Anti-war: A malevolent righteousness which repels most Americans
Posted by: McQ
I have to admit that if a liberal were to write an article which called for other liberals to acknowledge the surge was working, I wouldn't have expected it to be Tom Teepen.
Teepen used to write for the Atlanta Journal-Constitution and I became very familiar with his, shall we say, slant? So seeing his name attached to this came as a bit of a shock. I say that all to point out that if Teepen gets it, why aren't other liberals "getting it"?
Democrats in particular and liberals in general - and, no, the overlap isn't perfect, as rightist blather would have you believe - will make a mistake if they don't acknowledge that the increase in U.S. troop strength in Iraq has made a difference for the better.
There is a streak of opinion within the larger ranks of opponents of the Iraq war that, going far beyond the critique asserted by most, seems actually to covet U.S. failure in Iraq as somehow serving America right for the blunder of having gone there in the first place.
That is a malevolent righteousness that properly repels most Americans.
Teepen has to throw a bone to those out there on the left who are now undergoing defibrillation by assuring them that polls say that a majority of Americans have become permanently disillusioned with the war.
Eh. There's nothing like success to change the permanency of the disillusionment, and despite Teepen's contention, the polls I've seen see support slowly rebuilding with the success of the surge.
But that said, I think one of the other reasons support is slowly building is that last line of his in bold. Such refusal to acknowledge success speaks to a "malevolent righteousness" which does indeed seem to "covet US failure". We see it right here in our comment section every time progress in Iraq is highlighted. And it has become both dishonest and, frankly, unseemly.
Teepen then moves on to the Democratic presidential candidates and notes what I have said in the past - they seem out of touch and disconnected from reality with their pat answers to questions which are no longer valid:
The two leading Democratic contenders for the presidency, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, continue to emphasize troop withdrawal but also say that withdrawal has to be consistent with the goals of leaving a stable polity capable of sustaining itself.
Those goals per se rule out precipitous or complete withdrawal. (John Edwards has made himself hopeless on this by insisting we remove even the U.S. troops who are training the Iraqi military.)
Here I disagree with Teepen's characterization of the Clinton and Obama positions. Their rhetoric doesn't at all seem consistent with a goal of leaving a stable polity capable of sustaining itself. But as Teepen points out, their's is at least better than that of Edwards (who may have John Murtha as a secret advisor).
The fact remains, as I pointed out in today's Iraq update, there have been dramatic changes for the better in Iraq.
Dramatic.
There's no longer any question, nor is it a matter of opinion. The facts speak for themselves. And yes, it could all go bad again. But at the moment it isn't.
So why aren't certain Americans celebrating the fact that although the US may have badly fumbled the early parts of the war, up to and including the first half of last year, we've made a remarkable turnaround and we may actually succeed?
Seems to me, unless what Teepen is suggesting is true about certain people, that all Americans would be celebrating that turnaround. And that includes the Democratic candidates for president:
We need to begin hearing from Democratic candidates how they would use the resulting opportunities to best serve U.S. interests and, especially, the interests of the Iraqi population, which our invasion has put at our mercy.
And don't start those plans with, "I'll pull the troops out of Iraq the day I take the oath of office". The previously stated reason for doing that is no longer valid.
AI
