In today's Wall Street Journal, David Rivkin and Lee Casey pull the veil of naivete off the Left's assertion that Iraq is a "distraction" in the War on Terror
As in many other conflicts in American history, our enemies in this war operate in many geographically distinct theaters. The essence of being a good commander in chief is appreciating the connections among these theaters -- including the adversary's willingness to open new fronts -- rather than obsessing about where the last enemy attack originated.
This is exactly what President Franklin Roosevelt did in World War II when he chose to dedicate initially the bulk of American resources to the European theater, believing that destroying Hitler's Reich was the most urgent task and that Imperial Japan could be dealt with in turn; history proved him right. Yet, under the Obama-Biden playbook, FDR blundered by getting distracted from the "real" war -- in the Pacific, where America had been attacked.
Though I've seen it countless times, the naivete of the Left never ceases to amaze me. It's hard to believe that a particular political party could be so myopic and incredibly inept at recognizing threats to the United States--and then, even after slapped in the face by those threats, remain totally inept at dealing with them.
Perhaps such profound dysfunction stems from the fact that the Left lacks a fundamental understanding of evil--actually, the Left refuses to admit evil even exists (except maybe in conservatives).
Not only is this seen in the War on Terror, but is acutely evident in how liberals want to deal with threats on the horizon of the world stage.
Instead of meeting those growing threats with strength and decisiveness, the Left desperately seeks to coddle and appease those threats. They seek to negotiate with evil, treating it as if it's methods and intentions were legitimate.
Rivkin and Casey also call out this dangerous predilection from Barack Obama and others in the Left:
Having a president try and fail fundamentally damages the nation's own credibility. The textbook example of this phenomenon remains Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev's taking the measure of a young and inexperienced John F. Kennedy in the 1961 Vienna Summit meeting. Khrushchev found Kennedy to be ill-informed and weak, and consequently embarked on an aggressive policy in Berlin and Cuba. Although Kennedy ultimately proved that he was made of sterner stuff, the world was nevertheless brought to the very brink of a nuclear war during the Cuban Missile Crisis.
The next president will likely be similarly tested by Russia and by Iran
The dangerous naivete of Barack Obama and Joe Biden render them both a incredibly dangerous proposition at the nation's helm.
This shocking reality isn't even something that must be gleaned through guesswork and intimation; Joe Biden's record proves it for him, and Barack Obama has proudly told us he will gut the U.S. military if he becomes president. He has also made clear his willingness to sit down as equals with the belligerent, nuclear-intent, Israel-hating thug of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
Our nation is about to make a profound decision about our safety and welfare. Let us hope our vision is clear enough to make the right call. If we choose gullibility, we will surely pay a heavy price.
8 comments:
You're right, Bob. I always forget that Osama bin Laden is in Iraq.
Oh wait.
We made the same mistake during WWII, John. Apparently Roosevelt thought that Admiral Isoruko Yamamoto was is Hamburg. It wasn't until April 18, 1943 that we finally killed Yamamoto, having wasted almost a year and a half attacking Germans and Italians who had nothing to do with the attack on Pearl Harbor. You'd think American's military leaders would have learned from those mistakes.
Germany and Italy declared war on us following Pearl Harbor.
Did Iraq declare war on us following 9/11? Did Iraq have anything to do with 9/11?
Look at the troop fatalaties in Iraq and Afganistan over the last few months and tell me where you think the central front in the War on Terror really is.
We were already at war with Iraq, because Saddam never lived up to the agreement he made in the 1991 cease fire. We just finished what George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton failed to wrap up.
That's funny, I never heard George Bush say "We're at war with them already, we might as well invade" as a justification for the invasion. I heard WMD's, Al Qaeda, and that we can't wait for a smoking gun in the form of a mushroom cloud. I heard our troops will be out in six months, Iraqi oil money will pay for reconstruction, and "those WMD's gotta be somewhere.
Now your telling me the real reason we invaded was because we were at war anyway. North Korea never signed a peace treaty with us following the Korean War. Should we invade them?
Do yourself a favor, Braden, and read a little history. It wasn't that long ago and is pretty well documented. If you wait for the "mainstream" media to tell you everything, you'll remain a mushroom.
I love the whole "Iraq was right thing cuz WWII (or any other war that isn't Iraq)! " argument.
It's meaningless and shows how bankrupt the defenders of the stupidest foreign policy decisions in American history truly are.
The war was started by lying morons and supported by the same.
salvage, you're either desperately in need of some history and critical thinking classes, or you've had too much liberal Koolaid.
I won't waste my time with further explanation of why you missed the boat on the truth of this piece, but felt I owed you the diagnosis so you can seek help.
Post a Comment