On the Situation in Iraq as of Early November 2007:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)

These musings were the result of the following article from The Washington Post which we read about a month ago:

Al-Qaeda In Iraq Reported Crippled (Thomas E. Ricks and Karen DeYoung)

To start with, the article itself is another piece of evidence for the hypothesis that the surge approach in Iraq is working. However, there is as always a broader approach to these matters that needs to be considered and I will touch on it now for those who are interested.

One of the reasons I have not reacted to every news story on this subject the way so many do is because the principles whereby I formulated my original position on the military involvement in Iraq nearly five years ago has not changed and will not change. That being said though, it does not mean that I have always liked the way things have been done over there.

Now I did not to my knowledge say anything publicly{1} on it but for the better part of over three years I was admittedly not happy with what appeared to be our approach to post-war stabilization and development. I have been pleased with the surge approach and as I noted earlier this year both briefly in passing{2} as well as later in a bit more detail{3}; however, I have not publicly to my knowledge explained one facet of the equation for why I view the postwar situation there as I do except perhaps indirectly in one of the threads where I have dismantled the "chickenhawk" canard paraded about by certain pundits opposed to the war.{4} One of the principles enunciated in those postings also applies to this issue but there is more to it than merely preserving morale on the home front. There is also the credibility of the United States in keeping its word -something that was seriously damaged in the aftermath of the Vietnam War and which still is a factor involved here.

The United States did not lose the war in Vietnam. Indeed our troops defeated the North Vietnamese in every battle including one that the msm tried to spin as a "defeat" for the American forces.{5} And this was also despite some of the most incompetent of bureaucratic attempts to micromanage the war itself. But after the withdrawal of troops after the signing of a peace treaty in 1973, President Richard Nixon pledged to South Vietnam the United States' assistance to help maintain the peace. This written pledge was reneged by the Congress in 1974 and 1975 when they cut off funding and left the South Vietnamese to be slaughtered by the North Vietnamese. This is why I say that the United States won the war in Vietnam but the Congress lost it. And what was lost in the process was the confidence of other nations and people that we would keep our word.{6}

It is no exaggeration to say that the loss of credibility of the United States in the aftermath of the Vietnam War is what gave the Soviet Union the confidence to assist communists worldwide and saw ten nations between 1975 and 1980 fall into communist hands while President Jimmy Carter's military endeavours failed miserably -particularly his invasion to try and rescue the hostages taken by Iran in 1979.{7} President Ronald Reagan when he came into office in 1981 checked this with his tough approach to the Soviets and even set into place policies designed to export democracy which saw democracy flourish in places it never had before during the 1980's and 1990's. But one thing which was not cured was the perception that set in after Vietnam of a loss of national resolve on military matters.

The reaction of the US after terrorists bombed the Marine barracks in Lebanon in 1983 was a rare case of reacting weakly to terrorism during the Reagan Administration. But even then, there were no military endeavours the US was involved in which were not able to be dealt with quickly and the concern in all cases was always to avoid making any of them "another Vietnam." President George H. W. Bush's approach to military interventions was on the whole good but he did make the mistake of not supporting the Iraqis after the Gulf War. He persuaded them to rise up and then did what President Kennedy did with the Bay of Pigs and the result was similarly disastrous. And with that the Iraqi people were given a good reason to doubt the resolve of the United States.

Indeed the continued lack of military resolve as manifested by the Clinton Administration during the 1990's was what sowed the seeds for 9/11 with Bin Laden himself claiming that he knew the United States was ready for an attack when he saw how the Clinton Administration handled difficulties in Somalia after the Black Hawk Down incident.

While the overall approach taken in Iraq has by all statistical standards been remarkable -both in the low casualty figures for troops and civilians during the war as well as troop and civilian deaths in the postwar stat- it has taken a while to see things finally appear to have some semblance of progress in the postwar period of stabilization. There are a variety of possible reasons for this from events being cyclical to the surge itself etc. but I want to suggest one which the surge strategy{8} strongly implies and it is this:

--The surge sends the message to the people of Iraq that when we promise to have their back this time that we can be trusted to keep our word.

I believe this is an important element and one that cannot be underestimated. It is a key reason why I never bought into the whole "they will welcome us as heroes" presumption that many had when we went into Iraq and liberated them from the clutches of a spawn of Satan. The Iraqis were obviously happy that he was ousted but like the hydra of Greek mythology, cutting off the heads of the monster only resulted in more heads developing whereas stabbing it in the heart was how the beast was killed. The surge idea is one that potentially can get at the heart of the Islamic extremist beast and kill it off sufficiently enough to where we can get Iraq capable of full self-government faster and thus be able to at the very least draw down the forces we have there. The question though is one of trust though; namely, can we be trusted to keep our word and have their backs.

It is my opinion that the Iraqis are finally starting to trust us enough to inform us of where the extremists are enabling us to clean out their hornets nests to a degree we were not able to before. This trust has not come easy and it had to be earned to this point. Again, we encouraged the Kurds to overthrow the government in Iraq after the Gulf War and when they rose up, we did not provide support and Saddam crushed them. It makes sense to speculate that the Iraqi people remember that and only recently have started to trust us to actually be there for them and not tuck tail and run at the first signs of trouble Black Hawk Down style. I hope that even those who did not support the war and who are not happy that we are there as a result of it would at the very least be willing to reconsider their presuppositions on this subject with those factors in mind. However, before we can expect that, it seems appropriate to touch on some of the reactionary approaches that critics of the military endeavours in the Middle East have involved themselves in.

On the latter factor, there are of course sites out there that publish outlandish figures which have margins of error that (if you read the fine print) make them utterly worthless. Well, that is not completely true: they are worthless for anything except the sensationalist headlines that those more interested in promoting their agendas than actual facts can manipulate them for.

Unlike a lot of people, I am willing to give credence to the positions of others (even if I do not generally agree with them) as long as they show a concern for trying to find the truth rather than taking an "support my operative presuppositions by any means possible" approach which is a variation of "ends justify the means" methodology. Similarly, if those who try to tally such sites showed a concern for being thorough and interested in actual context rather than vague and merely looking to count anyone they can, it would be much easier to give their view credit as at the very least something to take into consideration. However, far too often it comes across as simply trying to create inflated numbers to sway the emotions of the largely malleable and generally-quite-uncritical public.

Pardon those of us who take reason and logic seriously if we do not give the time of day to those who engage in such charades. There can be (and should be) responsible criticisms of any position taken on this subject or any other. But before that is possible, there needs to be a separation of the wheat from the chaff on the part of both supporters of the war as well as those who oppose it. And furthermore, each side needs to show a willingness to reconsider their presumptions in light of relevant new evidences either of a circumstantial or a fundamentally philosophical/principled nature -to challenge if you will (in the words of the late Benjamin Franklin) "a bit of their own infallibility."


Notes:

{1} Some people heard an earful on it from us privately though.

{2} On President Bush and His Administration As of Mid 2007 (circa July 11, 2007)

{3} On the Iraq Situation, the Military Surge, and Playing Politics (circa August 21, 2007)

{4} Here are the threads on that subject for those who are interested:

Revisiting the Absurd "Chickenhawk" Purported "Argument" and on the Odds of a Military Draft Anytime Soon (circa September 9, 2007)

Briefly Dispatching With A Standard Pseudo-"Peacemaker" War "Argument" Yet Again (circa July 28, 2006)

Revisiting the Flawed "Chickenhawk" Argument (circa May 1, 2006)

Another Flawed Argument From Pseudo "Peacemakers" Bites the Dust (circa October 21, 2005)

Perhaps the best of the threads for a very short synopsis of the key issue is the one from June 28, 2006. (I say this as the threads prior to that one -particularly the one from 2005- are longer and the one subsequent to it was written when your host was tired and a bit cranky thereby not having the most irenic of tonality to it.)

{5} I refer here to the Tet Offensive for those who do not know.

{6} This is not the first time something like this happened of course -certainly The Bay of Pigs comes to mind. But the failure to keep our word in Vietnam was far more significant than what happened with the Bay of Pigs invasion. (Though the latter could be said to have been a kind of precursor for what was to follow.)

{7} Some might point to the planned Soviet invasion of Poland as one example of deft diplomacy but I would argue that the reason it was not undertaken was that President-elect Ronald Reagan said his incoming administration would support the outgoing Carter Administration and the Soviets knew that Reagan would not be the kind of pushover that Carter had been.

{8} It bears noting that the additional troops for the surge were not all in place until a few months ago: right about the time the number of casualties begin noticeably declining. This does not mean that the two are necessarily connected of course, only that it is possible. I would argue for reasons noted further up in this posting why this is a logical cause and effect outlook on the matter in question.

Points to Ponder:

I do not feel obligated to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use. [Galileo Galilei]

More reasons to like Nicolas Sarkozy

Points to Ponder:

Believe it can be done. When you believe something can be done, really believe, your mind will find the ways to do it. Believing a solution paves the way to solution." [Dr. David Schwartz]

Some of the things that we receive in the email -this one is true in so many ways but that is all I will say on it ;-)

WORDS WOMEN USE

FINE
This is the word women use to end an argument when they feel they are right and you need to shut up. Never use "Fine" to describe how a Woman looks - this will cause you to have one of those arguments.

FIVE MINUTES
This is half an hour. It is equivalent to the five minutes that your football game is going to last before you take out the trash, so it's an even trade.

NOTHING
This means "something", and you should be on your toes. "Nothing" is usually used to describe the feeling a woman has of wanting to turn you inside out, upside down, and backwards. "Nothing" usually signifies an argument that will last "Five Minutes" and end with "Fine".

GO AHEAD (With Raised Eyebrows)
This is a dare. One that will result in a woman getting upset over "Nothing" and will end with the word "Fine".

GO AHEAD (Normal Eyebrows)
This means "I give up" or "do what you want because I don't care". You will get a "Raised Eyebrow Go Ahead" in just a few minutes, followed by "Nothing" and "Fine" and she will talk to you in about "Five Minutes" when she cools off.

LOUD SIGH
This is not actually a word, but is a nonverbal statement often misunderstood by men. A "Loud Sigh" means she thinks you are an idiot at that moment, and wonders why she is wasting her time standing here and arguing with you over "Nothing".

SOFT SIGH
Again, not a word, but a nonverbal statement. "Soft Sighs" mean that She is content. Your best bet is to not move or breathe, and she will stay content.

THAT'S OKAY
This is one of the most dangerous statements that a woman can make to a man. "That's Okay" means that she wants to think long and hard before paying you back for whatever it is that you have done. "That's Okay" is often used with the word "Fine" and in conjunction with a "Raised Eyebrow".

GO AHEAD
At some point in the near future, you are going to be in some mighty big trouble.

PLEASE DO
This is not a statement, it is an offer. A woman is giving you the chance to come up with whatever excuse or reason you have for doing whatever it is that you have done. You have a fair chance with the truth, so be careful and you shouldn't get a "That's Okay".

THANKS
A woman is thanking you. Do not faint. Just say you're welcome.

THANKS A LOT
This is much different from "Thanks." A woman will say, "Thanks A Lot" when she is really ticked off at you. It signifies that you have offended her in some callous way, and will be followed by the "Loud Sigh." Be careful not to ask what is wrong after the "Loud Sigh," as she will only tell you "Nothing".

Miscellaneous Threads Worth Reviewing:

These threads were taken from the weblog Sound Politics which we read on occasion and definitely recommend for those who want to get a view of what is going on in my neck of the woods. Briefly on a few of the recent threads...

Prop 1 on Election Night

Bottom line: if it is not close, the election manipulators in King County cannot successfully cheat.

King County Elections scores own goal for I-25!

Readers who remember my fury over the stolen governors election back in 2004 see more of what the problem then was: King County Elections not being held accountable. I predict more fraud in any election touching on King County this time around.

Boondoggle Two-fer

My proposed alternative to the "sound transit" mass transit boondoggle is in the combox at the link above.

Points to Ponder:

Those who seek absolute power, even though they seek it to do what they regard as good, are simply demanding the right to enforce their own version of heaven on earth. And let me remind you, they are the very ones who always create the most hellish tyrannies. Absolute power does corrupt, and those who seek it must be suspect and must be opposed. Their mistaken course stems from false notions of equality, ladies and gentlemen. Equality, rightly understood, as our founding fathers understood it, leads to liberty and to the emancipation of creative differences. Wrongly understood, as it has been so tragically in our time, it leads first to conformity and then to despotism. [Sen. Barry M. Goldwater (circa 1964)]

Florida sheriff's bulletin warns of purported new human waste high

Just when you think you have seen it all.

Points to Ponder:

Until you have learned to be tolerant with those who do not always agree with you; until you have cultivated the habit of saying some kind word of those whom you do not admire; until you have formed the habit of looking for the good instead of the bad there is in others, you will be neither successful nor happy. [Napolean Hill]

Miscellaneous Threads Worth Reviewing:

Without any ado...

France's president abruptly ends 'stupid' interview on '60 Minutes'

I have said for a while now how Nicholas Sarkozy had made me suspend my previous view of having nothing nice to say about the country or people of France.{1} I am trying to find the transcript for the 60 Minutes interview with French president Nicholas Sarkozy but I have not had much time to spend looking for these sorts of things as of late. Nonetheless, I like this guy the more I hear of him. Let me see:

--He had some things that were positive to say about the United States in general.

--He takes seriously the threat posed by Iran's attempts to acquire nuclear weapons (or as President Bush calls them "newclur weapons").

--He wanted to discuss substantive issues.

--He got annoyed by attempts to tabloidize the interview by CBS and as a result terminated the interview.

What is there to not like about those things??? Sarkozy is aware that there are a lot of people out there like your humble servant at Rerum Novarum who detest the post-Napolean lack of a spine of the French as a people and as a nation. He is aware that many of us view the French with disdain because of a history of cowardice and appeasement, a history of snooty elitism (despite their cowardice and appeasements) as well as a lack of gratitude.{2} However, we must also be willing to assess things anew from time to time particularly when significant changes take place -and the election of a non-socialist to the presidency of France earlier this year seems an appropriate time to do this; ergo that is what I will do for the indefinite future.

Half of US voters say never to Hillary: poll

I am not one who places a lot of trust in polls generally speaking; however this one does not sound as if it could have been spun by very much. I mean, if you ask people "are there anyone you would never vote for if they ran for president" that is a pretty straight forward question. But it is nice to see something that may tell against the sort of "inevitability" that the msm is trying to make out of Hillary presidency.


Notes:

{1} In light of the many dead French who have heavily influenced me in various areas over the years -both in the areas of philosophy, law, economics, theology, etc- that previous stance may shock people to see it stated so bluntly but that was my operative presupposition on France and the French in general as far as those who are presently alive up until very recently.

{2} Now it must be noted that the actions of a nation do not necessarily indicate the will of the people at times but France had a habit of electing socialists (read: communists) to government for a long time. It was therefore not inappropriate to consider them in light of their past trackrecord on these matters prior to the election of Sarkozy.

Cardinal Camillo Ruini encourages the religious to blog

We have long been fond of Cardinal Ruini -indeed some readers of this weblog may remember that he was our "Italian alternate pick" for pope in April of 2005.{1} One thing we have long appreciated about Cardinal Ruini is his geopolitical astuteness as well as his willingness to consider innovative approaches to addressing problems with a diversity of character to them.

With the internet, he admits his ignorance of the medium but wisely does not reject it out of hand as may do with those things of which they do not know much of. Blogging is intrinsically neutral in itself and capable of being used for good even if at times it does not appear that way. It is therefore with much appreciation that we take the above outlook from His Eminence and note it here briefly for your consideration.

Note:

{1} With Italian picks (and everyone has to agree that Italians are to be favoured at the conclave), it has to be someone akin to the above position wise. That is why I picked as my default Italian pick the vicar of Rome Cardinal Camillo Ruini after Cardinal Ratzinger who as I noted previously is my non-Italian European pick and number one choice). [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa April 16, 2005)]