The "Loser" Mentality Has Got To Go
I know this may have been overlooked by many of you who follow the news lately, and the fact that I'm just bringing this up now shows how unimportant it really is, but... we lost the war on terror.
Okay, that's probably a huge overstatement (if not a bold-faced lie), but I'm pretty much summing up what many on the left want to say but don't dare to, and what some on the left have already said and will now scream in magazine and column headlines for weeks and months to come. I, of course, am referring to the recent National Intelligence Estimate, which stated, among other things, that al-Qaeda has returned to the strength it was at on 9-11. The immediate reaction from many liberals was predictable: they blamed President Bush. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid even reprised his "we've lost the war in Iraq" line for the occasion, just to use the occasion to further whoop up the 23% Crowd for a new (and again futile) push for withdrawal.
Reid, of course, doesn't get it. He's never gotten it. He continues to tell anyone who will listen that our troops in Iraq are only "mired in an Iraqi civil war." Democrats tell us over and over again that "al-Qaeda In Iraq" is not the same people as the Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda over in the remote parts of Pakistan. Well, just days after the NIE was released, our troops in Iraq captured an al-Qaeda In Iraq leader who carried messages from Bin Laden to Iraq. Does this not prove once and for all that these ARE the same people? Look at the evidence on its face with an open mind and you will see that it is impossible to believe what the likes of Senator Reid and the 23% Crowd say.
The only reason people DO believe these guys is because of politics. Sure, many of these same Democrats voted for the war initially, but many thought it was the politically expedient thing to do... after all, the 2002 Congressional elections were approaching and they wanted to appear tough on foreign policy. But once the election had passed and the war had begun, they started to armchair quarterback the war as quickly as possible, trying to spread the "big lie" that we've lost the war. Headlines suggesting that we had "lost" the Iraq war started popping up in columns and magazines everywhere. And this is why as more threats and follow-ups to the NIE are made public in the coming weeks and months, I have a "gut feeling" (sorry Michael Chertoff, but I had to go there) that we'll start seeing claims that we've "lost" the war on terror. Such claims will be used for tactical political advantage (just like the "lost" Iraq war claims), without thought of what it does to the morale of either both our troops and al-Qaeda.
And maybe it's already started... There was a recent column by Froma Harrop, a columnist whose views often skew to the left of my own. In this case, though, her view of our return to complacency for the most part was on the mark. We have become a little less vigilant because terror alerts are a way of life but without an actual attack in several years, the fear of what could be doesn't motivate as much. It's almost the "cry wolf" syndrome, where until an actual attack happens, we dismiss it as just another terror alert. And of course, when a terror plot does get busted up, the spin immediately begins that the terrorists were too stupid to avoid getting caught so the threat could not have been taken seriously.
However, look at the actual headline used for this column: "In Face of Terror, We Press On." Pretty neutral, pretty accurate, and most importantly it's more positive, as in the threat is there but we are capable of doing something about it. Whomever chooses the headlines for the Syracuse Post-Standard chose this title instead: "Fiddling While the U.S. May Soon Burn." It's negative; it distorts what Harrop is saying, and it also makes one think, "We've lost the war on terror." It also smacks of many letters to this same newspaper (and images in other publications) where liberals have compared President Bush to Nero fiddling while Rome burned; perhaps this served as inspiration for the headline? It shouldn't have, since Bush was not even mentioned in this column, so it wasn't even about him.
My argument here is not even about defending Bush; it's about presenting a united front on terror, which despite John Edwards' "bumper sticker" comment, is a REAL threat. We need to be united in saying we will stop terrorism. Stories like the capture of the Bin Laden-Iraq ink don't have much shelf life, so it's easy for liberals to ignore them or just wait for them to pass. They certainly ignore it when Bin Laden's deputy, Ayman al-Zawahri, puts out more and more tapes proclaiming that they are "closer to victory" in Iraq. Letter writers and columnists swear that if we just pull out of Iraq, Al-Qaeda will leave Iraq and everything will be hunky-dory. If we pull out, and Al-Qaeda in Iraq declares victory (which they will), why would we think they would stop there? You mean all these cells that are trying to get members into the United States (and some fear already have) will say, "Okay, we're good, we'll stop trying"?
Everyone says just get Osama. Since Tora Bora, it hasn't been that easy. Even before Pakistan gave Bin Laden implied amnesty by pulling their forces back from the North Waziristan region where al-Qaeda makes its home, a U.S. military incursion would have been seen as overstepping our bounds, invading a friendly nation, a crushing blow to U.S.-Pakistan relations. Now that Musharraf finally realizes he has to do something and wants to do it without our help, his government is under siege by Islamic militants.
Remember, I was against the Iraq war at the start, but ever since we decided to go to war, I have stated repeatedly that we have to confront the present reality. Let the TV talking heads and the historians decide whether or not it was a good idea. William Kristol wrote a good column recently where he declared that history will likely prove Bush right about many things. Of course, in the present tense, that very article is being skewered by Bush-haters of all stripes, but that's the point. This is the present, Kristol's talking about the future, one in which we emerge as a winner in our foreign conflicts. That's never going to happen if the opposition continues to insist on telling us all that we cannot win or have already lost. Just because it appears that we've taken a step back, you don't cry "failure" and give the appearance that you just want to quit. Unfortunately, it seems like that's all Democrats are good at.
Okay, that's probably a huge overstatement (if not a bold-faced lie), but I'm pretty much summing up what many on the left want to say but don't dare to, and what some on the left have already said and will now scream in magazine and column headlines for weeks and months to come. I, of course, am referring to the recent National Intelligence Estimate, which stated, among other things, that al-Qaeda has returned to the strength it was at on 9-11. The immediate reaction from many liberals was predictable: they blamed President Bush. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid even reprised his "we've lost the war in Iraq" line for the occasion, just to use the occasion to further whoop up the 23% Crowd for a new (and again futile) push for withdrawal.
Reid, of course, doesn't get it. He's never gotten it. He continues to tell anyone who will listen that our troops in Iraq are only "mired in an Iraqi civil war." Democrats tell us over and over again that "al-Qaeda In Iraq" is not the same people as the Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda over in the remote parts of Pakistan. Well, just days after the NIE was released, our troops in Iraq captured an al-Qaeda In Iraq leader who carried messages from Bin Laden to Iraq. Does this not prove once and for all that these ARE the same people? Look at the evidence on its face with an open mind and you will see that it is impossible to believe what the likes of Senator Reid and the 23% Crowd say.
The only reason people DO believe these guys is because of politics. Sure, many of these same Democrats voted for the war initially, but many thought it was the politically expedient thing to do... after all, the 2002 Congressional elections were approaching and they wanted to appear tough on foreign policy. But once the election had passed and the war had begun, they started to armchair quarterback the war as quickly as possible, trying to spread the "big lie" that we've lost the war. Headlines suggesting that we had "lost" the Iraq war started popping up in columns and magazines everywhere. And this is why as more threats and follow-ups to the NIE are made public in the coming weeks and months, I have a "gut feeling" (sorry Michael Chertoff, but I had to go there) that we'll start seeing claims that we've "lost" the war on terror. Such claims will be used for tactical political advantage (just like the "lost" Iraq war claims), without thought of what it does to the morale of either both our troops and al-Qaeda.
And maybe it's already started... There was a recent column by Froma Harrop, a columnist whose views often skew to the left of my own. In this case, though, her view of our return to complacency for the most part was on the mark. We have become a little less vigilant because terror alerts are a way of life but without an actual attack in several years, the fear of what could be doesn't motivate as much. It's almost the "cry wolf" syndrome, where until an actual attack happens, we dismiss it as just another terror alert. And of course, when a terror plot does get busted up, the spin immediately begins that the terrorists were too stupid to avoid getting caught so the threat could not have been taken seriously.
However, look at the actual headline used for this column: "In Face of Terror, We Press On." Pretty neutral, pretty accurate, and most importantly it's more positive, as in the threat is there but we are capable of doing something about it. Whomever chooses the headlines for the Syracuse Post-Standard chose this title instead: "Fiddling While the U.S. May Soon Burn." It's negative; it distorts what Harrop is saying, and it also makes one think, "We've lost the war on terror." It also smacks of many letters to this same newspaper (and images in other publications) where liberals have compared President Bush to Nero fiddling while Rome burned; perhaps this served as inspiration for the headline? It shouldn't have, since Bush was not even mentioned in this column, so it wasn't even about him.
My argument here is not even about defending Bush; it's about presenting a united front on terror, which despite John Edwards' "bumper sticker" comment, is a REAL threat. We need to be united in saying we will stop terrorism. Stories like the capture of the Bin Laden-Iraq ink don't have much shelf life, so it's easy for liberals to ignore them or just wait for them to pass. They certainly ignore it when Bin Laden's deputy, Ayman al-Zawahri, puts out more and more tapes proclaiming that they are "closer to victory" in Iraq. Letter writers and columnists swear that if we just pull out of Iraq, Al-Qaeda will leave Iraq and everything will be hunky-dory. If we pull out, and Al-Qaeda in Iraq declares victory (which they will), why would we think they would stop there? You mean all these cells that are trying to get members into the United States (and some fear already have) will say, "Okay, we're good, we'll stop trying"?
Everyone says just get Osama. Since Tora Bora, it hasn't been that easy. Even before Pakistan gave Bin Laden implied amnesty by pulling their forces back from the North Waziristan region where al-Qaeda makes its home, a U.S. military incursion would have been seen as overstepping our bounds, invading a friendly nation, a crushing blow to U.S.-Pakistan relations. Now that Musharraf finally realizes he has to do something and wants to do it without our help, his government is under siege by Islamic militants.
Remember, I was against the Iraq war at the start, but ever since we decided to go to war, I have stated repeatedly that we have to confront the present reality. Let the TV talking heads and the historians decide whether or not it was a good idea. William Kristol wrote a good column recently where he declared that history will likely prove Bush right about many things. Of course, in the present tense, that very article is being skewered by Bush-haters of all stripes, but that's the point. This is the present, Kristol's talking about the future, one in which we emerge as a winner in our foreign conflicts. That's never going to happen if the opposition continues to insist on telling us all that we cannot win or have already lost. Just because it appears that we've taken a step back, you don't cry "failure" and give the appearance that you just want to quit. Unfortunately, it seems like that's all Democrats are good at.
Labels: Iraq, NIE, war on terror
posted by Dave | 1:18 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home