From the WSJ Opinion Archives
|
Flirting
With Disaster
Juan Cole, the Arabist historian who is well-regarded on the Angry Left, has
a warning for Democrats. Because of the presidential veto and the necessity
for 60 votes to get anything done in the Senate, they cannot "force a significant
reduction of troops from Iraq on Bush's watch, so as to avoid Iraq becoming
exclusively their headache when they (as is likely) take over the White House
in January of 2009":
In all likelihood, when the Democratic president pulls US troops out in summer of 2009, all hell is going to break loose. The consequences may include even higher petroleum prices than we have seen recently, which at some point could bring back stagflation or very high rates of inflation.
In other words, the Democratic president risks being Fordized when s/he withdraws from Iraq, by the aftermath. A one-term president associated with humiliation abroad and high inflation at home? Maybe I should say, Carterized. The Republican Party could come back strong in 2012 and then dominate politics for decades, if that happened.
It is all so unfair, of course, since Bush started and prosecuted this disaster in Iraq, and Bush is refusing to accept responsibility for the failure, pushing it off onto his successor.
How can the Dems avoid this? Cole says "they could try to legislate stronger US diplomacy aiming at ensuring peace between Sunni Saudi Arabia and Shiite Iran," although it's not clear how you "legislate" diplomacy. He says "they could resist the temptation to demonize Iran or to push it onto a war footing with threats or even bombings," although it's hard to see how the Democrats have the power to appease Iran, even if one supposes it could be done.
He offers one good bit of advice: "As for Iraq itself, the best hope for the Dems may be that Gen. Petraeus actually succeeds, over the next year, in significantly reducing ethnic tensions." That he should even have to say this speaks volumes about the perverse position the Democrats have created for themselves vis-à-vis Iraq.
We have some better advice for the Democratic presidential candidates:
First, if you don't want to deal with the Iraq problem, don't whine about how "unfair" it is. Instead, don't run for president. Just as we have an all-volunteer military, no one is forced to serve in the White House. The job of the president is to deal with the country's problems, and one of those problems right now is Iraq. If you're not up to it, the presidency is not the job for you. Al Gore, John Kerry and Chuck Hagel have all decided to forgo a presidential run, and there is no dishonor in doing so.
Second, if you do run for president and win, don't retreat from Iraq. Cole acts as if it is a foregone conclusion that the next (Democratic) president will quickly surrender, with results that even he says would be disastrous. In fact, the next president will have the option of acting wisely, and Hillary Clinton at least may even have it in her to do so.
Third, don't promise to act unwisely if elected. The Democratic base wants an American retreat, and the presidential candidates will be tempted to promise it to them. But why set up expectations you can meet only at enormous cost to America's interests?
More generally--and this advice applies to all politicians of both parties--if the interests of your party conflict with the interests of the country, put the country first. (If you believe liberating Iraq was a mistake, think of how this advice might have applied to Democrats like Kerry and Mrs. Clinton who voted for it.) This may lead to the occasional election loss, but in the long run the country will thank you, and your party will be better off. Democrats may well be better off losing in 2008 than winning in the scenario Juan Cole envisions.
Turn
the Handle and They Pop Up
"Democrats in Box on Iraq War Legislation"--headline, Associated Press,
Sept. 12
An
Iraqi Realist
An enlightening New York Times report from Iraq (yes, it does happen) describes
the ambivalence Iraqis feel about the U.S. presence in their country:
A city worker in Baquba, the capital of Diyala Province, described his ambivalence in strong terms.
"The withdrawal of the occupation forces is a must because they have caused the destruction of Iraq, they committed massacres against the innocents, they have double-crossed the Iraqis with dreams," said Ahmad Umar al-Esawi, a Sunni worker. "I want them to withdraw all their troops in one day."
But, he added, dropping his voice: "There is something that I want to say although I hate to say it. The Americans forces, which are an ugly occupation force, have become something important to us, the Sunnis. We are a minority and we do not having a force to face the militias. If the Americans leave, it will mean a total elimination of the Sunnis in Iraq.
"I know I said I want them to leave, but if we think about it, then I have to say I want them to stay for a while until we end all the suspicions we have of each other and have a strong national government."
At first, he sounds like he could be from MoveOn.org--but then he changes his tune because, unlike the MoveOnsters, he actually cares what happens to the people of Iraq.
Speaking of MoveOn, a reader who asks not to be identified says we were too kind to Joe McCarthy in an item yesterday:
Actually, MoveOn.org has adopted precisely the childish, demagogic rhetorical excesses of McCarthy himself. I well recall from my youth that McCarthy had derogatory pet names for many of his political enemies in the Senate. Most notably he referred to the urbane and polished onetime Rhodes Scholar Sen. J. William Fulbright of Arkansas as "Sen. Half-Bright." He referred to Sen. William Benton of Connecticut (who, with Connecticut's Gov. Chester Bowles, had founded the eminent ad firm of Benton & Bowles) as "an odd little mental midget." There might have been other such McCarthy puerile insults, of the kind now favored by MoveOn.org.
Sure enough, Time's 1954 account of McCarthy's censure by the Senate notes that Fulbright "had been called 'half bright' by McCarthy."
The Washington Times reports that "Capitol Hill Democrats rejected a call for votes in both chambers to condemn [MoveOn's] attack newspaper ad." That's just as well: The idea of Congress going on record condemning Americans for exercising their freedom of speech doesn't sit well with this columnist. But the Times says individual Democrats are also hesitant to offer anything but the most anodyne criticism of MoveOn, which does not speak well of them.
Iraq
Are Nothing to Do With al Qaeda!
In an item yesterday, we noted the following hilariously awkward sentence from
a New York Times report on the Petraeus testimony:
When Representative Gary L. Ackerman, Democrat of New York, suggested the war was not integral to the anti-terror effort since members of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, sometimes called Al Qaeda in Iraq, the homegrown Sunni Arab extremist group that American intelligence agencies have concluded is foreign-led, is not part of the Qaeda network behind the Sept. 11 attacks, the general offered a quick retort.
What we didn't catch is that the sentence isn't even grammatical: The subject of the dependent clause that begins the sentence, members, does not match the verb, is, which is understandable since the two words are separated by a participial phrase and another dependent clause.
We also missed this equally riotous passage, from a "news analysis" in yesterday's Times by Michael Gordon:
The National Intelligence Estimate issued last month made a similar point--and General Petraeus quoted from it in his testimony. "We assess that changing the mission of coalition forces from a primarily counterinsurgency and stabilization role to a primary combat support role for Iraqi forces and counterterrorist operations to prevent A.Q.I. from establishing a safe haven would erode security gains achieved thus far," the estimate noted. A.Q.I. is the abbreviation the intelligence agencies use to refer to Al Qaeda of Mesopotamia, a predominantly Iraqi organization with foreign leadership.
Hmm, if AQI an an abbreviation for "Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia," what does the I stand for? We suspect this is another case of an NYT* reporter protesting the Times's policy of forced editorializing in stories about al Qaeda in Iraq.
* An abbreviation for Nieuw Amsterdam Times.
Failed
Haiku Writers
A headline in today's Washington Post reads:
9/11 Linked
To Iraq, in Politics
If Not in Fact
Sorry, guys, but that's 5-7-4. A haiku is supposed to be 5-7-5. What's that? You say it's supposed to be a news headline, not a haiku? But in that case, isn't it supposed to be objective?
Logrolling in Our Time
- "He's really a remarkable man, a great man in many ways. . . .
He's changed the course of history. . . . A great man is someone--a
great individual is someone who changes the course of history. And certainly
in the last five or six years, America has changed dramatically in the way
we behave, in the way we travel. . . . Tremendously formidable enemy,
sir, an admirable man. If he was on our side, he would be dining at the White
House. He would be a freedom fighter, a resistance fighter."--Michael
Scheuer on Osama bin Laden, Nov. 21, 2004
- "Among the most capable of those from your own side who speak to you
on the topic and on the manufacturing of public opinion is Noam Chomsky, who
spoke sober words of advice prior to the war, but the leader of Texas doesn't
like those who give advice. . . . And if you would like to get to
know some of the reasons for your losing your war against us, then read the
book of Michael Scheuer in this regard."--Osama
bin Laden, Sept. 6, 2007
- "In the interview, Chomsky argued that the Iraq war 'significantly increased the threat of terror,' and he cited Michael Scheuer, a former CIA analyst and author of the book 'Imperial Hubris: Why the West Is Losing the War on Terror,' as calling Bush bin Laden's main ally."--CNSNews.com quoting Noam Chomsky, Sept. 11, 2007
'Have
You Put On a Few Pounds, Ted?'
"Bush Weighs Olson to Replace Gonzales"--headline, Politico, Sept. 11
First
in War, First in Peace, First in Putting Off Retirement
"Washington Leads Nation in Putting Off Retirement"--headline, Associated
Press, Sept. 12
Big
Deal, So Can Cockroaches
"Hard Drives Can Survive Fire, Floods"--headline, Associated Press,
Sept. 12
He
Was Just Sitting on the Porch, Scratching Himself
"Police Find Dog Remains at House"--headline, Gwinnett Daily Post
(Lawrenceville, Ga.), Sept. 11
Breaking
News From 1220
"Khan Blocked From Entering Karachi"--headline, Associated Press,
Sept. 12
News You Can Use
- "Web Service Gives Alibis for Adulterers"--headline, Associated
Press, Sept. 12
- "Today's Lesson in Anger Management: No Fighting"--headline, Pioneer Press (St. Paul, Minn.), Sept. 12
Bottom Stories of the Day
- "Nirvana Bassist Won't Take On Baird"--headline, Olympian
(Olympia, Wash.), Sept. 12
- "Rapper Arrested at Miami Strip Club"--headline, WPLG-TV
Web site, Sept. 11
- "Katie Couric Hits Another Low in Ratings"--headline, Reuters,
Sept. 12
- "Gingrich Hints of White House Bid"--headline, Washington Times, Sept. 12
Inch
by Inch
When we visit Europe, we are invariably disappointed to find that they still
use the metric system, an outmoded collection of weights and measures based
on pagan superstitions about the power of the number 10. Now, however, there
is some small progress. Bloomberg reports that the European Commission has decided
to allow Britain and Ireland to convert to normal measurements such as miles
and pints (sadly, the ruling leaves the Continent behind):
[Tuesday's] decision is a posthumous vindication for Steven Thoburn, an English grocer dubbed the "metric martyr" when he was convicted in 2001 for selling bananas by the pound. Thoburn died of a heart attack at the age of 39 in 2004 after his appeal was rejected.
We know what you're thinking, but let's not jump to any conclusions. After all, it's possible that it was socialized medicine rather than the metric system that killed Thoburn.
(Carol Muller helps compile Best of the Web Today. Thanks to Don Stewart, Michael Segal, Scott Yates, Andrew Levinson, Adam Phillips, Tom Knight, Jeffrey Hochman, Jon McHenry, Ethel Fenig, Ray Rayburn, Barak Moore, Dagny Billings, Marc Blackwell, John Williamson, Doug Black, Joel McLemore, Andrew Robinson, Jay Povlin, Curt Schmidt, Randy Riness, Steve Sutton, Mark Davies, Charlie Gaylord, Paul Dyck, Marc Tarrasch, Gregory Lehman and Ronald Morris. If you have a tip, write us at opinionjournal@wsj.com, and please include the URL.)
Today on OpinionJournal:
- Review & Outlook: Petraeus takes the Beltway: Political progress--in Iraq and the U.S--follows military success.
- Kay Hymowitz (from Commentary): The cultural contradictions of libertarianism.
- Owen West: America's soldiers are committed to the war. But they're not going to lie about its progress.
