OK, maybe I'm being a little harsh, but one of John Podhoretz's Corner entries yesterday made me sort of throw up my hands in frustration...
"FALLOUT FROM WHAT IF... [John Podhoretz]
Make no mistake, Rich [Lowery]. The failure to agree to a constitution, if the Iraqis do fail to agree on a constitution, will be a grievous blow. It will be seen as an invalidation of the triumphant January elections, since their purpose was the creation of a body to write the constitution. It will depress the Iraqis, be seen as a major policy defeat for Bush and cause panic on Capitol Hill. The argument that you can't impose democracy on a nation that isn't ready for it will be in the ascendant, and the "people yearn to be free" camp will be on the defensive in a big way. The realists will smirk, the anti-war folks will cackle, the administration will be bereft. Speaking as someone who has always looked on the optimistic side, this one will hurt. Bad. Very, very bad."
My response to him:
Good God, man! Pull yourself together! (Sound of slapping) ;)
Wars are won by breaking the will of the leader, not the led. The latter can be shorn up by the strength, tenacity and demonstrated indomitability of the former. GW has that in spades. Thus, when his political supporters go wobbly he, well, marches on.
An invalidation of the January elections? Those election stood for something far more momentous than the selection of the Constitutional Convention (or whatever they call themselves). Those raised, purple-stained fingers symbolized a crack in the Middle Eastern totalitarian wall that signals, at the very least, the beginning of a sea change in the region, if not the world. It may take a century, but it started with a single step and what happens vis-a-vis the constitutional wrangle is a sideshow...as long as people like Bush can be elected to lead powerful and free nations.
Is "...you can't impose democracy on people who aren't ready for it..." an argument, or a prejudice, or perhaps the mewlings of a flaccid subset of Western intellectual thought? Could you name one kind of human not "ready" for freedom? Were blacks not ready for freedom? Arabs? Chinese? North Koreans? Belorussians? That is not a statement of fact, it is admission of an unwillingness to help foster those freedoms for fellow humans who cannot alone overcome the forces that keep them bound. I have a feeling I'm preaching to the choir here so my apologies in advance.
As far as a "major policy defeat" for Bush is concerned, I think that will be a significant problem for the Administration. With one exception. Bush. See paragraph 1, above.
As for causing panic on "Capitol Hill," with the possible exception of Zell Miller, what else is new? Too bad he's not there any more, eh? Ah, well. We'll manage. Commenting on how well we manage against our adversaries despite all the bizarre things that go on in our military, a crusty old Army Colonel once said to me, "3.5% efficient armies beat 3% efficient armies every time." The Republican Senatorial caucus is merely less inept than the Democrats by half a percentage point. Hell, they'll all panic. That's their job. Or so it often seems. See Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 for more on Congressional panic.
As for "depress[ing]" the Iraqis, I don't know about you, but it I were liberated from a tyrant whose sons could drive up to my house, pull my daughter into their limo for a night of sexual brutality, and the next afternoon leave me hanging by my wrists from a telephone pole with my tongue cut out for protesting such activity, well, I'd be a little harder to "depress." In other words, I think their perspective may be different from our own.
As for smirking "realists," cackling anti-war folks (now there's a misnomer--they're not anti-war; they're anti-freedom), and Administration officials rending their garments, wailing and gnashing their teeth, again, I submit to you...W. He's Reagan without the need for a Thatcher. The entire solar system could go wobbly and George would soldier on. He's missing the wobbly gene. Of this, I am sure, having had more than a quarter of a century to study a whole host of leadership styles.
And finally, "Speaking as someone who has always looked on the optimistic side, this one will hurt. Bad. Very, very bad."
Well.
For me, I think I'll go with what Sir Winston said in the Never Give up speech at Harrow School in October, 1941,
"The ten months that have passed have seen very terrible catastrophic events in the world--ups and downs, misfortunes--but can anyone sitting here this afternoon, this October afternoon, not feel deeply thankful for what has happened in the time that has passed and for the very great improvement in the position of our country and of our home?"
He was willing to fight and he maintained his sense of proportion in that mortal struggle. Willing. It is that word that makes all the difference. We have the right guy in the right place to weather this potential "storm."
I guess I'll leave you with this--don't worry about it. Just keep making those great posts!
Cheers,
Jonah's Airpower Guy
Then I see John Derbyshire snarking about Lt Gen McInerny who was offering some perspective on the bombings in Iraq. To the general, it's a sign of desperation. To Derb, it's a sign of defeat. So much for the Conservative backbone, eh?
Sometimes I wonder if the American public deserves the soldiers they have. Then I slap my ownself and remind meself that winning is 90% mental and go read Chrenkoff. Heh.
5 Comments