January 9, 2008
Sneak and Peek
[After a scant two and a half years of persuasion (the strappado was found most efficacious), we have finally prevailed upon our older half to begin contributing to Big Lizards. What follows is the first lizardly blogpost by Brad Linaweaver, famous in three counties (and wanted in four) for his efforts to shine a light on Der Krapp of low-budget movies; for his bootless quest to convince us that our nights are lit by a Moon of Ice; for his unrelenting attacks on the hated neocons in Post-Nationalism; for a tetralogy of Doomed books he co-wrote with some other jerk; and for putting the "tine" back in "libertarian." Without further vamping...]
Although I started out supporting the Iraq war and turned against it in 2006, I have never turned against the thin red line of heroes without whom America is doomed. As Dafydd knows, my criticisms of the Iraq policy are based on Old Right libertarian analysis. But that doesn't prevent me from honoring the achievement of General Petraeus in what came to be known as the surge. The General was given a specific military task to perform which he did splendidly. When Moveon.org decided to make fun of this officer with childish attacks on his name and an inability to separate short term military success from long term political hopes, the dumbass American Left hurt their own anti-war effort. Incredible!
This foolish attitude permeates the current films on Iraq. Talk radio and Fox News fail to understand the real problem. These films are not so much anti-Bush or pro-terrorist as they are actually anti-soldier. We are discussing the absolute worst heritage of the American New Left.
Today's Right does not fight this problem to my satisfaction, because they are too busy defending the President or criticizing the enemy. Our culture is in deep nonsense if we condemn those who volunteer to do military service in this dangerous world, or any other dangerous world we might inhabit. We will not have to live under Bush forever. The current enemy is not eternal, believe it or not. But soldiers will always be needed in any conceivable real world.
I'm not going to be a regular contributor to Big Lizards, but I've been reading it all these years, and I'd like to be an irregular contributor; so let me start off 2008 by wishing everyone a Happy New Year and honoring Sachi in her current service to our country.
[Nota bene: Brad is well aware of this; but just in case some readers are not, I hasten to point out that Sachi is a civilian employee of the United States Navy; she is often found asea -- I mean that literally, not psychologically! -- testing freedom's most advanced weaponry. -- the Mgt.]
Hatched by Brad on this day, January 9, 2008, at the time of 4:52 PM
TrackBack URL for this hissing: http://biglizards.net/mt3.36/earendiltrack.cgi/2702
The following hissed in response by: Terry Gain
I'm not much interested in the views of anyone who supports a clearly winnable (now being won ) war and then abandons support when it gets tough.
I prefer the opinions of adults who understand that some undertakings, once begun, must be seen through to their conclusion. The alternative to the difficulites in Iraq is a glorious victory for al Qaeda and destruction of respect for America's military.
What moderate Arab would agaiin put their trust in a nation that could be so easily defeated; indeed a nation that would defeat itself for partisan purposes.
Winnie would be weeping for the English speaking peoples were he still alive. The children nearly took over. They may yet.
The following hissed in response by: Seaberry
I’m still fairly new at politics, so am not sure what an “Old Right libertarian” is, unless it has to do with ‘non-interventionists’. As far as the “Iraq policy” goes, I have supported it and ‘W’, and Stratfor gave an interesting take on it yesterday (some excerpts):
Annual Forecast 2008: Beyond the Jihadist War
There are three major global processes under way that will continue to work themselves out in 2008. First, the U.S.-jihadist war is entering its final phase…It is a presidential election year in the United States, which remains the center of gravity of the international system.
Normally in an election year, U.S. attention on global affairs dwindles precipitously, allowing other powers to set the agenda. That will not be the case, however, in 2008. U.S. President George W. Bush is not up for re-election, and there is no would-be successor from the administration in the race; this frees up all of the administration’s bandwidth for whatever activities it wishes…All of the Bush administration’s energy will instead be focused on foreign affairs, since such activities do not require public or congressional approval. Contrary to the conventional wisdom, 2008 will see the United States acting with the most energy and purpose it has had since the months directly after the 9/11 attack.
The Iraq war was an outgrowth of the jihadist war. After the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan, the United States realized it lacked the military wherewithal to simultaneously deal with the four powers that made al Qaeda possible: Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran and Pakistan. The first phase of the Bush solution was to procure an anchor against Afghanistan by forcing Pakistan into an alliance. The second was to invade the state that bordered the other three — Iraq — in order to intimidate the remaining trio into cooperating against al Qaeda. The final stage was to press both wars until al Qaeda…broke.
As 2008 dawns, it has become apparent that though this strategy engendered many unforeseen costs, it has proven successful at grinding al Qaeda into nonfunctionality. Put simply, the jihadist war is all but over; the United States not only is winning but also has an alliance with the entire constellation of Sunni powers that made al Qaeda possible in the first place.
This leaves Iran, the regions only non-Sunni power, in the uncomfortable position of needing to seek an arrangement with the United States…
..This means 2008 will be similar to 2007 in many ways: It will be a year of opportunity for those powers that would take advantage of the United States’ ongoing distraction. However, they will face a complication that was absent in 2007: a deadline. The Iraqi logjam is broken. Unlike in 2007, when Iraq appeared to be a quagmire and other powers therefore sensed endless opportunity, those hostile to U.S. interests realize that they only have a limited window in which to reshape their regions…
..The state with the greatest need to take advantage of this U.S. occupation, bar none, is the Russian Federation. Moscow knows full well that when the Americans are finished with their efforts in the Middle East, the bulk of their attention will return to the former Soviet Union…
.. This will be a year in which the United States achieves more success in its foreign policies than it has since the ousting of the Taliban from Afghanistan in late 2001…
Personally, that entire area had grown far too bold, and needed to know that America was not going to wait in a ‘Fish Barrel’ to be picked-off at the enemies leisure, whilst they also sought to cut-off the oil supply and/or charge $300-500 a barrel for the oil.
Like you said, Brad, General Petraeus and our Military have done a great job, and the results of the surge has left most all unprepared and surprised. Not much on the news about it now, since the “American New Left” has been proven wrong. Lots of work left, but I believe ‘W’ will leave America on the ‘best-foot’ possible, knowing what happened the last time, i.e. Clinton blowing the efforts of the first Gulf War.
Sorry about the length here…
The above hissed in response by: Seaberry at January 9, 2008 8:37 PM
The following hissed in response by: narciso79
It's too much irony to process. You wrote a book about a world where the Nazis got the bomb, and
apparently won the Space Race, and the world imminently more repressive and brutish for it.
As you would say, German ultranationalism is just a temporary element, nothing to really worry about. You are right to stick up for General Petraeus; but logic dictates that you support his mission as well. Could it be said that the neocons were a little naive about the amount of change needed in the Middle East because of the
warning signs exhibited by 9/11. I'm willing to grant that point, if you come up with a viable
alternative. You think American nationalism is outmoded, and jingoistic; consider who will fill
the vaccuum of American power. You want to pull out of the closest neighbor to our real enemies in Saudi Arabia, Syria & Iran. What will that earn you, nothing but scorn and contempt from these same enemies; and further attacks upon our shore, our homes, schools, etc
The above hissed in response by: narciso79 at January 10, 2008 9:07 PM
Post a comment
Thanks for hissing in, . Now you can slither in with a comment, o wise. (sign out)(If you haven't hissed a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Hang loose; don't shed your skin!)
© 2005-2009 by Dafydd ab Hugh - All Rights Reserved