69 million page views

Mariana: lost in translation

Reader comment on item: How to End Terrorism:
in response to reader comment: To trans-parere re: "plus ca change"

Submitted by trans-parere (Canada), Dec 12, 2006 at 00:26

(Your response is interesting. Concerning: "Political correctness is the moral imperative not; the doing of the right thing for the right reasons regardless of the cost...." I fail to see how any of the imperatives set forth in the ISG report can be considered "the right thing for the right reasons......," and wonder: by what definition can the disintegration of Lebanon and Israel, the inevitable, ultimate extension of Mr. Baker's bought and paid for sagacity, be considered "the right thing?" and which "reasons" involved, do you consider "right?")

The Baker-Hamilton Iraqi Study Group will be politically correct and that is today's standard. The Democrats are owned by the socialist and socialist are cultural suiciders. Political correctness is the moral imperative not; the doing of the right thing for the right reasons regardless of the cost." IS what I said. I thought having said that would indicate that I didn't see Bush's administration in Iraq as complete failure.

My second paragraph outlined some basic ways in which I personally feel the Bush administration has failed Iraq.
"Bush should have gone into Iraq, secured the borders, put the people to work on reconstruction, and then worked with the Iraqi's for the creation of a democratic government. Instead his primary focus was on the government and creating a police/national army and the citizens were left to wonder about their daily necessities and the tribal leaders saw their power and influence being undermined by a new methodology. There is no doubt that the iraqi people wanted change but, with months of going with out, no rebuilding and armed troops still in the streets it was easy for the Imams to convince the faithful that they should fear the change."

This last paragraph, I apologise for any misunderstanding. It was my attempt at a quick definition of the situation on the ground with the "religious war" as a new war and American Democrats who want to "cut and run" and those who want to label the "Iraqi war" as American imperialism and or about oil. Which wouldn't be about doing the right thing for the right reason. That the Dems would much sooner be seen as doing what's politically correct and pander to the socialist of the world, appeasing the totalitarians at the expense of democracy.
"And if the tribes are going to rule, who's tribe. Sunni or Shia. New war, America wants out. Bush was wrong. Republicans are all war mongers and were only there for the oil. It's much better to be politically correct than worry about doing the right thing. Democracy takes a back seat and the world takes another step towards religious authoritarianism."

I don't know what is inevitable, or the ultimate extension of the Baker-Hamilton report, or how much or how little will be implemented by the Bush administration. As a soldier I can say that in my opinion that Iraq was lost when the coalition forces allowed the Iraqi people to trash, destroy and steal their cultural history. I'm talking about from victory day one when Iraqis were running through the streets tearing up museums, palaces, police stations, schools, and what ever else . The coalition forces, America, was not prepared to do what was just, the right thing for the right reasons, at all costs.

America and her allies went into Iraq like they went into Korea and Vietnam. And Iraq will end in the same fashion. You can't win a war fighting by popular opinion. Popular opinion is a fleeting whim. It only last until the next fad. As a soldier I can tell you that if you want to win a war you have to be able to hold ground. All American forces in Iraq have held is the green zone and a couple of bases. Outside of these areas they have no security and neither do the civilians.

Once again I'd like to reiterate that "Bush should have gone into Iraq, secured the borders, put the people to work on reconstruction, and then worked with the Iraqi's for the creation of a democratic government. Instead his primary focus was on the government and creating a police/national army and the citizens were left to wonder about their daily necessities and the tribal leaders saw their power and influence being undermined by a new methodology. There is no doubt that the iraqi people wanted change but, with months of going with out, no rebuilding and armed troops still in the streets it was easy for the Imams to convince the faithful that they should fear the change."
You can't give back control of something that you never had control of.

Having the understanding and co-operation of the social elites is one thing, having the understanding and co-operation of the citizens is another. Victory is having the citizens understanding their future direction and new value, and working in concert to that end. The elites have always been able to look out for their own best interest.

What Bush intended is one thing, his priorities failed him. And the ISG is looking for a political way out just like others did with Vietnam. Hopefully Iraq wont become a Lebanon. Another Palistine. A Kashmir. A Darfur. But with the politically correct socialist elite of the west having so much public sway I will not be surprised if that is the end result.
It costs to uphold ones convictions. If your not prepared to pay that cost then you have not the conviction.

You can not claim you have a conviction but, that you choose not to exercize it. Or establish boundaries for it's expression. Political correctness is an unexpressed conviction exercised with in boundries. Whatever the hell that is. It's certainly not the way to win a war.
I work from a very short play book. Democratic values strengthened in law protected by the citizenship.
I would like to see the whole world share that experience equally.

Submitting....

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".

Comment on this item

Mark my comment as a response to Mariana: lost in translation by trans-parere

Email me if someone replies to my comment

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".

See recent outstanding comments.

Follow Daniel Pipes

Facebook   Twitter   RSS   Join Mailing List

All materials by Daniel Pipes on this site: © 1968-2021 Daniel Pipes. daniel.pipes@gmail.com and @DanielPipes

Support Daniel Pipes' work with a tax-deductible donation to the Middle East Forum.Daniel J. Pipes

(The MEF is a publicly supported, nonprofit organization under section 501(c)3 of the Internal Revenue Code.

Contributions are tax deductible to the full extent allowed by law. Tax-ID 23-774-9796, approved Apr. 27, 1998.

For more information, view our IRS letter of determination.)