Friday, October 28, 2005

Democratic defeatism

David Gelernter has a fine piece in the LA Times today, arguing that America will abandon the Democrats before it abandons Iraq. Patrick "Leaky" Leahy told the Senate that the U.S. military cannot defeat the insurgency: "It has become increasingly apparent that the most powerful army in the world cannot stop a determined insurgency."

That is unequivocally defeatism, and it is the most serious problem the left faces today. Appeasement ranks next. Gelernter briefly discusses the Vietnam situation, then notes the following:
Many observers have noticed that Democrats of the left speak of Iraq as another Vietnam. Few have explained why: Because Democrats of the left want Iraq to be another Vietnam. Not that they took pleasure in Vietnamese suffering, but they rejoiced in the left-wing power surge that transformed the United States in the aftermath. Naturally, they hope to repeat that experience: to humiliate Republicans, moderate Democrats and the military by pinning the label "bloody failure" on another foreign war.

It's not going to happen.

Iraq is nothing like Vietnam, and the public knows it. In the recent referendum, 63% of Iraqi voters cast ballots. Each vote screamed defiance at terrorism and defeatism. Each vote told the world that terrorism will lose and democracy will win, that Iraqis trust the United States to help protect them against vengeful insurgents bent on murdering whoever dares to hope and care and vote.

An impressive 78% voted "yes" on the new constitution. Sunni Muslims said no, but many said it at the ballot box. The referendum made clear that ordinary people everywhere do want to govern themselves. Democracy could have worked in Vietnam too.

This nation will abandon the Democratic Party before it abandons Iraq.
I am encouraged by Gelernter's optimism, but I honestly don't know realistic his analysis is. Despite the power of the alternative media, the MSM and the Dems still have a lot of pieces on the board of vocal influence. It's a lot easier--and more emotionally appealing--to angrily denounce the perceived failures of the Republicans than what the Republicans must do to maintain support--joyously hold high their successes. It's an undeniable fact of human nature: negativism is the easiest of emotions.

Can it be done? Will America realize that the fight for democratic ideas is a long-term one, with commitments that will inherently span multiple congresses and presidents? I hope so.

, , , , ,

2 Comments:

Blogger Barba Roja said...

Maybe the essence of democracy involves allowing nations to choose their own fate rather than forcing them to conform to what we think of as a 'free' society? I don't see it as 'defeatist' to express the honest truth that an invading power cannot, and never has, defeated a large homegrown insurgency combined with strong local support for removing the occuppying army.

Yes, the Iraqis voted for the constitution - which allows for the implementation of sharia law and can be changed at will by the legislature. But don't you think there's an element of going along with what the Americans tell them is 'democracy' so the US will feel they've won and leave? Because the removal of the US is the goal of every Iraqi politician with any credibility.

Oh, and as for Vietnam - I don't suppose you've heard that there were comprehensive elections scheduled for 1956, but Eisenhower had them cancelled because he knew Ho Chi Minh would have won.

10/28/2005 11:57 PM  
Blogger Seth said...

There is the risk that, once we leave, Iraq will tumble back into oppressive Shariah law. I am tenatively optimistic that won't happen, but you may be right. Only time will tell.

However, I contend with some of your other thoughts. The insurgency does not have strong local support, as far as I know. Many Iraqis want the Coalition to stay as long as necessary. Most know that we are not occupying, but liberating and helping. Would an occupying force train the local military to protect the country on its own?

If the Iraqis are just playing the democracy game to get us to leave, don't you think the insurgency is totally counter-productive? The Coalition will likely leave when the fighting stops and/or the Iraqis are capable of handling it themselves. Why this continual struggle?

10/29/2005 1:36 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home