Mr. Jacoby -
You may not read the goings on here at dailykos. You may just to see what the "enemy camp" is up to, and still you may not get past my first few sentences. Like many others of your ilk, it may be that you would prefer to believe what you wish to be true rather than what is true, and have long eschewed any interest in debate or opposing views. If that is the case, then you may happily ignore this rebuttal to your column of July 18 without a further thought.
First off, I must inform you that I am mightily impressed that you managed to generate so many omissions and holes in an argument a mere 772 words long. A singular achievement, and a testament to your acumen and acuity.
To wit:
"The media echo chamber, meanwhile, reverberates with defeatism on Iraq and disdain for the president."
Who, specifically, do you refer to in the "media echo chamber" reverberating with this defeatism and disdain? Brian Williams? Andrea Mitchell? Michele Malkin? Tim Russert? Bill O'Reilly? The White House Press Corps? The legion of mainstream media professionals, who soft-pedal and lob floaters posing as questions to the Executive branch, with both eyes fixed firmly on careers where advancement can only be gained by not upsetting the flow of advertisement dollars into the corporate entities who own the news bureaus at which they work? Upsetting that flow, via, say, non-patriotic activities like asking hard questions of the Decider-in-Chief or one of his familiars?
"'If not now, when?' Matt Lauer recently demanded on NBC's "Today" show."
I'm sure, Mr. Jacoby, that Karl Rove has scrambled into Purple Alert DefCon 1 mode now, realizing that the full investigative intensity of the Today Show and Matt Lauer might be brought to bear on the Bush administration's surge plans. When, of course, Matt and the Today news staff can tear themselves away from follow-ups on the Chris Benoit story.
"But for all the clamor to quit Iraq, there is little serious discussion of just what quitting will mean."
Mr. Jacoby, had you been paying attention to an information source other than Alan Dershowitz, such as The Nation, Harper's Magazine, The Atlantic Monthly (at least until David Bradley moved it out of Boston causing the bulk of the editorial staff to quit), dailykos.com, the Huffington Post, and the hundreds of progressive and liberal blogs out there, you would realize that there has been serious discussion of this topic for quite some time. No one intelligent believes that the withdrawal of American troops will immediately yield peaceful coexistence in Iraq, and an end to the civil war that the removal of Saddam Hussein has instigated; the situation will probably get worse for a while. But our presence only offers insurgents and factions more targets to shoot at, and the troop levels necessary to bring security beyond the paltry areas within American military control would lead to Vietnam and Korea levels of American casualties. There are members of Congress who are undoubtedly aware of all this discussing going on, have read the arguments, and may have changed their minds accordingly.
"Iran's malignant influence will intensify, and with it the likelihood of intensified Sunni-Shiite conflict, and even a nuclear arms race, across the Middle East."
Malignant influence? Maybe. But Sunnis and Shiites have been in conflict for centuries, and while Iran certainly has its own agenda, it's no more a malign influence on the area than Saudi Arabia, known to be as good a source as anywhere for individuals willing to engage in activities presented as holy jihad, due to the House of Saud's wholehearted embrace of Wahhabist extremism. Unlike the Saudis, Iran has been facing intense scrutiny and distrust of its goals and actions by the United Nations and the world community. As far as a nuclear arms race is concerned in the Middle East, I'm sure the fact that Israel has nuclear weapons, and has refused to sign any non-proliferation treaties, has nothing to do with it.
"'Iraq would emerge, in Senator John McCain's words, "as a Wild West for terrorists, similar to Afghanistan before 9/11.'"
It already is; and it became one because of our doing.
"Once again -- as in Vietnam, in Lebanon, in Somalia -- the United States would have proven the weaker horse, unwilling to see a fight through to the finish."
Yes, the dreaded "surrender lobby," as you state in the next sentence of the column. America's inability to prevail in Vietnam wasn't because we were involved in a civil war misinterpreted as part of the global chess game by the cold war powers. America's inability to prevail in Vietnam wasn't because we were fighting a hit-and-run army on their home turf with the support of the indigents, which of course were identical circumstances to George Washington and the Continental Army defeating a much greater power in terms of wealth, logistics, and manpower. America's inability to prevail in Vietnam wasn't because we were on the side that was bound to lose: the Viet Cong could simply afford to wait us out, for a generation if need be, because they had the loyalty of the local populace. No, America's inability to prevail in Vietnam was because the liberal commie pinko hippie surrender monkeys, on marching orders from Chairman Mao (or was it The Smothers Brothers?), sapped the will to fight on the home front.
"Three decades ago, similar arguments were made in support of abandoning Southeast Asia to the communists." "So Washington ended military aid, and Phnom Penh fell to the Khmer Rouge, which proceeded to exterminate nearly 2 million Cambodians in one of the ghastliest genocides of modern times."
Cambodia had been undergoing the same kind of struggle in the aftermath of French colonialism as Vietnam. After gaining independence in 1953, it tried to maintain neutrality regarding the Vietnam conflict, but North Vietnamese forces established bases within Cambodia, and the United States attacked them in 1969. Seeing Prince Sihanouk, who was opposed to both NVA and US activity in Cambodia, as a liability and of course a "communist sympathiser," the American government used their favorite tool in the cold war toolbox, the CIA, to engineer a coup, replacing Sihanouk with Lon Nol. Lon Nol immediately declared Cambodia an ally of the United States and South Vietnam, but the United States continued to bomb Cambodia if they suspected NVA activity. This led to increased enthusiasm for the Khmer Rhouge among ordinary Cambodians, which assumed power militarily over Cambodia in 1975. Pol Pot was certainly a monster, but without the CIA-backing of Lon Nol and the American bombings in the early 1970s, he and his party would not have been able to take advantage of rampant anti-Americanism, thereby gaining the popular support necessary for a military overthrow of the previous government.
"For they know only too well what horrors Al Qaeda and its jihadist allies are capable of. Beheadings. Suicide bombings. Lynchings. Child murder. Chlorine gas attacks."
Dehumanizing the enemy is the oldest trick in the book, and always leads to misunderstandings and stupidities which prolong, rather than end, conflicts. We will always have individuals willing to go to extremes of terrorist activity for reasons of sociopathic imbalances, but most do such things out of desperation. Removing the desperation is the key; fighting them or occupying their homelands militarily only strengthens their resolve.
"We are in a war with barbarians who proclaim their love of death and revel in the slaughter of innocents -- and are fighting to win."
You just don't give up, do you? Your tenacity, while egregiously misplaced, is admirable. Let's see: Mossadegh in 1953, Arbenz in 1954, Lon Nol (see above) in 1970, Allende in 1973, Korea, Vietnam, cold war machinations, etc. - can anyone else be viewed as barbarians reveling in the slaughter of innocents? We all have blood on our hands, and rather than engaging in j'accuse, it might be better to attempt to bring out the better angels of everyone's nature. We're all human, we can all lapse into barbarity under the right situation. If we don't work on getting everyone to govern themselves with an eye to promoting, peace, justice, and work toward the common good, then the United States will have to be the world's policemen, enforcing a neo-conservative pax Americana around the globe. That job will only be temporary, however, for eventually the entire globe will turn against us.
"The price Americans will pay if they abandon Iraq will be steep. The price Iraqis pay will be steeper."
Let's get to the real nub of your philosophy here. From your past columns, it's obvious that your concerns are neither for the price Iraqis might pay, nor really for hardships faced by America. Your paramount concern is the safety and security of Israel. You want the United States to maintain ground troops in Iraq for easy deployment against a possible threat to Israel, Iran currently the most feared agent other than the Palestinians. You couldn't give a fig about what happened to Iraqis in the cheerleading period leading up to the invasion in 2003; should the US invade Iran and instigate similar conditions to current Iraq there, then you'll probably talk about how the US cannot afford to leave Iran for the Iranians' sake. Poppycock. The problem with your philosophy is that the apparent neutralization of Iraq, currently unable to mount any kind of national attack on anyone, and the potential future neutralization of Iran, only makes Israel's position less secure. The United States is in the process of creating legions of anti-American enemies among Arabs and Muslims in the Middle East, all of whom will view Israel and the US as one and the same. It just adds to any predilections of distrust and loathing of Israel, and their hatred will not diminish easily, transmitted to coming generations unless the current status quo is changed.
An American military presence maintaining order in Iraq is but an illusion; even if US forces hammered the entire nation into submission, that would hardly be of benefit to ordinary Iraqi. Killing soemone doesn't change their mind, nor does it engender a desire to talk things through on the part of their surviving friends and relatives. Setting up food, medical, and shelter stations would help, but patrolling the streets of Baghdad and invading homes in a constant search for "the terrorists," by troops who can't tell one Iraqi from another, will not.
You speak, Mr. Jacoby, of barbarity and a love of death - beheadings, suicide bombings, lynchings, child murder, chlorine gas attacks. All horrors. But so are aerial bombings, attacks by tanks and automatic weapons, treating entire populations as second-class citizens and denying them basic dignities, thereby breeding simmering resentments and a desire for war and retribution. So also are ignorance, and the dehumanization of very human opponents.
You want a secure and safe Israel? So do I. Sometimes you need to fight; but decades of fighting usually leads sane people to realize that it brings naught but more fighting. Israel's safety and security (or that of America, or the Palestinians, or anyone else) will never be bought through wars and initimidation, because security and safety do not lie on those paths. And never will.