Posted by
JDComments on Friday, December 29, 2006 4:20:10 PM
Rarely are the arguments for and against retreating from Iraq made as plain and simple as they are today by Barack Obama and Joe Lieberman in two articles which contrasts the defeatism of the Liberals with the belief in the importance of victory that the independent Lieberman, who was rejected by his party for embracing it, so eloquently espouses.
Obama, who is sounding more and more like a Presidential candidate,
recites the usual litany of excuses for why adding more troops is a huge mistake, including that tried and true of the Left: there is no military solution to Iraq, only a political one. Therefore he seems to conclude no military is necessary.
Obama has obviously never read Clauswitz, who famously referrred to War as politics by other means, and doesn't understand that every war requires a political solution, but that the power projection of armed might provides the security and incentive required to "focus men's minds" on negotiations.
His is the fantasy Liberal world of good faith diplomacy between men of common interests and peaceful intentions. In other words, he doesn't have a clue, but then again why should he considering his lack of any foreign policy experience.
Of course he also uses the lame excuse that the Iraqis will do more if we do less, and thus retreat ,using the new age, Liberal term of "redeployment", is the answer. That certainly sounds good, but we have a vested interest in winning this war , and just leaving it up the Iraqis is irresponsible and detrimental to our safety. I would love to see them take over, but so far it hasn't worked, and we cannot afford to walk away.
What really struck me in this article are all the "I said" 's and "I predicted" "s that cause this to feel like a paean to Obama's wisdom and obvious foresight that us mere mortals can only admire from afar. One almost wonders why he doesn't walk across the Atlantic and end the whole affair with a wave of his hand, but I guess near deities like to appear humble. Perhaps that is the problem: he is viewing all this from Mt. Olympus and it appears different from up there.
Lieberman on the other hand,
writes like a man with worldly experience, and he has, in fact, just got back from Iraq, where his observations about the stakes involved and the progress made are trenchant , and his belief that security is the pressing need that will allow victory to take root is realistic and accurate, reflecting the views of the military personnal he met with as well as his own conclusions.
His analysis of the progress being made by the moderate Iraqis, and his absolutely overriding concern that we not forsake them but rather support their efforts by adding troops, offers both good news and warning to the American people. As he points out, we are involved in something much bigger than Iraq, but at the same time that country is fundamental to our safety and cannot be abandoned.
For Lieberman, adding more troops is the most important thing we can do now to ensure the security of the country and the ultimate defeat of the extremists.
Unlike Obama, Lieberman doesn't seem to be talking to his constituency or the Liberal electorate, but rather
to all the people of the US as he makes the case for continuing a frustrating war because it is THE RIGHT THING TO DO. Maybe it is so refreshing because so rarely does a politician stake his reputation on anything besides political expediency.
After reading both articles, I was actually uplifted by Lieberman's even though his was the more realistic, grittier message which calls for the additional sacrifice of blood and treasure from us, and Obama offers the usual Liberal bromides which entail no costs and promises everything will be fine if the path of least resistance is taken and we just swallow our pride and give up. The Left just never understands that there is always a price to pay, and the longer we wait, the more expensive it becomes.