Defeatism Disguised as ‘Realism’
A wave of ‘realism’ is sweeping through the United States, proof that bin Laden was right. The current wave of ‘realists’ includes James Baker and Chuck Hagel. Here’s what Sen. Hagel wrote in this morning’s Washington Post op-ed:
The time for more U.S. troops in Iraq has passed. We do not have more troops to send and, even if we did, they would not bring a resolution to Iraq. Militaries are built to fight and win wars, not bind together failing nations. We are once again learning a very hard lesson in foreign affairs: America cannot impose a democracy on any nation, regardless of our noble purpose.
Ironically, the title for Hagel’s op-ed is “Leaving Iraq, Honorably”. Frankly, I’m mystified how abandoning an entire nation before they’re able to defend themselves is anything approaching honorable. I’d further take issue with calling it leaving, not that a Hagel-driven foreign policy wouldn’t have that as a key component but because that isn’t telling people the truth: Hagel’s hogdepodge of random and stray thoughts is really defeatism wrapped into a tidy little euphemism created during Vietnam.
I can’t even call Hagel’s thing a plan because that would imply rational thought on his behalf, something that isn’t evident. Believe it or not, Hagel’s delusional thinking gets worse:
It may take many years before there is a cohesive political center in Iraq. America’s options on this point have always been limited. There will be a new center of gravity in the Middle East that will include Iraq. That process began over the past few days with the Syrians and Iraqis restoring diplomatic relations after 20 years of having no formal communication.
What does this tell us? It tells us that regional powers will fill regional vacuums, and they will move to work in their own self-interest, without the United States. This is the most encouraging set of actions for the Middle East in years. The Middle East is more combustible today than ever before, and until we are able to lead a renewal of the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, mindless destruction and slaughter will continue in Lebanon, Israel and across the Middle East.
The first point that Sen. Hagel makes is that “It may take many years before there is a cohesive political center in Iraq”, which is probably true. Sen. Hagel also says that “The Middle East is more combustible today than ever before”, that “regional powers will fill regional vacuums, and they will move to work in their own self-interest”. Sen. Hagel’s verdict on this new Middle East: “This is the most encouraging set of actions for the Middle East in years.” Sen. Hagel should be run out of office for thinking that. PERIOD. He’s saying that an Iraq subjected to doing whatever Iran and Syria want is a positive thing. Forgive me if I don’t agree with him.
Actually, let me take it a step further. If this is the highest level of common sense that Sen. Hagel has, then he isn’t qualified to be a mayor. Sen. Hagel’s had a defeatist attitude towards Iraq from the time the war started. He doesn’t have the intestinal fortitude to honor our commitment to the Iraqi patriots who’ve fought hard to make their country great. Sen. Hagel is the polar opposite of the great Iraqi patriots. While the Iraqi patriots yearn for a bold new Iraq, Sen. Hagel’s ‘vision’ of Iraq and the Middle East is nothing more than a timid acquiescence to terrorist-supporting nations like Iran and Syria.
Furthermore, Sen. Hagel is either too ignorant or too indifferent to who inhabits that region. Earlier, he said that Syria getting involved is a positive thing. Syria exports assassins to neighboring countries in the hopes of establishing puppet regimes that would act as training grounds for terrorist groups like Hizbollah. These puppet regimes would then act as buffers between them and Israel. If we leave Iraq now, it won’t take long before it becomes al Qaida’s new training ground. Forgive me if I don’t see the wisdom of allowing that ‘reality’ to occur without a fight.
I think it’s only appropriate to name Hagel ‘Osama’s Senator’. Osama predicted after Mogadishu’s disgrace that America didn’t have the dedication to finish missions. Sen. Hagel is intent on proving Osama right. If that isn’t sickening enough, we’re forced to hear Sen. Hagel dress his defeatist policies up as honorable. That’s sickening.
By not finishing the mission, Sen. Hagel is condemning younger generations to dramatically increased terrorist attacks, too. If anyone thinks that Iraq won’t turn into a terrorist training ground if we don’t defeat them there, they’re ignorant.
Shame on Sen. Hagel for not learning from history. Shame on Sen. Hagel for underestimating our troops’ ability to win. Shame on Sen. Hagel for being the type of politician that Osama can’t win without.
Technorati Tags: Chuck Hagel, Liberal, Cut and Run, Osama, Somalia, al Qaeda
Cross-posted at LetFreedomRingBlog
November 26th, 2006 at 4:49 pm
[...] Cross-posted at California Conservative Categories: Military, GOP, Liberals, National Security, Iraq, Iran, Terrorism, President Bush, Foreign Policy, Middle East | [...]
November 26th, 2006 at 9:20 pm
I really, really, really hope Hagel runs for President.
Not because I want him to be President, I’ve got a better chance of winning the nomination then this idiot, but because I want this idiot to give up his Senate seat so we can get a decent Senator from Nebraska like Tom Osborn or Jeff Fortunberry.
November 27th, 2006 at 2:41 am
We are once again learning a very hard lesson in foreign affairs: America cannot impose a democracy on any nation
Amm Japan?
The question is not whether or not America can impose it is can Bush. There is a difference between doing the right thing and being able to do the right thing. I think Bush is doing the right thing. As for being able I am not entirely sure.
November 27th, 2006 at 9:29 am
Have any of you ever read Jonah Goldberg’s column suggesting that the decision to stay or leave should be voted on by the people in Iraq?
November 27th, 2006 at 10:23 am
Hagel said, “We do not have more troops to send”
This statement alone is factually in error. The United States military has ample troops to send overseas if the command in Iraq felt the need. However, as they have stated on multiple occassions, they do not feel that additional troops is warranted. Whether this is sound reasoning from the command in Iraq is properly the subject of intelligent discussion (something sorely lacking in Congress and many blogs nowadays) but Hagel shouldn’t be spreading incorrect information nor having it as a basis for his conclusions.
November 27th, 2006 at 5:16 pm
Vis-a-vis Sen. Hagel’s OpEd piece in the Washington Post:
I find it bordering on the sublimely ridiculous that Sen. Hagel, or any other elected politician, or political operative, has the gall to imply anything but U.S. responsibility for a situation entirely of our manufacture.
“Iraq is not a prize to be won or lost.
Excuse me?
Iraq was nothing BUT a prize to be won, until it became clear we had no idea what to with it once we had it!
“It is part of the ongoing global struggle against instability, brutality, intolerance, extremism and terrorism.”
What?
Iraq became a CENTER of instability, brutality, intolerance, extremism and terrorism, since shortly AFTER our escapade began.
“There will be no military victory or military solution for Iraq. Former secretary of state Henry Kissinger made this point last weekend.”
Oh, my.
Dr. Kissinger, he of the “secret plans,” says no military solution or victory is possible in Iraq? Where was he four years ago, playing RISK® with James Schlesinger?
In regard to the author’s slip of the pen, I’m not surprised.
It seems our intentions – honorable or not – were never written down anywhere in the first place, or perhaps they were deleted before anyone with a sense of history could read them.
Solecism notwithstanding, there have been far more than the four “mis-es” mentioned in the article.
It left out
• mistaken use of intelligence
• misappropriation of funds
• miscalculation of cause and effect
• misled American public
• misbegotten premise
• misguided religious sanctimony
• miscarriage of justice
• misinformed decision making
• misanthropic outlook
• missed opportunities
Okay, so I threw the last one in.
I sure hope you don’t misread MY intentions.
For more information about my intentions, please come see me at
http://www.statecraftinformer.com
November 29th, 2006 at 1:11 am
“it left out” You have described a small amount of the Democratic Party platform - thankx