coulterisms and obscenely dim clowns like Sean Hannity, so as to regain the sobriety and seriousness this country needs in elite policymaking and other opinion-making circles (perhaps George Kennan’s elitism, often derided, isn’t as unworthy as it may appear given this sorry state of affairs). We are in desperate need of advice that isn’t but warmed-over faux Churchillianism a la VDH, or screw the A-rabs, all of ’em, a la Frank Gaffney/Charles Johnson types (Gaffney’s stance on the Dubai ports deal was woefully hysterical), or the oft-exuberant kinda Brit-style neo-colonialist fervor of the Ferguson’s and Hitchen’s (this last too often revealing the excessive zeal of the convert, when it comes to Mesopotamian happenings, anyway).

‘Tis tempting to leave it simply at:  "indeed."  Alternatively, you could read the whole thing.

Read more

by von

I confess:  it was difficult for me to read Hilzoy’s piece below, "Failures of Will."

It wasn’t that the writing was complex or convoluted:  Hilzoy is a subtle thinker, but she writes with an admirable clarity.  It wasn’t that the arguments are unusual or hard to grasp:  her arguments are straightforward and, in places at least, well supported.  And it certainly wasn’t that Hilzoy’s words made me, a war supporter, feel uncomfortable or guilty as she tried to nail my (supposed) heartfelt beliefs to a metaphorical wall. 

No, it wasn’t any of that.  I had trouble finishing Hilzoy’s piece because its assumptions regarding the Bush Administration and its supporters are almost impossible to me to understand.  Hilzoy’s basic presumption seems to be that the Bush Administration is stupid and black hearted and that the Bush Administration’s supporters are testosterone-fueled nincompoops, easily misled by the latest shiny thing.  Hilzoy’s piece appears founded on a caricature, and not a flattering one at that. 

It seems to me that Hilzoy has absolutely no idea what actually motivates the folks on the "other side" of this debate.  If we’re going to have a debate over the war, both sides need to know what motivates the other.  Both sides need to understand that the other is not arguing from idiocy, malice, or foolishness, but actually has reasons why they believe what they believe.  And that some of those reasons are good ones; and that some of these questions are hard; and that smart and decent folks can actually come to opposing opinions on the war. 

I am a war supporter who agrees with Hilzoy that the Bush Administration has been negligent in its planning in Iraq.  I am a war supporter who, out of disgust with the Administration, voted for John Kerry in the last election, a man who did and still does strike me as a total boob — and a silicone boob at that.  I am a war supporter who believes that there can be No End But Victory in Iraq, and that victory cannot be achieved if we preemptively declare defeat.

I am a war supporter who disagrees passionately with Hilzoy’s piece.

Read on.

Read more

by von

First the blog double-posted my bit on Iraq; now it won’t let me delete the second post — leading to this replacement.  Consider this your "well, crap" open thread.

Read more

by von

LESS THAN TWO WEEKS AGO, I wrote that a successful Constitutional Referendum — whatever its outcome — would start to turn around Iraq, because it would invest the Sunnis in the political process.  Today, we begin to see evidence of exactly that:

NORTH OF BAGHDAD — For weeks before Iraq’s constitutional referendum this month, Iraqi guerrilla Abu Theeb traveled the countryside just north of Baghdad, stopping at as many Sunni Arab houses and villages as he could. Each time, his message to the farmers and tradesmen he met was the same: Members of the disgruntled Sunni minority should register to vote — and vote against the constitution.

"It is a new jihad," said Abu Theeb, a nom de guerre that means "Father of the Wolf," addressing a young nephew one night before the vote. "There is a time for fighting, and a time for politics."

For Abu Theeb and many other Iraqi insurgents, this canvassing marked a fundamental shift in strategy, and one that would separate them from foreign-born fighters such as Abu Musab Zarqawi, the Jordanian who leads the group al Qaeda in Iraq.

Two years of boycotting the process had only marginalized Sunnis while Iraqi’s Shiite majority gained power. And Abu Theeb’s entry into politics was born partly of necessity; attacks by Shiite militias, operating inside and outside the government security apparatus, were taking an increasing toll on Sunni lives.

So at 6:30 a.m. on the day of the referendum, Oct. 15, Theeb was already at the polling center in his village, which he had scouted out days in advance. Two of his fighters took up positions. Abu Theeb and the rest of the fighters, more relaxed, propped their Kalashnikov rifles against walls or placed them on tables.

"No one will attack," Abu Theeb assured a reporter. "I made sure some wrongdoers are protecting the school," he said, jokingly referring to al Qaeda loyalists. To head off any violence, he had co-opted the group by enlisting two of its supporters as his polling site guards.

The War in Iraq has been longer, harder, and tougher than it should have been.  There are legitimate grounds to say that it never should have been fought in the first place.  But don’t close your eyes to the fact that — slowly, painfully — we are winning in Iraq.  The Iraqis are winning.  Don’t give up the cause.

Read more