Iraq Fiasco Exposes Faith-Based Reasoning

NEW YORK--Attention right-wing neoconservative Republicans: We Americans have done things your way since 1981, when an actor named Reagan convinced us that we weren't entitled to anything from the government other than a canceled check for our taxes. We supported dictators against democratic movements. We started wars against tiny weak countries like Grenada and Panama and
Afghanistan just because we could. Even when we had a Democratic president, he bought into Reagan Republicanism; Clinton cut rich people's taxes, signed NAFTA and got rid of social welfare programs.

Twenty-six years into the NeoCon nightmare, everybody hates the United States. We're broke. Here's how screwed up we are: we can't even get out of a war that 91 percent of Americans are against. Republicans got us into this mess.

I say: Enough is enough. Three thousand dead soldiers and $2 trillion say it's time for anyone who ever argued in favor of invading Iraq to shut the eff up. Sell your laptop on eBay, Ms. Coulter. Use your ill-gotten gains to take some Middle Eastern history classes, Mr. Friedman. Step away from the golden EIB microphone, Mr. Limbaugh. Resign, Senators Clinton and McCain, and never show your faces in public again.

Yeah, right.

Since these pundits and politicians were and are so spectacularly wrong about such a straightforward and momentous issue as this idiotic war, no one should take them seriously again. Right-wingers deserve to be marginalized and ignored. The American left--the real, non-accommodationist, non-Hillary, left--ought to define the mainstream from now on. Only the left, from Noam Chomsky on the left left to
Howard Dean on the right left, have been consistently correct. Not to worry, we still have two legitimate political parties: Democrats and the Greens.

The post-Iraq bankruptcy of the GOP thinkers came into sharp relief the other night in the form of Dinesh D'Souza's latest radio editorial, on NPR, of all venues. "Iraq," he began, "is not Vietnam. And here's why."

I listened closely, for Stanford University's D'Souza is one of America's most--arguably the most--respected conservative thinkers. He has written several New York Times bestsellers. His speaking fees start at $10,000. D'Souza has done so well as a pundit that he lives in an exclusive gated community near San Diego. According to the San Diego Reader, his "nearly 8000-square-foot house has six bedrooms, seven and a half baths, and a four-car garage, where [he and his wife] keep their maroon 1992 Jaguar XJS."

I thought I already knew why Iraq wasn't like Vietnam: we might have won in Vietnam. Since D'Souza is raking in a lot more pundit bucks than me, however, I paid close attention.

"First, we had no vital interest in Vietnam," he said. "The United States got involved in Vietnam starting in the 1950s, due to an elaborate, but misguided theory of dominos. So if Vietnam went communist, the whole of Asia would become communist. Well, it didn't happen. But my larger point is that when Vietnam did fall to the communists, America's foreign policy interests and economic interests were largely unaffected."

Fair enough. The Domino Theory was used to sell the war by political leaders, some of whom actually believed it.

D'Souza continued: "Iraq, by contrast is strategically vital." How? My butt crept up to the edge of my seat.

"Consider [Iraq's] neighbors: Iran. Turkey. Kuwait. Jordan. Syria. Saudi Arabia. If Iraq falls into the hands of the Islamic radicals, they would control two major countries: Iran and Iraq. Next we would expect them to target Egypt and Saudi Arabia." Huh?

Call me a loser who couldn't afford to heat an 8,000-square-foot home, much less buy one, but isn't that--well--a Domino Theory?

"Second, in Vietnam," D'Souza continued, "we were allied with the bad guys. The South Vietnamese government was corrupt and tyrannical, and our only reason for supporting it was that it was a better alternative to the communist regime in the North. In politics, it is often a necessity: you ally with the bad guys in order to avoid the worse guys. But the bad guys remain bad guys. They alienate their people and the popular resentment that they provoke often carries over to us."

OK. I was with him again. We've repeatedly paid a high price for our partnerships with unsavory regimes--most recently on 9/11.

"By contrast, in Iraq," D'Souza went on---"we are allied with an elected government. Braving bullets, the Iraqi people went to the polls and elected the current regime." Ahem. Iraq's government is so corrupt that it sells weapons we give it to fight insurgents on the black market, often to the insurgents themselves. Oh, and South Vietnam did hold presidential elections in 1967, a year before the Tet Offensive turned the American public against the war. Doesn't D'Souza know that?

"We have a government that represents the will of the Iraqi majority. That's a good thing, because it means we have local allies in Iraq who have popular support."

I'd had it. "Moron! Idiot!" I shouted at the radio. This was a succinct way of expressing what I was thinking, which was: Even if it's true that the current Iraqi regime has majority (i.e., Shiite) support--and it's doubtful--the problem is what it does with that electoral legitimacy. Prime Minister Maliki employs Iraqi police units that carry out ethnic cleansing operations against Sunni citizens. Shiite death squads employed by the Maliki government dump the bodies of dozens of Sunnis in the streets of Baghdad every day, some murdered by electric drills driven into their heads. Definitely not "a good thing."

D'Souza's pleasant voice droned on.

"Finally, in Vietnam, there was no way to win the war and preserve our dignity. The United States and Vietnam faced several hundred thousand resolute communists on the other side. These were guerilla fighters fighting on familiar territory against American boys who didn't know why the heck they were going over there...Vietnam was a no-win situation. Iraq is not."

Sigh. The Pentagon itself estimates that at least 90 percent of Iraqi insurgents are locals fighting on their own turf. These guerillas are fighting American soldiers who've been fooled into thinking Saddam had something to do with 9/11. What's the difference?

"America can win in Iraq...All the strength in the world is useless if you don't have the will to fight. We saw the same loss of will over the Vietnam War. But Vietnam was a lost cause. In Iraq, we are in danger of losing a war we can win." And...? That was it. Not one single line supporting his thesis that Iraq isn't another Vietnam; if anything, I am now more convinced than ever that the two quagmires have a lot in common.

D'Souza wallows in the circular logic that has become the rhetorical currency of the right:

1. The Domino Theory that led us into Vietnam was bogus but we have to stay in Iraq because of a New Domino Theory (but we won't call it that).

2. Our South Vietnamese ally was unpopular but our Iraqi ally isn't (if you ignore the millions of Iraqi refugees voting with their feet).

3. We couldn't win Vietnam but we can win in Iraq because, well, we just can.

If this eye-rolling sophistry were a sloppy homework assignment turned in by a student in 10th grade debate, it would merit an "F" and a chuckle in the teachers' lounge. But these scattered ravings are the product of one of the brightest minds of our current political establishment, representative of thinking at the highest levels of government, and thus contribute to the deaths of thousands of people.

It's frightening that conservatives continue to believe in economic and military theories that have been proven wrong again and again. What's downright terrifying is the way they think. They don't bother to present proof, evidence or even arguments to support their claims. They believe what they believe because they believe it. That's it. Q.E.D.

I've been against the Iraq War since the beginning, yet I could compose a logical argument for staying the course. Why can't those who are for it do the same? And why is NPR--or any other media outlet--paying attention to these idiots' faith-based reasoning?
_______



About author
Ted Rall is the author of the new book "Silk Road to Ruin: Is Central Asia the New Middle East?," an in-depth prose and graphic novel analysis of America's next big foreign policy challenge.

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/5184

For real!

I'm not a very political person AT ALL. I don't take politics very seriously. But this past election year it was like Republicans Gone Wild! I did not realize they could be so freaking scary. And don't get me started on Fox news!!

How anyone can even WANT to do things the Republican way is beyond me. LOOK what's happening to our economy. Look at how few jobs there are, and just TRY to call tech support and get someone in america. Go on, I dare ya!

At my last job, EVERYONE voted republican. EVERYONE. I felt like I was in some freaky cult. One morning a coworker approached me and decided to engage me in a 20 minute lecture on how homosexuality can be cured through Jesus! Excuse me if I don't believe any God up there wants to "cure" people of the right to be happy just because a few right-wing hookeyloos don't like it. And don't get me started on "the sanctity of marriage" A few decades ago divorce was illegal, inter-racial marriage was illegal, and women were not "allowed" to leave men who were beating them. And birth control was not the norm, so women popped out babies like a pez dispenser until they died at 28 of an imploded uterus or something.

And yet another coworker called Obama a terrorist. Come on, for real? Can't you come up with anything a little more original than that? I'll tell ya who the terrorist is: Nancy Grace. And the only reason we should ever bomb Iraq is if she's there running around trying to convert the heathens to her wayward Christianity.

*huff huff*

Sorry, what were we talking about?

While I agree that the Bush Jr. years have been largely bad news for America and the rest of the world, NAFTA was a positive step towards free trade. Protectionism will do us more damage than good in the long run. Case in point, the Smoot-Hawley Tariff.

And here's an article I enjoyed: http://www.iht.com/articles/2009/03/06/opinion/edglaeser.php

As also I enjoyed your little joke about the Greens being a legitimate political party. Go on, give us another one!

Yawn... the ramblings of a two-bit liberal editorial cartoonist (Ted Rall). The athiest who gets louder/angrier, more disconnected from reality the more he's ignored and marginalized (like most liberals). Playing loose and fast with the "facts" equals no credibility. Why no mention of the Carter years (that led to the Reagan revolution)? Since 1981, at no time have democrats controlled congress?

madisonman- Please explain to me why I should give this topic/Ted Rall any further consideration/thought. What is the point you're trying to prove/assert (other than pure emotionalism)?

"It's frightening that conservatives continue to believe in economic and military theories that have been proven wrong again and again. What's downright terrifying is the way they think. They don't bother to present proof, evidence or even arguments to support their claims. They believe what they believe because they believe it. That's it. Q.E.D."

Where's his (or your) proof?

you sound like youv been listening to fox news . i think it's funny that now that the democrats are back in controll and trying to get us out of the hole the republicans dug . the republicans are yelling repent repent , the sky is falling.

And tell Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid to STFU and get to work instead of yammering about how evil Bush is. HES ALREADY LEFT OFFICE! TIME TO WORK DAMNIT!

Right, because all the Democrats just sat back and watched for the past 28 years. They had nothing to do with it whatsoever. Never mind the fact over 3/4 the Democrats in congress voted for Gramm-Leich-Bliley and Clinton signed it into law. Never mind this false notion that everyone deserves a piece of the American Dream regardless of their input.

The Democrats have been there every step of the way and have an equal hand in the matter- if you refuse to acknowledge that fact, then I see no reason to even give the most minuscule amount of respect for any of your posts. Please stop regurgitating the same old one-sided crap and think analytically for yourself for once.

The fact is, the last 28 years have given us the most substantial economic growth since WWII (which came solely from the fact we were the only industrialized nation that was not crippled by war). We can look to Japan for guidance as to how well bailouts work - they passed 8 if I recall correctly and still never fully recovered.

This whole plan of change and hope is empty. Hell, it's even destroyed the last piece of real, lasting, bipartisan legislation by demolishing the welfare reform deal passed under Clinton. All we have is a massive spending plan that will make W's doubling of the debt look like spare change and will succeed in doing nothing but expanding government and furthering the agenda of those in power.

That is not change - that is the same problem as before, only it's the the other side of the coin.

id say i feel right at home with most of the people who posted on this topic but i think im even more to the left then the leftists.


everytime a dumbass republican douche opens its mouth i become more socialist. when will the american public wake up that they are the laughing stock of countries that have universal healthcare and much more afforable college education.

WAKE UP for your children FFS.

They havnt done anything for years. Why start now?

ummmmmmmmmmmmmm alrighty then

And they need to blur Pelosi's face when shes on TV so she doesn't scare children

If I have seen or listened to Fox news ever, that is relavent in what way? I mere posed a simple question... since 1981 have there been no democrat controlled congresses? Furthermore, there is not one single democrat who is even remotely responsible for any negative thing that's affecting this current economy? Granted, part of liberalism entails the abdication of personal responsibility; However, it's nothing short of disingenuous even amongst the simplest of simpletons to say democrats aren't responsible one iota.

In regards to (Republican) "military theory" proven wrong. I've been pondering the "correct" military theories by democrats that have been effective (since Carter)... no need reminding people that Johnson's "Gulf of Tonkin" resolution for troop escalation was based on a complete lie. The failed hostage rescue in Iran? The boycotting of the 1980 olympics? The bombing of a basically empty "aspirin" factory in the desert to cover up an "innapropriate relationship" with an intern? The response after the first world trade center bombing? The "Black Hawk (down) incident in Somalia? If I haven't erred (which I know I haven't) I believe Clinton mentioned the WMD's in Iraq and the response was? What are the correct military theories again?

Bee / Gio
2112

remember, congressman mucinich tried to have bush impeached before he could more chaos, he brought up 35 articles for impeachment. Nancy Pelosi the democrat speaker of the house told him no that she wouldn't let the impeachment happen. if you're going to be mad at anyone be mad at her.

My partial liberal/socialist checklist

1. Dependency upon others (to feel "at home" and the need to fit in). Check
2. Blame republicans for every single woe in the world. Check
3. Worried about what other countries/people think. Check
4. Wanting "free" healthcare instead of working personally for it. Check
5. Sense of entitlement for a college education. Check
6. Emotional name calling (E.G. dumbass, douche). Check
7. Thinking they are smarter than everyone else by saying "WAKE UP". Check
8. Use a democrat catch phrase "for the children", "I feel your pain", ect.. Check.
9. The abdication of personal responsibility. Check