[lit-ideas] Re: Lee Harvey Oswald & the Liberal Crack-Up

Well there I go again, not repeating large numbers of words I've written
before.  Whenever I assume attention spans of zero and comprehension of less
there is always someone who will read my notes and chide me for speaking
down to my readers as though they are children or saying something in print
that any idiot knows perfectly well.  Well, here I go filling in the stuff
per your implied request.  Words I assumed are in italics:

 

"It is not a success yet," but we have defeated Saddam's army, gotten the
government going, gotten support from most of the Shiites and perhaps all of
the Kurds.  Only the Sunnis, mostly supporters of Saddam with nothing to
lose comprise the insurgents and we are training the Iraqis to handle these
insurgents.  "But the leftist & Islamist descriptions of its being a debacle
are absurd."  There are insurgents and Islamists causing trouble but this
should have been expected and doesn't comprise a debacle.  "A lot is at
stake in Iraq," therefore Americans should realize this and support our
cause in Iraq.  If someone counts himself a sincere American he will support
our efforts in Iraq and support the new Iraqi government, hoping for its
success.  "If we can help them [the Iraqis] get a workable non-militant
government, the ramifications for the rest of the Middle East would be
enormous.  That is, the people in totalitarian or authoritarian states in
the Middle East, may well understand that if the Iraqis can do it, they too
can do it.  The head of the Iranian Pasdaran said as much a few months ago.
Authoritarian and totalitarian regimes will not wish Iraqi success, but if
the Iraqi government does succeed, the Iraqi model of democracy may well
spread.  

 

But then you turn your face around and claim that I say too much.  You
write, "Frankly, Lawrence, some of us are not very interested in what your
troops think. We read newspapers, and today's headline is:

 

"British soldiers die as helicopter is shot down. Then Basra erupts in
bloody gun battles." 

 

Actually my troops are American and not British, but your hostility toward
American and British forces is duly noted.  Anyone favoring the success of
the Iraqi government would be interested in what our troops say.  If you
think you get that from the newspapers you read, then I have some land out
in our local desert I'd like to sell you.  There is also a bridge up in
Alaska you might be interested in as well.  

 

As to the reaction of Basran Shiites against British forces, the BBC has
this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4981466.stm .  You
conclude mysteriously (from an earlier Guardian article reporting this
incident), "So we base our conclusions on such reports, rather than on what
you wish to be happening there."  Whatever that means.   

 

I'll guess at what you mean, i.e., that the Iraqis in Basra, though
influenced by nearby Iran, are the vanguard of a feeling that will soon be
sweeping the country, namely that they want all coalition forces out now and
if they don't go, the Iraqis throughout Iraq will engage in bloody riots.  I
would say this about what you seem to wish to be happening there: if that
does happen, you will find a diminished patience with the Middle East in our
congress, administration and nation.  You will find Bush being criticized
for imagining that Iraqis could ever favor a democratic form of government.
You will find experts saying, "I told you so, only westerners can ever have
any secure form of Liberal Democracy."  You will find elements in our nation
and congress that don't want to put our troops at risk for such unworthy
causes as trying to help people who would rather riot and kill themselves
than see their lot in life improved.  You will find people who will be
thinking if not saying, "Let them blow themselves up.  The heck with them."

 

But I don't think Basra is indicative of what is going to happen in the rest
of Iraq.  Basra is more under the sway of Iran than other areas of Shiite
dominated Iraq; so it isn't surprising that they are not as enthusiastic
about an Iraqi democracy as the rest.

 

 

Lawrence

 

 

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Omar Kusturica
Sent: Saturday, May 06, 2006 10:47 PM
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Lee Harvey Oswald & the Liberal Crack-Up

 

 

 

--- Lawrence Helm <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

 

> It's not a success yet, but the Leftist & Islamist

> descriptions of its being

> a debacle are absurd.  A lot is at stake in Iraq. 

> If we can help them get a

> workable non-militant government, the ramifications

> for the rest of the

> Middle East would be enormous. 

 

*Yes, a lot is at stake in Iraq. I suppose that this

logically demonstrates that it could not possibly be a

debacle.

 

, which doesn't mean that

 It is a shame that

> so many people want Iraq

> to fail so they can prove Bush wrong.  This isn't

> about Bush.  It is about a

> battle with a hostile force and one of the major

> battlegrounds today is

> Iraq.  Some of us want it to succeed.  Some of us

> think a successful Iraq is

> worth fighting for, but the Anti-Americans hope we

> will lose.  Being

> pessimistic about Iraq doesn't place your standards

> higher than mine.  Quite

> the contrary.  Our troops have complained about the

> twisted warped view

> swallowed over here as fact.  

 

*Frankly, Lawrence, some of us are not very interested

in what your troops think. We read newspapers, and

today's headline is:

 

"British soldiers die as helicopter is shot down. Then

Basra erupts in bloody gun battles." 

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1769503,00.html

 

So we base our conclusions on such reports, rather

than on what you wish to be happening there. 

 

O.K.

Other related posts: