The fatal flaw in all Lefty “thinking” regarding the War on Terror – Iraq in particular – is the failure to appreciate the true nature and degree of the threat faced. Generally speaking, this flawed logic has characterized the three Lefty schools of thought on the matter:
* The Michael Moore school of thought - “There IS no terrorist threat. Let’s eat!”
* The Harry Reid school of thought - “If Bush said it, it’s wrong.”
* The Cindy Sheehan School of thought – “Manual petunias whittle gym blizzard fish.”
Recently, however, we came across a tactic as yet unemployed by any of the above – the use of something called “history” to make the argument that all is lost in Iraq! Far more compelling for yours truly is that the history employed in this instance consisted of the words of one Sir Winston Churchill.
In his post, “What Would Churchill Do” (near copyright violation but I suspect we’ll let it slide this once) blogger Bryan L. Dumka reminds us that,
“Winston Churchill created Iraq. It was Winnie’s idea to combine the three
separate Turkish provinces [one each for Sunnis, Shi’ia, and Kurds] into one
nation for administrative purposes and to anoint the Sunnis to rule the new
country after World War I.”
Mr. Dumka then directs us to a post by Dr. Juan Cole entitled Churchill on When to Throw in the Towel in Iraq wherein Dr. Cole quotes a clearly vexxed and fed-up Sir Winston regarding the situation in Iraq.
“…unless they beg us to stay and to stay on our own terms in regard to efficient
control, we shall actually evacuate before the close of the financial year. I
would put this issue in the most brutal way, and if they are not prepared to
urge us to stay and to co-operate in every manner I would actually clear out.”
“At present we are paying eight millions a year for the privilege of living on
an ungrateful volcano out of which we are in no circumstances to get anything
Dr. Cole leaves these quotes to speak for themselves, evidently, as damning evidence of the folly of the present surge in Iraq.
What Dr. Cole, and subsequently Mr. Dumka, fail to address, however, is that Sir Winston spoke these words in 1922. While dates are included in all their posts, the significance of this appears to be of no consequence to them. It is of great consequence.
As recently as 2001, 10, September the majority of the world (except perhaps Israel) cared not a wit about all the “Death to Israel” , “Death to America” ravings emanating out of the Middle East. We had been hearing them for decades and had turned a deaf ear, presuming there was little to nothing any of these people could actually do to make good on their threats.
The next day, 19 Saudis armed with nothing more than airline tickets and box cutters changed all that. Like the patient who suddenly learns that nagging sore throat is actually esophageal cancer, a radical change of thinking was warranted. Everything from that point on was to be regarded in a new light. For our survival, old threats must be reevaluated, new threats must be anticipated, and the unthinkable must be at least considered.
To equate evacuating Iraq in 1922 with evacuating Iraq today is to ignore entirely the events of the past 17 years (not to mention the preceding 68!) This line of reasoning is quite likely lethal. It does not require Sir Winston’s caliber of vision to foresee that such an evacuation today would leave the Iraqi people virtually defenseless against the will of Ahmedinejad’s Iran and Al-Qaeda. More significantly, the appearance of American “retreat” in the face of “jihad”, “insurgency”, “terrorism” - call it what you will - would embolden forces opposed to America and her allies a thousand fold. Given the will to kill thus far demonstrated by these forces, I submit that this would be a very bad thing to do.
We always applaud the employment of historical context in argumentation, particularly where Sir Winston is the centerpiece of said context. For this (and for Mr. Dumka’s military service) Mr. Dumka and Dr. Cole are to be acknowledged. Unfortunately, the fundamental flaw of Lefty thinking pervades their offerings, rendering their observations irrelevant and their conclusions – were they to be taken to heart and acted upon – quite likely disastrous.