Getting Real About Iraq

The saintly Republican idea about Iraq was to depose a horrendous Nazi-like dictator with whom we were already at war over the "no fly zones," the "oil for food" program, nuclear inspections, and the inconclusive end to the previous war about the world's oil supply. It seemed perfectly obvious given that we were already at war and that we had just failed to preemptively make war against Afghanistan (which appeared to be 1000 times less threatening than Iraq) on 9/10 or earlier. This is a simple point but nevertheless beyond the intellectual grasp of Democrats who continue to hallucinate that Iraq was somehow not directly connected to 9/11.

Moreover, not only would striking Iraq remove Saddam's Nazi-like regime and the huge threat its very existence implied in a post 9/11 world, it would also, hopefully, pave the way for democracy which might then spread throughout the Middle East and the world and thus fulfill our moral duty to the world's citizens as well as make us and the world safe from another 9/11 type of attack. It was a bold plan to use our position as the world's moral and military superpower to spread freedom, limit gov't, and prevent war.

The Democrats had no plan except to flip flop around like spineless jellyfish. John Kerry, the Democrat standard bearer, at first wanted to treat terrorism as a matter merely in need of policing, then, to further clarify what he failed to clarify in a two hour debate, said, "who's talking about quitting, we're talking about winning," and now he's talking about quitting again just as he was talking about quitting in Vietnam and just as he will be talking about quitting in the next war, no matter who it is against or why it is fought. All this leaves the Democrats with an on going problem because 1) they lack the intellect to understand freedom and therefore see the promotion of it anywhere as recrudescent imperialism at best and 2) as the opposition Party they are they feel compelled to oppose the majority Republicans, rightly or wrongly. In this case it is highly awkward at best since the Republicans are dutifully fighting rabid dog terrorists who have been authorized to and are in the process of trying to kill 10 million of us while the silly Democrats are reflexively opposing and in fact doing more to help the terrorists than the Republicans.

When Bush said "mission accomplished" and it did seem that democracy was immediately spreading to Palestine, Libya, Egypt, and Lebanon. The Democrats were stone cold silent having stood foursquarely in the way of freedom once again. But, once the war started going badly, as wars can, they became instant Bush haters who instantly claimed perfect hindsight. By now most have actually convinced themselves that they knew it all along. They feel no sense of hypocrisy about their "mission accomplished" silence as they now proudly exploit the situation for political gain despite having no agenda if they should succeed in achieving political gain.

But still, the war in Iraq has gone badly; primarily because Bush never had a plan to pacify the minority Sunnis who had brutally dominated the less pugnacious Shiite majority. Rather than give up power to the majority Shiites and become second class citizens or worse, the sweet Sunni Muslims did what they had always done to dominate the majority: they started killing them in brutal fashion. The key mistake was for Bush to de-Bathify the country thus disenfranchising key Sunnis permanently to then become insurgents, almost by default, rather than employing them gainfully in some capacity as stakeholders in the new country.

But, even if this critical mistake, and others, had not been made, under the Bush plan the majority Shia were to democratically dominate the country anyway. This probably implied eternal war to the Sunnis, but more importantly, it did not even imply democracy since the Muslim Shiites insanely hate our Judeo Christian democratic guts, despite our extreme largesse in freeing them. In fact, they are closely allied with Iran who just went to war against us in Lebanon through their proxy: Hizzbollah. Democracy is an irrelevant concern to those with the power and passion in Iraq; especially when spoon fed to them by Americans, despite high voter turnouts in 3 recent elections.

So, for the moment we are Sisyphusianly policing an absurd civil war in which all sides want to kill and behead us as badly as the want to kill and behead each other. It seemingly has no end and seemingly cannot be managed in any realistic or organized fashion, and, even if it did end, it is hard to imagine that it would end in a way favorable to us. So what the hell are we doing there?

Firstly, Republicans are staying the course to pretend it was the right course in the first place; secondly, we are remaining loyal to all those Iraqi citizens who would be killed for working with us if we left and who believed our promises that we would be there always despite the cowardly Democrats at home; thirdly, we are praying that a peaceful democracy will somehow take hold; fourthly, we are proving to the entire world that we are the imperialists Bin Laden said we were; fifthly, we are creating jihadists by the boat load as they see and hear each day headline images of Americans killing Muslims; sixthly, we are wasting billions that could be spent to improve homeland security and to create small agencies that could compete with the CIA and FBI to disrupt and kill terrorists, seventhly, we are making it impossible to appear as honest brokers in the Palestinian dispute which was, ultimately, at the heart of the 9/11 attacks, eighthly, we are sacrificing the lives of American soldiers, and lastly, we are insanely pretending that without having Muslim fanatics sincerely pledge allegiance to a Jeffersonian Constitution that democracy in the Middle East can have some value beyond mere mob rule.

Why didn't someone tell Bush that we really don't want Muslim fanatic democracy in Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, Pakistan, Syria, Iran, or Iraq? What we want is allegiance to a Jeffersonian Constitution with a fig leaf of democracy like we have here in the United States. Tragically, we don't and can't effectively promote that anywhere in the world because the Democrats are against Jeffersonian freedom. They want powerful gov't just like the Shiites do. Republicans then must compromise with Democrats to come up with the one thing they can agree on: Democracy. Unfortunately, Jeffersonian, Republican, constitutional democracy has nothing in common with Muslim fanatic democracy. We are pretending that the Germans didn't vote Hitler into power and that the Muslims wouldn't vote Osama Bin Laden into power. It is insanity but it is what we are reduced to because of the Democrats. Wouldn't it be an incredibly tragic blunder if, in the course of fighting Osama Bin Laden, Republicans were paving his way to power by promoting fanatic democracy because the Democrats don't believe in and won't let them promote Jeffersonian democracy?

Sadly, the best thing now is for time to pass quickly in order that the Bush Administration come to a merciful end. But when it does what will happen? McCain wants to win the war with more troops and Hillary wants to win the war with better management. Political expediency makes neither seem based in reality. One suspects though that the war will have to end much like Vietnam: "so called" peace with honor for us as a Democratic majority emerges here at home and then war and victory for the Iraqi Shiites and Iran.

The fear is that this will lead to a hostile takeover of Saudi oil but that is doubtful given the military defensibility of the country, which has already begun in the form of a $8 billion fence, and its oil fields. But, the serious pain at the pump (say, $10.00/gal. gas) and throughout the economy that might be caused by serious Middle East instability, if it were to happen, would at long last silence the cowardly Democrats so that Republicans could take care of business any way necessary. Most importantly, though, the consequences on oil prices of retreating in Iraq are unknown, while the current grievous losses we are suffering by staying there are not.

So who do we need: a candidate who wants to be an honest broker between Israel and the Palestinians, as Bill Clinton almost was, so as to address the root cause of the protracted conflict, and, someone with the courage to let the Iraqi civil war play out without us, and then try to manage or shape the situation from there to the extent possible. The hope is that the Shiites will see themselves more as Iraqi than Iranian and that Al-Qaeda in Iraq won't find a permanent home among the Sunni where they seem to be now or among the Shia where they might be in the future. These are just hopes but they are no more or less likely than the hope that the current Al-Maliki gov't will solidify and take hold as a peaceful, independent democracy. By getting out now we at least spare our troops lives now, and give ourselves time to prepare for and plan tomorrow's war in the hope it won't be worse than today's war.

The next President will be thankfully free of Bush's face saving need to "stay the course", but he also must have the courage for the war that is likely to result from the failure to prosecute this was successfully. One cannot imagine a feckless modern Democrat with the courage to be entrusted with national security during a time of perpetual war, despite the very obvious Republican tactical failures in this war. Under Clinton, (according Slate.com) "the training in the military and the motivation were as bad as the post-Vietnam Carter years. The level of invective and outright disrespect for Clinton in the military was astounding. From General Officer to Private, respect for the office of the President was the only thing that kept many from voicing their true feelings about the man. In private, such restraint was less common, and talk around the water fountain was filled with utter contempt for Clinton. With President Bush, the respect and admiration has steadily increased following the collective sigh of relief that occurred when Clinton finally left office."

Having the man's wife, an unrepentant 1960's hippie flower child from Wellsley College and Yale Law School (now masquerading as warrior in training on the Senate Arms Services Committee) as President during wartime is unthinkable and absurd. Hillary should be promoting her nonsensical socialist childcare and health care schemes and Bill should be sharing his hugely authentic warm feelings with the world as our good will ambassador, but neither should be in the Whitehouse at a serious time like this. But that still leaves the question of who should be President after Bush? It seems that what is needed is a Republican with the courage for the next war and the courage to let our enemies and allies know that the end of our involvement in this war is very near, and that this advantages neither side disproportionately.

Ted Baiamonte
bje1000@aol.com
mon243