Peggy Noonan understands
Posted by BrianPeggy Noonan of the Wall Street Journal Editorial Board has some good observations about the Republican presidential debate on FoxNews a couple of nights ago.
The debate was full of fireworks about Iraq, about its essentials–the rightness of the endeavor, and what should rightly be done now. From the libertarian Ron Paul a blunt argument against the war: We never should have gone in and we should get out. “The people who say there’ll be a blood bath are the same ones who said it would be a cakewalk. . . . Why believe them?” His foreign policy: “Mind our own business, bring our troops home, defend our country, defend our borders.” After Mr. Paul spoke, it seemed half the room booed, but the other applauded. When a thousand Republicans are in a room and one man of the eight on the stage takes a sharply minority viewpoint on a dramatic issue and half the room seems to cheer him, something’s going on.
Ron Paul’s support isn’t based on his persona, history or perceived power. What support he has comes because of his views. As he spoke, you could hear other candidates laughing in the background. They should stop giggling, and engage in a serious way.
I’ve been having a similar thought. I try to pay attention to the audience reaction at these debates that have a room full of party loyalists. Romney, for example, always gets a respectful, reasonable applause. He says all of the right things for a Republican candidate, but no one really believes him. He is just too slick and mechanical, but everyone feels they should applaud since he is a front runner.
Paul, on the other hand, draws a strong reaction - quite positive more often than not. It is foolish for his colleagues or the talking head pundits to simply dismiss him as a kook when so many rank and file Republicans obviously like what they hear.
I don’t have the luxury of time right now, so I’ll try to be brief. Ever since FDR, and maybe before him, this country has been steadily listing left towards socialism. The Democrats lead the ideological shift, but then the Republicans shift left as well. They still stay to the right of the Democrats on most issues, but they increasingly become intoxicated with the specter of having more control over private, free citizens. Thus, “conservatism” - a term I don’t really like - is largely a moving target.
Today we’re faced with a crop of Republican candidates that are not a bit different from Democrats of the 1960’s. They all like big government programs and none of them have seriously talked about drastically reducing the size of government. Their plan is to nibble. That is what George Bush promised us and instead of even meager nibbling we got No Child Left Behind, a new prescription drug entitlement program, and runaway spending.
There is one candidate who wants to snap the party and the country back to solid, traditional Republican principles. That man is Ron Paul.
Related content:
September 7th, 2007 at 2:59 pm
“Why believe them?”
Because history is a guide - we know what happened after the US abandoned Vietnam (and Laos and Cambodia): killing fields, boat people, re-education camps.
While there was some reason to believe that we would be greeted as liberators (based on Iraqi reaction during Gulf 1 - but IMO they should have considered that we fouled that up), there’s no reason to expect a different outcome from abandonment.
September 7th, 2007 at 6:27 pm
Reactionary, I think the main rub is that the President continues to make the false argument that Al Qaeda will take over the country and use it for a launching pad.
The facts do not agree with that. First, AQ has been despised by the Sunni population for much longer than the “surge”. Second, the majority Shiites are blood enemies with AQ.
There will be killilng when we leave. The sad part is that it could have been prevented long ago by not invading. How many US troops are you willing to sacrifice to prevent civil unrest in Iraq? Are you willing to lose your life for that mission?
September 8th, 2007 at 11:24 am
Matt - you don’t know that it is a ‘false argument’.
We do know that terrorists were in Iraq before the war (under a Sunni regime). For example, Abu Abbas, Abu Nidal, Abu Musab al Zarqawi, and Abdul Rahman Yasin enjoyed sanctuary in Iraq before the war. Some of these guys are linked to AQ. They all killed Americans.
I think that Bush made the best of bad options. I think the invasion was justified and lawful. I think that staying until Iraq is stable is the best policy.
September 9th, 2007 at 11:25 am
Reactionary, Iraq will never be stable with American occupation.
I suppose you are now advocating a war with Pakistan because of their sanctuary for AQ.
We obviously are drawn to different conclusions. I am curious as to where your primary source of information is. (MSM, talk radio, Fox News, or conservative blogs).
September 9th, 2007 at 4:38 pm
Matt - Re: “primary source of information” - what information in my comments is questionable to you? Vietnam after-effects? Gulf 1 US failure to support Iraqi uprising? Terrorists in Iraq pre-war?
Do your own research to confirm the facts as I’ve stated.
Then we can discuss opinions derived from those facts; if we can’t even agree on a factual framework then there’s no use discussing it. Also, try to focus - the discussion is not about me.
September 9th, 2007 at 8:39 pm
Wow, if you are saying that war was justified because a handful of bad guys were in Iraq, I have to completely disagree. Anyway, rehashing over the invasion is futile so I’ll move on.
It seems obvious to me that the president doesn’t have a clue on how to end the war in Iraq and the Dems won’t do it either because they have no principal. You should be happy that the occupation will continue.
For me, I think I am less safe today because our military has been weakened and we let people cross the border with almost no consequences. We are probably inspiring/recruiting 2 to 10 terrorists for every one we kill.
As for the media sources, the reason I ask is because most American’s are finally waking up from the nonsense we were sold to go into war. I just want to know how you can still believe anything the administration says anymore. I say this as someone who bought their crap and have finally woken up about 1-2 years ago.
September 10th, 2007 at 9:37 am
Matt, I’ll take it that you agree with the basic facts.
I don’t have to say or justify why we invaded Iraq, the US Congress did it for me. Terrorists in Iraq, including AQ, were part of the reasons for the war (violations of the Gulf 1 ceasefire, etc. as described in AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE AGAINST IRAQ, Public Law 107-243):
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=107_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ243.107
I’ll agree (somewhat in jest) with your stipulation that Democrats have no principles.
The President’s overall plan of keeping our military in place until Iraqi security forces take over is not only sound (IMO), but it is also working (IIRC 4 of 18 provinces turned over, with 3 more transitioning soon). Serious Democrats also understand that leaving takes time.
The way I see it, every terrorist we kill is dead. The more we kill, the more they die. That seriously impacts the enemies’ operations. When we take and hold territory, they lose operating space. That impacts their operations. The enemy does not have infinite resources. Rummy shared your concerns about inspiration / recruitment.
We may agree about border security.
I don’t think that our military has been weakened to the point that your personal security is at risk. Recruitment and retention exceeds goals (latest July 2007) and the Army and USMC are expanding (end strength) - to me, more of our guys doesn’t make me think that we are weaker. Plus, the military has been hardened by combat.
If you are talking about O&S or the strain on the troops then I’ll agree we have problems that need redress.
Matt, it’s going to be a long war, regardless of what you think of any administration. The reasons for war were real - indulge me - give me a couple of examples of what you consider ‘nonsense’ or ‘crap’.
Media sources - I’ll indulge you - I read the local paper most days; I read blogs almost daily (Instapundit, Daily Dixie, LGF, Blackfive - plus when I want to get my blood pressure up I’ll read Kos, DU, Truthout, etc); I watch some TV (network, PBS, CNN, FoxNews, C-SPAN, Stewart / Colbert / South Park). I sometimes listen to talk radio or NPR when driving. I get Southern Living and the Journal of Defense Software Engineering delivered monthly. I read books. For local politics I go to the barber shop
September 10th, 2007 at 8:27 pm
1. We didn’t listen to the inspectors. Hans Blix, I thought was a dumbass and a pacifist in 2002/2003, but in the end his findings were accurate.
2. “Smoking gun in the form of a mushroom cloud”
3. We can install a shining beacon of democracy in the middle east.
4. Chemical mobile labs.
5. Direct ties to AQ. (I have seen no credible evidence that Saddam harbored these terrorists or even had knowledge they were there) If you listen to AQ, they will tell you that their main enemy is the imperial middle eastern dictator, which fits Saddam perfectly.
6. “They hate us because we are free and rich.”
7. “Oil can pay for most of the reconstruction”
The quotes go on and on. I happen to believe that the war was initiated in the late 1990s with several bills past by congress. This is a non-partisan problem because both parties are complicit in an unconstitutiional no-win war in a country hundreds of miles from bin laden.
Probably the worst tragedies of all is the loss of the troops, but also the untold scores of dead Iraqi’s. If you notice, the Iraqi’s were a secular and somewhat civilized people before this war. The consequences of the war have turned them into animals. You can blame it on Islam or whatnot, but the fact is their country is destroyed.
Not sure I’ll have much time to come back to this discussion, but I can appreciate a civil discussion about a difficult issue that has everyone divided.
September 11th, 2007 at 11:33 am
Matt, sadly, your arguments parrot the talking points of the Left. I hope that’s not really you.
1. Blix reported (to the UN Security Council) that Iraq developed proscribed missile systems, that Iraq hadn’t accounted for WMD (anthrax, VX) that had been found after Gulf 1, and that Iraq wasn’t cooperating with inspectors. Even though he conceded that this violated 1441, he was against the war.
2. Given the risks, not an unreasonable strategy. YMMV.
3. Radical Republicans rise again…
4. IIRC, a couple of times we found stuff that we thought were mobile labs - that took days of analysis to determine what they were - when we had possession of them. At worst, oops.
5. Terrorists come in more brands than AQ. The names I provided earlier cover this. IMO, the Saudi’s were the imperial dictators implied by OBL.
6. OBL’s tape a couple of days ago specifically addresses this. They do hate us because we’re free and rich. And because we’re infidels.
7. Oil can pay for most of the reconstruction. IIRC the Iraqis are working on oil money distribution laws / plans now. Wait for it.
The war started with the invasion of Kuwait. That war ended with a ceasefire (that Saddam violated by non-compliance with UN Security Council resolutions and attacks on the US - GHW Bush and USAF aircraft). You’re correct that it was bi-partisan US policy / law to overthrow Saddam. President Bush implemented US policy; that’s his job.
I flatly disagree that it’s unconstitutional or that we can’t win. Or that the Iraqis are ‘animals’. I also disagree that the Iraqis were secular before the war - are you saying that the Shi’a and Sunnis and Kurds are all recently born-again Muslims? OK, the Ba’ath party was nominally secular, but IMO pan-arab means caliphate.