« Kiddies are told that they should die to save the environment | Main | The Story Behind The Fall Of Bear Stearns »

Their Surrender, Not Ours

An early distinction between the Democrat and Republican candidates for President, is the question about whether countries like Iran represent a threat to the United States, and if so what sort of posture should be taken to protect America. Speaking for the Left, Senator Barack Obama says that Iran should not be considered a real threat to the US, generally because it lacks the size of army and scale of armament to threaten American territory. It is laughable to argue that a nation like Iran would invade any land where US troops have boots on the ground. He makes the point that one-size-fits-all does not make sense when addressing different types of enemies, and suggests that discussions might prevent more costly confrontation later. In theory, this makes a kind of sense.

Unfortunately for Senator Obama, the reality of the situation is very different from what he believes to be the case. In the first place, the government of Iran is known to have supplied and supported groups which entered Iraq for the specific purpose of destabilizing the post-Saddam government of Iraq. This means support for terrorist actions, including the abduction, torture and murder of innocents, including women and children. The government of Iran has also supported groups which attack American military personnel, making Iran the defacto enemy of the United States; discussions with a government which is deliberately murdering Americans is unthinkable for any prospective American President, as the would-be commander-in-chief of our soldiers.

But the matter goes far beyond the blunder of not recognizing the role of the American President. Iran has been at war against the United States since 1979, from the seizure of the American Embassy in Teheran (for which Iran not only has never apologized, but in fact celebrates) , to attacks on American-flagged vessels in the Gulf over many years, to the present cross-border attempts to kill Americans and defeat American interests, as well as the development of its nuclear weapons program. Proper "discussions" with Iran are impossible, since the regime in place supports terrorists, seeks nuclear weapons, and every leader of note in Iran for the past generation has unanimously stated the intention of destroying all American interests and allies in the region. The only action by an American President which the mulllahs and functionaries in Teheran will accept is unconditional surrender. One hopes that this is not the intended course of Mister Obama.

-- continued --

Yet even that does not tell the whole matter. For all the fact that the Left hates American power and influence, it is undeniable that the United States has been the defender and sentry for more than half the world for two generations. America won World War Two, more than any other power. And after that, the world depended on America to stop the spread of Communism, and to support the growth of wealth and freedom. The enemies of America ranged from those who wielded nuclear missiles from far away, to those within who hated their homeland enough to spread lies and slander against her. Sadly, some of America's enemies hold office as elected officials of the United States government. While I do not count Senator Obama among that number, it must nonetheless be remembered that the words and actions of a President will support and advance a doctrine, and as President Carter discovered, a weak and timid President will not be able to protect American interests.

The world watches the United States, and responds to her lead. We are not equal to anyone else, and it is vital to understand that if we falter, there is no one else among our allies who can carry the standard of freedom and liberty. That is, a step back by America, even to protect our troops from casualty and our image from criticism, will condemn real people to submission under a tyrant, and will prove us liars in our promise of hope. If we do not oppose the supporters of terrorism, no one else will. If we do not defy the likes of Ahmadinejad and Assad, then their practice of asymmetrical warfare is validated, and will be repeated in countless other places against untold numbers of victims. 9/11 did not happen because we were arrogant, but because our enemies thought we would not be able to punish them. The fact that no international terrorist organization has been able to successfully perform an operation on US soil since 2003, demonstrates the success of our doctrine, and the critical need for its continuance. We are at war with certain powers which oppose all we stand for. We do not need to discuss anything with them, except to make clear that we will destroy such evil with every means at our disposal. Anyone who would be President of this nation must make completely clear that he understands and supports American victory, and will not countenance any hindrance to that effort.


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Comments (21)

Sadly, some of America's... (Below threshold)

Sadly, some of America's enemies hold office as elected officials of the United States government.

Like who?

Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, D... (Below threshold)

Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Dick Durbin, those two idiot Saddam stooges from Congress who went to Iraq before the war to plead Saddam's case with our media (McDermott was one), to name a few. They've all cynically ranted about how we are the enemy and in so doing emboldened the real enemy.

"Like who?"... (Below threshold)

"Like who?"

Okay, I'll start. Senator Jay Rockefeller.

"Sadly, some of America'... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

"Sadly, some of America's enemies hold office as elected officials of the United States government."

They do so because, even more sadly, some of America's enemies control 82% of the "main stream media".

When did they say that "we ... (Below threshold)

When did they say that "we are the enemy"? They might have, I'm not trying to be a dick, but I would bet that you're not being overly charitable in your interpretation of whatever they said.

Disagreeing entirely with this administration's foreign policy, and not being opposed to dialogue with one's nation's enemies, does not thereby make one an enemy of one's own nation. Quit foaming at the mouth.

Looks like reading comprehe... (Below threshold)
Captain Obvious:

Looks like reading comprehension is a problem for you, hyperbolist.

Wanting your country to loo... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

Wanting your country to loose any war that it is in make you it's enemy.

Reporting "news" with a 25:1 ratio of bias in favor of the enemy of your country makes you it's enemy.

25:1? Oh, I see: you mean i... (Below threshold)

25:1? Oh, I see: you mean if 25 bad things in Iraq are reported for every good thing, that's shilling for the bad guys. And not, you know, presenting facts. So maybe instead of talking about how many Iraqis and Americans get killed there, the media should talk about all the ones who aren't being killed, or something like that?

I think you guys give Ahmadinejad too much credit. He's not the boss in Iran.

"Quack!" said hyperbolist t... (Below threshold)
Captain Obvious:

"Quack!" said hyperbolist the duck.

I love how bias is posed as... (Below threshold)

I love how bias is posed as presenting the facts. Now if Clinton was president, we would hear how many soldiers died, but also how many schools, markets, banks, etc. opened up and how normal places are looking. Now, that is a fact. ww

Do you guys purpos... (Below threshold)
dr lava:

Do you guys purposely leave out a whole bunch of Iranian history our are you ignorant of it?

You seem to think 1979 came out of thin air while ignoring our political terrorism of 1953.

Thousands of Iranians do fr... (Below threshold)

Thousands of Iranians do freely conduct commerce and business in Iraq, and Iranian military and religious influence is common in many Iraqi Shiite religious organizations and militia groups. Iran is so heavily involved in Iraq's affairs that is very difficult to divorce Iran from their heavy involvement in Iraq.

Unfortunately Iranian involvement in the Iraq region of the MidEast existed long before the U.S. was even a nation, and Iranian influence in Iraq will exist long after the last U.S. soldier leaves Iraq. It is ultimately the problem of Iraq to decide what sort of relationship they wish to have with their huge neighbor to the East and whether this relationship will be constructive and peaceful and based on commerce and trade, or continues to further Shiite vs. Sunni sectarian conflict.

Hey WildWillie, "40 people ... (Below threshold)

Hey WildWillie, "40 people murdered in a suicide bombing in a crowded market" is news. It should be reported. It's not "bias". While you might be uninterested in the horrific carnage that has erupted in that country since the invasion which you undoubtedly supported, do you really think that there are enough people as craven as you in the United States that wish CNN would report on a toilet flushing properly instead of IED attacks and suicide bombers? Is this what you think prevents a majority of the population from seeing things the way you do, and not the objectively awful states of affairs that are the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Is this what you ... (Below threshold)
Is this what you think prevents a majority of the population from seeing things the way you do, and not the objectively awful states of affairs that are the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan?

The context of your post would lead one to
make the assumption there was no awful states
of affair in Iraq and Afghanistan before
the war started.

Of course you probably never saw the photos
that came out of Afghanistan of the public
executions of women in 1997.
Or the fact CNN hid the news of atrocities in Iraq.
I guess all those mass graves going back 30 years just popped up on an assumption.

Maggie: Iraq is better off ... (Below threshold)

Maggie: Iraq is better off now than with Saddam Hussein in power? You sure? Terrifying police state vs. sectarian battleground... hmm, you know what? They both sound pretty bad. How are you so confident in your implied assertion that the present circumstances are better than the past? And more to the point, what percentage of Iraqis agree with you?

Afghanistan is better off without the Taliban, but wouldn't it be even better off had an adequate number of soldiers been deployed there for the past 7 years, instead of in... forget it.

Hyperbolist, at least you'v... (Below threshold)

Hyperbolist, at least you've chosen an appropriate handle. I'll give you that. Wild Wille demonstrated that there should have been a better balance in coverage of Iraq and you jump in with the toilet analogy to defend that lack of balance.

And if you want to know the difference between Iraq or Afghanistan before and after I'd say the most important difference is that neither nation's people had any hope of things getting better while Saddam was in power or while the Taliban ruled. They have choices now and opportunities to make their lives better. Yes, there are still some who would try and keep them from exercising their liberty, but those avenues are now open.

Freedom, once established as preferable and with some willing to defend it, has a tendency to grow.

...unless a majority of the... (Below threshold)

...unless a majority of the people prefer Islamic rule, in which case "freedom" will be shown to have been a bad idea for that particular case. The people of Afghanistan don't want to be ruled by the Taliban, but lack the military support to make them go away forever. A hell of a lot of people in Iraq, though, seem somewhat inclined towards religious insanity. What if they democratically elect a pro-Iranian anti-Israeli autocrat, like Hussein but worse? At least girls could go to school and women didn't have to cover themselves in Baathist Iraq.

It ain't better. And there isn't enough evidence, anywhere, for anyone to say that it's going to even closely approximate the rosy picture that the PNAC moth******ers painted in the run-up to the invasion. I don't hold the United States responsible for the violence in Iraq; I hold whichever British f*ckwit who decided to draw the country's boundaries as such. I do not, however, feel that it makes any sense whatsoever to use a violent military occupation to prop up a democracy that has been imposed on a nation formerly stabilized by a brutal autocrat, and currently unravelling due to the newly exposed cultural/religious incommensurabilities between the 3 main ethnic groups that transcend the lifespan of the country itself. Iraq is not a nation in any meaningful sense apart from completely arbitrary geographical boundaries, and well-meaning American soldiers and politicians will never make it one.

The bs proportion of hyperb... (Below threshold)
Captain Obvious:

The bs proportion of hyperbolist's rants has finally exceeded saturation levels.

What about that "rant" was ... (Below threshold)

What about that "rant" was wrong in your view, CO? What makes you hopeful about the situation in Iraq? A 15 second montage on Fox News about neighbourhoods with running water and electricity?

This is an excellent post. ... (Below threshold)

This is an excellent post. Thank you.

"...unless a majority of... (Below threshold)

"...unless a majority of the people prefer Islamic rule, in which case "freedom" will be shown to have been a bad idea for that particular case."

But that's not what we've seen. What we've seen is that many Iraqis want certain aspects of Islam in their government, but not the kind we see in Iran, nor what we saw with the Taliban. If that were the case, we would have seen them vote in candidates espousing total Islamic rule. What we've seen is the Iraqi people voted in a government that did not require fealty to one party to get the jobs they want. What we saw was the Iraqi people voted in a government that does not demand that its women wear burkas. What we saw was the Iraqi people voted in a government that will answer to them through re-elections should the people become displeased with them. Anyone who thought the Iraqis would have a government identical to our own was deceiving themselves. I fully expect that they will have aspects that we would find abhorrent, but may appeal to them. But in general, they will be far more democratic that other Middle East nations besides Israel.

"A 15 second montage on Fox News about neighbourhoods with running water and electricity?"

And that was the point I was making about coverage. 15 second blurbs about running water here and there. If you sneezed, you missed it. Unfortunately most of what was said about running water and electricity was about where there was a lack of it, rarely about where it was restored or even exceeded prior levels and rarely about the more equitable distribution of it. But you thought it more appropriate to respond with some crap about toilets, which leads me to disregard your flippant remarks and seek more reasonable discourse with others.

So thank you, Hyperbolist, for allowing me to point that out.






Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile


Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links


Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login

Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy