THE SQUANDERER
For the last few years and more times recently I've been hearing, "Bush squandered the goodwill of the world post 9-11 by invading Iraq." Now what exactly were we going to do with that goodwill? They contend that those countries would have helped us with intelligence had we been meek. To which I ask, which countries have been holding back? The goodwill of the world counts for very little if they won't stand side by side with you in the field of battle.
The statement is really about a personality type that in some ways enjoys pain, suffering and empathy from others. Some people need the goodwill of the world to feel good about themselves. Some citizens of the world are uncomfortable with America's rube patriot element. A war doesn't need a popularity contest to proceed but a united country no longer willing to be victim.
Those Americans uncomfortable with American power and assertiveness have used the setbacks in the war to yell louder for our withdrawal. But where would we be in this war without the battlefield of Iraq? How could we have brought so many al Qaeda to one single place to fight? How do we know the absence of Iraq wouldn't have given them more time to plan another attack here? Would anyone have predicted that we could have gone this long without another attack on American soil?
The only ones that want us out of Iraq more than the Democrats are the terrorists. Some would rather be battered and have the goodwill of the world than the appearance of American superiority. It's under this very psychology of offering a capitulation that made Neville Chamberlain a hero shortly before proven a goat.
1 comment:
We are facing opposition in Iraq because our strategy is right. If it wasn't right, we would not be facing opposition.
I heard a few remarks on C-SPAN Radio the other day by Bush who was addressing a gathering of restaurateurs. In response to a question about whether he is encouraging Jeb to run for President, he said it's tough in Washington because everything is political and someone is always trying to rip you up and tear you down, and he doesn't like it. He said even when you disagree with someone, it is not appropriate to degrade or debase them. It seemed to me he was basically saying that there is no winning with the press, so he refuses to engage them. I have often wondered why he is such an invisible president, and I also am generally persuaded that the simplest answer is usually right, so maybe that's all there is to it, that he avoids the press because there is no winning with the press, so he starves them of fuel by refusing to engage them.
Post a Comment