The Discerning Texan

1) So where does Iraq stand now? Should we take seriously NBC’s “courageous” move in “bucking the White House” and calling it a civil war.

NBC and Matt Lauer are risibly self-important. If Lauer and his minions really wanted to do some “courageous bucking,” they could become newsmen in Riyadh and report on the numerous depredations committed by the House of Saud. It’s really hard to imagine the mind that credits NBC with being “courageous” here. Does Matt Lauer fear imprisonment at the hands of the Bushitler storm troopers? Somehow, I doubt it.

2) Nice rant. But you really didn’t answer the substance of the question. How are things in Iraq and is “civil war” an apt term?

Things in Iraq are obviously tough, except in the Kurdish regions in regards to which our media seem to have a strange reticence. I have no interest in squabbling over semantics. Call it a civil war if you like. Call it sectarian violence. Call it a Hobbesian state of nature rife with IED's. Makes no nevermind to me.

3) And yet you seem annoyed at NBC and Matt Lauer.

Elements of the media have been doing everything in their power to dispirit the American people regarding this vital endeavor for three years now. That’s okay – we have a free press here and a dollop of competent rhetoric from the White House would be more than adequate in offsetting the tsunami of negativity and distortions that come from the media. But when multi-millionaire airhead members of the media like Matt Lauer deem their own pronouncements huge news, it’s a bit much for me to take.

4) But there’s a kernel of truth in what they’re saying. Iraq’s in rough shape.

No doubt. But the issue I have is that what’s going on in Iraq is never put in any larger context. To wit, this is one battle in the war against Radical Islam. It’s an important battle, and it will set the paradigm for future battles so we better win it. But intellectually, members of both the left and the right treat Iraq as if it’s some kind of island. It isn’t. It’s a relatively small part of a much bigger struggle.

5) What? That’s awful. This thing in Iraq has already lasted longer than World War II. Now you’re telling us that this is just the tip of the metaphorical iceberg? I’m going to go read the Daily Kos.

Go ahead. You probably got that idiotic “lasted longer than World War II” talking point from there.

6) What makes it idiotic? Is it not a salient point that FDR and Truman were able to subdue the Axis Powers in less time than it’s taken Bush to do whatever he’s done in Iraq?

No, it is not a salient point. If the goal were to defeat Iraq and the Iraqis as we defeated the Nazis and Imperial Japan, it could be accomplished pretty readily. For instance, if we gave Baghdad the Dresden treatment, I have a feeling incidents of sectarian violence would undergo a sudden, dramatic and marked decline. But we don’t want to do that, rightfully so, because it wouldn’t be nice. Lots of innocents dead, an outraged Kofi Annan – it would just generally leave a mess.

7) So what did we want to accomplish in Iraq? Or what do we still hope to accomplish?

The goal in Iraq was to trigger a reformation of the entire region. (For you Congressmen who don’t read books, this would be a good time to begin paying attention.) Historically, Sunni sects have been bent on world domination or at the very least the establishment of a caliphate. They don’t believe that any political realm trumps Sharia and the Koran. Shiites, on the other hand, were historically non-political. That changed in the late 1970’s with the rise of the Khomenists in Iran. Suddenly one of the regions two most populous Shiite states had a philosophy similar to the Sunni Wahabists and Salafists.

The hope in Shiite Iraq was that given the hostility leftover for Iran after their savage eight year war, we would be able to establish a secular and peaceful Muslim bulwark in the region. Given the humane actions of Ayatollah Sistani over the last few years, this wasn’t pie-in-the-sky thinking.

But a necessary prerequisite to this happening was defeating those parties who were inherently against such a state. Iraq’s Sunni dead-enders and Khommenist Shiites like Moqtada Al-Sadr had to die. Because the administration never summoned the will to accomplish either one of these things, we have a mess on our hands.

8) But if we could have done it three years ago, why can’t we do it today?

We can. But dealing with Al-Sadr will require us to deal with Iran. And dealing with the Sunni dead-enders will require us to deal with Syria. Both of these countries will have to be dealt with sooner or later, and strategically the only “benefit” in waiting is that we allow our enemies to gain better technology, probably handed to them by our good friends in the Putin dictatorship.

9) But would the American public tolerate “dealing with” Iran and Syria right now?

Sadly, no. This is the one area where the administration has really blown it. Most Americans have no idea of the kind of danger we’re in, largely because the administration and the media have framed this as a “war on terror” when in fact it is not a war against a tactic, but a war against some specific and very identifiable enemies.

10) Okay, the American people don’t understand this, but do our leaders?

On that score, I’m not very hopeful. As the New York Times reported a month ago, most of our leaders, and not only those in Congress but ranking members from our intelligence agencies, don’t know the difference between a Sunni and a Shiite. As I reported a couple of weeks ago, the Republican leaders in the House don’t read books. What’s more, their actions certainly haven’t betrayed any awareness of the consequential nature of the era.

11) How about the Democrats?

Ha! Good one. You know, I saw some Democratic spokesperson on Scarborough Country last night responding to the inquiry of what the Democrats’ plan is for Iraq and she said, “We’re going to wait to hear what the Baker Commission says.”

What leadership!! And the really bad news is that “plan” beats the hell out of the Democrats’ and paleo-cons’ other option, which is to leave the region and let the chips fall where they may.

12) You sound negative, much more so than usual. What gives?

President Bush has at times been a great leader in the “war on terror.” At other times, he’s been intellectually absent. We need leadership now. Someone needs to explain the stakes to the American people and what this fight is all about. Someone needs to explain that there will be a lot of death and suffering ahead, and unfortunately it won’t be just the enemy doing the dying and suffering. The President has two years left and no further campaigns to concern himself with. This would be an ideal, albeit belated, time to explain to the American people what’s going on, and how our real enemy is a lot more numerous and dangerous than the cave dwelling loons in Waziristan.

Yet since the midterms the President has been totally missing except when offering some annoying pabulum about raising the minimum wage.

13) So what are our choices?

Win in Iraq, Syria, Iran and the rest of the region now, or wait until we suffer grievously before getting serious about doing so.

14) What will victory look like?

Victory will see many of the enemy dead, and the rest dispirited enough that they realize that Jihad is a dead end. In other words, it will look a lot like victory did over the equally rabid enemy in Imperial Japan.

15) Will it have to be that bloody?

I don’t know, but I do know the longer we delay and the more irresolute our behavior, the higher the ultimate Butcher’s Bill will be. Count on it.