Monday, April 7, 2008

The logic of opposites

Senators Lieberman and Graham have written an excellent editorial concerning the odd-sounding strategies of the war's opponents. A few excerpts (emphasis mine)...

The old strategy: insist that the surge couldn't possibly work.
As late as last September, advocates of retreat insisted that the surge would fail to bring about any meaningful reduction in violence in Iraq. accused Gen. Petraeus of "cooking the books," while others claimed that his testimony, offering evidence of early progress, required "the willing suspension of disbelief."
That one fell apart. I wonder why?

No one can deny the dramatic improvements in security in Iraq achieved by Gen. Petraeus, the brave troops under his command, and the Iraqi Security Forces. From June 2007 through February 2008, deaths from ethno-sectarian violence in Baghdad have fallen approximately 90%. American casualties have also fallen sharply, down by 70%.

Al Qaeda in Iraq has been swept from its former strongholds in Anbar province and Baghdad. The liberation of these areas was made possible by the surge, which empowered Iraqi Muslims to reject the Islamist extremists who had previously terrorized them into submission. Any time Muslims take up arms against Osama bin Laden, his agents and sympathizers, the world is a safer place.

The second strategy isn't working either:

Antiwar forces last September...relentlessly hammer[ed] Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki as hopelessly sectarian and unwilling to confront Iranian-backed Shiite militias. Here as well, however, the critics in Washington have been proven wrong.

...The Iraqi economy is growing at a brisk 7% and inflation is down dramatically.

Here's the kicker:

Unable to make the case that the surge has failed, antiwar forces have adopted a new set of talking points, emphasizing the "costs" of our involvement in Iraq, hoping to exploit Americans' current economic anxieties.

Today's antiwar politicians have effectively turned John F. Kennedy's inaugural address on its head, urging Americans to refuse to pay any price, or bear any burden, to assure the survival of liberty. This is wrong. The fact is that America's prosperity at home and security abroad are bound together. We will not fare well in a world in which al Qaeda and Iran can claim that they have defeated us in Iraq and are ascendant.

Need I say more? Twisting of history? Twisting of the present?


Elephantschild said...

Am I allowed to wander off into tangential topics? This struck me as funny: "...The Iraqi economy is growing at a brisk 7% and inflation is down dramatically."

It occurs to me that perhaps the Iraqi economy is doing better than ours is at the moment, although I haven't been paying a whole lot of attention to current economy numbers, other than housing starts.

If we were to employ the type of knee-jerk analysis favored by the mainstream media, we could argue that getting engaged in a "land-war in Asia" (pardon The Princess Bride reference) is beneficial, nay, critical, to economic health. (falls of chair, laughing hysterically)

Nice to meet you this past Sunday!

Hannah said...

If I weren't in a library right now, I would be laughing my head off! No chair to fall off, either. (scowls)

May we have many more felicitous meetings!

Anonymous said...

Nothing will ever rid the far left of it's defeat-at-all-costs ideology, as I speak of here:


MathewK said...

"..a new set of talking points, emphasizing the "costs" of our involvement in Iraq.."

One area the Republicans have not been strong on is spending and convincing the American people that it's worth it. It's hard though, convincing a populace that's addicted to the quick fix that the consequences of not acting are far more painful than acting when the consequences will not be felt.