| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: WoT |
| VDH: Did Iraq Really Ruin the U.S.? |
| 2007-01-22 |
| Damn, this guy can write. He has such a high-level view and yet is able to spell out what it means for us all. As with Steyn, I can always say "What he said." Writing of the decline of the West — and the United States in particular — has been a parlor game from the time of doomsayers Oswald Spengler and Arnold Toynbee to Paul Kennedy’s pessimism of the 1980s. Now the most recent serial epitaphs center on the Anglo-American experience in Iraq that will soon end, it is foretold, in defeat and a global loss of American prestige to the detriment of the West at large. The extremists in the Middle East — Hamas, Hezbollah, and their Iranian and Syrian sponsors — are supposedly empowered as nearby Iraqi Islamists tie down the American Gulliver. Democracy, we are also lectured by They do have a point there. Meanwhile, China merrily pushes ahead, piling up U.S. dollars as it trolls the Middle East for oil contracts. Other petrocrats — whether a Vladimir Putin or Hugo Chavez — cause international mischief with impunity. And they seem to win a pass from a distracted America that lacks an energy policy, other than borrowing profligately to power its Hummers and Chevy Tahoes. Zing! Ouch! |
| Posted by:Brett |
| #16 if Billary is Prez, I think she may respond in ways reminiscent of Thatcher. Because of her own innate gumption. The politics of personal destruction don't translate well to foreign affairs. |
| Posted by: Pappy 2007-01-22 22:47 |
| #15 If that is the choice, then as much as I disagree with Giuliani on most social issues, I will have to vote for him for President. Hillary would be the worst possible combination of political opportunism and incompetence imaginable - 4 years of her would make people long for Jimmy Carter. |
| Posted by: Shieldwolf 2007-01-22 18:38 |
| #14 The fact is that the Pubs are facing some real problems in the Presidential elections. If you look realistically at the candidacies of Hunter, Tancredo and Gingrich combined, they wouldn't make as much difference as a fart in a firestorm in 2008. Like it or not, the real choice will be Hillary, Obama, McCain, Romney or Guilani. |
| Posted by: Sgt. D.T. 2007-01-22 17:44 |
| #13 rj (#9): Methinks you may be onto something. We need someone who's a TRUE conservative, but one with spine, gumption and the wherewithall to fight back in the press. Dubya's got 2 of those 3, and I truly believe if'n he were to "get out front" and explain this war (once a week?) on TV, we'd be a LOT farther along. Steal the MSM's thunder and explain things in simple terms that Americans can understand. Tancredo, and to a lesser extent Newt have that "fire." Don't know as much about Duncan Hunter. Jeebus, the heat Tancredo alone has withstood (on illegal immigration) baffles the mind, but goes to show what a "common" topic that is to ALL Americans. As far as a face on "stick-to-it-ness" in the WoT, Rudy's got every one of those you mention beat to a "T." He's the face of 9/11 in NYC. Unfortunately, he's no conservative on pretty much any other issue, so he'll be a hard sell for those of us wacky "religious righters". I gotta say, though, I think I'd even hold my nose and pull the lever for Olympia Snowe right now, if Hitlery was my only other choice. |
| Posted by: BA 2007-01-22 15:46 |
| #12 President Billary. |
| Posted by: Deacon Blues 2007-01-22 15:08 |
| #11 If Billary is Prez (in the mentioned scenario) she would act like Janet Reno rather than Margaret Thatcher. Several destroyed US cities would just result in a police state, if that. People forget what happened to the Roman Empire, dependent on trade from one end to the other. When its flow of goods & services ceased, it did too, and millions suffered. The Islamic fascists and the Left will have won. |
| Posted by: Anguper Hupomosing9418 2007-01-22 14:54 |
| #10 "With a Democrat President I think the gloves would come off, and the Media and left would support everything possible, up to an including ethnic cleansing (not genocide or nukes, however)." You may be right, but I doubt it. The notion that there must still be some hard, crunchy Jacksonian-- or Shermanesque-- core hidden beneath the soft, plump, corrupt, self-indulgent surface of the Democratic Party strikes me as little more than wishful thinking, though; I think those days are long-gone. In the event of another mass-casualty terrorist attack on American soil, the party whose immediate reaction to 9/11 was to hand AFSCME union cards to all airline security personnel, competent or not, and whose most recent proposal for success in Iraq involved "responsible redeployment" of our troops to "nearby" Okinawa, is unlikely to give us anything more than what they've given us these last five years: bullshit, ass-covering, and blame-shifting. But like I said, you could be right; we shall see. "Strangely enough, if Billary is Prez, I think she may respond in ways reminiscent of Thatcher. Because of her own innate gumption." I think she's far more likely to respond in ways reminiscent of the first Clinton reign. She may remind some of the Iron Lady, but the only steel in her resolve will be in her committment to the establishment of World Socialism. Fight terrorists in foreign countries? Forget it-- at least, unless the U.N. bestows its blessing. Terrorism, to her and her kind, is strictly a law-enforcement matter, and what little international character they deem it to have is a matter for the U.N. Security Council to deal with. For Hillary to suddenly have a Road to Damascus Moment and see the wisdom of dealing harshly with the state sponsors of terrorism, would mean repudiating everything her husband did during the entire eight years he was in office. Ain't gonna happen-- not even with a half-dozen of our cities reduced to puddles of bubbling, radioactive slag. But you could be right. We'll see. |
| Posted by: Dave D. 2007-01-22 14:19 |
| #9 The Conservatives should get together in a (cigar) smoke-filled room and pick the best conservative candidate. Say Duncan Hunter with Tancredo or Newt as his VP. Then get the other conservatives to drop out of the race and support them in exchange for different positions. Then work on the name recognition for the next year. Lastly, fight a clean primary so that the nation can contrast with the bloodbath that will be the Democratic primaries. There would be enough difference between a conservative and McCain and Guiliani to make it easy for primary voters to decide. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2007-01-22 13:15 |
| #8 Strangely enough, if Billary is Prez, I think she may respond in ways reminiscent of Thatcher. Because of her own innate gumption. The real tendency of all Dummocrats would be appeasement as noted. This would be the worst disaster immaginable. That is why the Pubs must win the election for Prez. I don't believe they can regain House. And Senate looks doubtful as 22 Senate seats up for contention are now occupied by Pubs. So Congress will likely be Demo for some time to come. The candiadte must be chosen carefully. A nitwit like McCain would lose for certain. The winnowing process should proceed quickly, so that favored ones have time to obtain national recognition. Hilldebeast doesn't need recognition. She is going to work on softening her image to appeal to centralist voters. She is going to be very formidable if she gets the Donk nomination. |
| Posted by: SpecOp35 2007-01-22 12:17 |
| #7 "If we suffer another attack, even the dhims will want to take off the gloves. I mean that in a Shermanesque way." With a Democrat President I think the gloves would come off, and the Media and left would support everything possible, up to an including ethnic cleansing (not genocide or nukes, however). With a Republican President I think they would pour that energy into blaming the President and Bush for doing this and that wrong and making things worse. Having said that I'd still prefer a Republican President because I think the odds of that other attack are far less in that scenerio. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2007-01-22 11:10 |
| #6 I concur with RC, Dave D. and no mo uro. |
| Posted by: Mark Z 2007-01-22 10:26 |
| #5 I was going to write the comment you just did, Dave, but, well.........you just did. I'd add that even in the absence of a Democratic prez that any and all outside threats/attacks on the U.S. for 25-50 years will be blamed (never mind the contortions required to do so) on W by the left. This has the simultaneous advantage of: -obviating the need for serious, adult, real-world thought and analysis (said obviation always an important thing among the left), -removing the risks of changing basic principals and alienating some group of voters, and -maintaining a meme which is deeply imbedded in the various information industries. |
| Posted by: no mo uro 2007-01-22 08:12 |
| #4 "If we suffer another attack, even the dhims will want to take off the gloves. I mean that in a Shermanesque way." I second RC's skepticism that the Democrats would actually respond to another attack that way; by now, they're so in thrall to the Peace Pussies that such an about-face would be impossible. Of the dozen or so options in dealing with Islamic terrorism (see my list, here), the Dems have consistently expressed a preference for the Law Enforcement Approach, as practiced under Clinton. Democrats simply don't DO war; they haven't since Lyndon Johnson, forty years ago. And they aren't going to do it in response to any terrorist attack by a band of fanatical Muslims, not even an attack using rogue nuclear weapons. They will not make war for punishment, or for deterrence, or for conquest, or to annihilate the enemy; war is simply no longer a Democrat "thing", period. My best guess is that what we would see from a Democratic President backed up by a Democratic Congress in response to another mass-casualty terrorist attack on American soil is a drastically souped-up domestic surveillance/policing operation: kind of a "Patriot Act on Steroids". Their insincere, cynical "concerns" for civil rights will magically evaporate like dew under a hot summer sun, and we would very quickly find ourselves living in a de facto police state-- a police state which targets not Muslims but, in emulation of the worst of Euroweenieism, targets "Islamophobia" instead, and the "wingnuts" who are deemed responsible for it. Something we haven't talked about much here in Rantburg is a question that looms in the darkness: who will be blamed for the next terrorist attack? The terrorists? No. Islam? No. Oppressive, autocratic regimes in the Middle East? No. Democrats, having obsessed for the entire duration of George Bush's presidency on his "unilateralism" and "cowboy foreign policy", are going to blame HIM, along with those who developed the Bush Doctrine, for earning the world's hatred and inviting the attack. Following a catastrophic terrorist attack, the media will willingly-- gleefully, even-- assist the Democrats in whipping up "anti-neocon" hysteria, and in their police-state America it could become even more dangerous to be a conservative-- or even an ordinary Republican-- than a fanatical Islamic jihadist. Coupled with the domestic crackdown would be a whopping dose of appeasement to the Islamic world, including a cessation of all support for Israel, along with a strong element of isolationism as we pull in our horns to avoid antagonizing the rest of the world. All things considered, not Good Times. Not one bit. Over the top? I predict, you decide... |
| Posted by: Dave D. 2007-01-22 07:09 |
| #3 If we suffer another attack, even the dhims will want to take off the gloves. I mean that in a Shermanesque way. Is there ANY evidence for this? |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2007-01-22 05:30 |
| #2 Wait until the Iran moves, before predicting US demise. My bet is that most of Iran's professional army will turn on the Ayataollahs. When that happens, both Sunni and Shiite Iraqis will have lost their terror daddy. |
| Posted by: Sneaze Shaiting3550 2007-01-22 03:00 |
| #1 WAFF.com > was reported that Canada allegedly had only TWO WARSHIPS on NATIONAL/NATION-WIDE PATROL. Rest were tied up in port due to lack of funding. RCAF better off, but still viewed as unlikely to prevail agz dedicated conventional strike. THINK "THE LONGEST DAY" = TWO, AND ONLY TWO, GERMAN MESSERSCHMITTS MAKING ONE PASS OVER BRIT INVASION SECTOR. "Return to base, Bwahahaha, the Luftwaffe has had its great moment, hahahaha". |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2007-01-22 01:02 |