InstaNonsense on Iraq
In a post today at InstaPundit, Glenn Reynolds challenges a reader for using the term "quagmire" to describe the situation in Iraq. Citing a post by Kevin Drum, Reynolds asserts that opponents of the war tend to overstate their case. He argues that by invading Iraq, "we seem to have shaken things up" in the Middle East in a way that will ultimately be beneficial to the entire region. Truth be told, I'm somewhat sympathetic to this argument. Although I think the invasion was a questionable idea to begin with and that it has been handled with almost pathological dishonesty and inexcusable incompetence, I'm not yet convinced that the situation in Iraq is hopeless. A lot has to go right, but if it does, the end result could indeed by beneficial to the entire region. That said, Reynolds ends his post with the following bit of total nonsense:
While there are certainly some crazy lefties out there who believe that the Iraq war was all about "bloodthirstines and warmongering," this is clearly not the mainstream "anti-war critique." Reynolds knows this, of course, but it's much easier to engage a straw man than to address the critiques of serious-minded people. In reality, many of the most vocal critics of the war, both conservative and liberal, originally supported it. And among those who opposed the war from the beginning, the most common critique is that invading Iraq was a strategic mistake, a costly diversion from the overall war on terror. It would be nice if Reynolds pointed his readers toward even one op-ed or article in a legitimate publication that actually attacked the Iraq War on the grounds that it is an exercise in "bloodthirtiness and warmongering."
What astounds me more, however, is Reynolds assertion that if our efforts in the Middle East fail, it will be "because Bush hasn't been vigorous enough in toppling governments and invading countries in the region." Does Reynold's really believe this? It's hard for me to believe that anyone could be so utterly detached from reality. Isn't it abundantly obvious that we have our hands full in Iraq? We're dealing with a growing insurgency. The prospects of serious troop withdrawal in the near term are minimal. Our military is stretched thin. Indeed, it's unclear just how much longer we can sustain our current level of troop deployment in the region. Which other countries does Reynolds think we should be invading at the moment? And with what army? And assuming we we're going to topple a few more regimes, how exactly would that help our overall effort? Wouldn't deploying our resources to invade, say, Syria only make the prospects of success in Iraq less likely? In fact, we arguably made the very same mistake when we decided to invade Iraq in the first place. Invading and occupying Iraq diverted significant military resources that would otherwise have gone toward stabilizing Afghanistan. As a result, much of that country has fallen into the hands of warlords and opium traffickers, and the Taliban has regrouped. The situation in Afghanistan is by no means hopeless, but it is clear that our decision to invade Iraq made our mission in Afghanistan that much harder. The same thing would undoubtedly be true of our mission in Iraq if we decided, as Reynolds suggests we should, to focus on toppling other Middle Eastern regimes.
It's fair to argue that success is still possible in Iraq, but it's entirely ridiculous to suggest that if our mission there fails, it will be because we weren't aggressive enough about invading other countries.
If Bush's effort here fails, it won't be becauseLook, I'm a big fan of Glenn's and I read InstaPundit regularly, but this is complete rubbish. Paragraphs like the one above epitomize the very worst of right-wing thinking on Iraq. In just two sentences, Reynolds manages to fundamentally mischaracterize the position of nearly all serious war critics while at the same time betraying an astounding detachment from reality.
the antiwar critique of bloodthirstiness and
warmongering is correct. It will be because
Bush hasn't been vigorous enough in toppling
governments and invading countries in the
region. What happens with Syria in the next
little while may answer that question.
While there are certainly some crazy lefties out there who believe that the Iraq war was all about "bloodthirstines and warmongering," this is clearly not the mainstream "anti-war critique." Reynolds knows this, of course, but it's much easier to engage a straw man than to address the critiques of serious-minded people. In reality, many of the most vocal critics of the war, both conservative and liberal, originally supported it. And among those who opposed the war from the beginning, the most common critique is that invading Iraq was a strategic mistake, a costly diversion from the overall war on terror. It would be nice if Reynolds pointed his readers toward even one op-ed or article in a legitimate publication that actually attacked the Iraq War on the grounds that it is an exercise in "bloodthirtiness and warmongering."
What astounds me more, however, is Reynolds assertion that if our efforts in the Middle East fail, it will be "because Bush hasn't been vigorous enough in toppling governments and invading countries in the region." Does Reynold's really believe this? It's hard for me to believe that anyone could be so utterly detached from reality. Isn't it abundantly obvious that we have our hands full in Iraq? We're dealing with a growing insurgency. The prospects of serious troop withdrawal in the near term are minimal. Our military is stretched thin. Indeed, it's unclear just how much longer we can sustain our current level of troop deployment in the region. Which other countries does Reynolds think we should be invading at the moment? And with what army? And assuming we we're going to topple a few more regimes, how exactly would that help our overall effort? Wouldn't deploying our resources to invade, say, Syria only make the prospects of success in Iraq less likely? In fact, we arguably made the very same mistake when we decided to invade Iraq in the first place. Invading and occupying Iraq diverted significant military resources that would otherwise have gone toward stabilizing Afghanistan. As a result, much of that country has fallen into the hands of warlords and opium traffickers, and the Taliban has regrouped. The situation in Afghanistan is by no means hopeless, but it is clear that our decision to invade Iraq made our mission in Afghanistan that much harder. The same thing would undoubtedly be true of our mission in Iraq if we decided, as Reynolds suggests we should, to focus on toppling other Middle Eastern regimes.
It's fair to argue that success is still possible in Iraq, but it's entirely ridiculous to suggest that if our mission there fails, it will be because we weren't aggressive enough about invading other countries.
posted by A.L. at 10:19 PM
2 Comments:
An interesting viewpoint...
Have you ever thought about boarding a plane and seeing part of what's going on firsthand?
Katha Pollitt, The Nation:
"The flag stands for jingoism and vengeance and war."
-September 20, 2001.
Took me 20 seconds, I can find more.
It was articles like this, and those form Susan Sontag, Paul Krugman, etc. That turned me against my party. I have, and still cultivate, deep liberal roots and even I can see that the left has lost is mind.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home