Bill O’Reilly, Defeatist?

Bill O’Reilly, defeatist? is the title of a post by Bryan at Hot Air. Click the link for the video.

Getting out prematurely won’t unify us, won’t heal anything and will end up leaving Iraq in total chaos. I doubt that that’s what O’Reilly has in mind, though I’m sure he is fed up with the war. That much came through loud and clear. So as I said, I’m just not sure what to think about it. So I thought I’d post it and let you all chew on it.

First I want to address this from Bryan:

He definitely seems to advocate “retreating and regrouping” at the end though in the strategic context of Iraq that doesn’t make a lot of sense–when we retreat, it will be the Iranians and Syrians who do the regrouping and the marauding while we descend into recriminations over What Went Wrong. Iraq after a hasty US retreat would become a Somalia writ large.

Iraq won't become a Somalia. It will be far worse. It will either become an Iranian client state, or the center of a regional Sunni Shi'ite civil war. And for those who think watching rival Muslim factions murder one another is just fine with them, think again. The world economic implications of such a conflict will make Carter's gas lines look like a Gas and Go Express. Many of the world's economies will buckle under the strain of ever soaring energy costs.

As for retreating and regrouping, I don't think O'Reilly meant tactically or even strategically regarding Iraq, but in our approach to Middle East-driven terrorism overall. Tactically in Iraq, he was speaking of our eventual withdrawal under a next president and little else.

As for O'Reilly, I don't think he is being defeatist as much as he feels he's being frank. But his analysis reveals the weakness of a man more accustomed to judging American culture, as opposed to world affairs. He is viewing Iraq through the same prism he uses here, it's founded on the principle of individual responsibility. That's made clear in his frustration at why more Iraqis aren't stepping up.

What he and many of us cannot appreciate is the population left in Saddam's wake. We thought, reasonably for us, they would relish their new found freedom and take to the streets in celebration. But the Iraqi population, at least in large part, was a conquered people long before we arrived. They, in too great a measure for our liking, endure if not tolerate the most extreme forms of violence by insurgent and terrorists groups.

If the Western wisdom is that the mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation; unfortunately we are learning that in lands long ruled by tyranny, the mass of men lead lives of quiet subjugation. And in some ways the submissive qualities of Islam do little to help that out.

One could draw something of a comparison from Eastern bloc countries when released from the yoke of the Soviet Union. While great strides are being made in some quarters, look at a Russian population today that protests little as Putin moves ever more close to the Soviet Union of old.

You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make him drink. Apparently, you can also place freedom in front of those previously enslaved, but you cannot make them quench their thirst if they don't truly thirst for freedom as do peoples accustomed to having it as a right.

While that is an easy rationale for simply giving up in Iraq, ultimately you are then giving up on the entire Middle East. There are generational forces at play here. And if someone somewhere doesn't step up and break the sorts of oppression that have ruled the Middle East since the end of World War Two, what we will be guaranteeing ourselves is subsequent generations of Middle Eastern populations ripe for exploitation by terrorist groups and governments like al Qaeda and Iran.

Comments

[LOL]

interesting how it's more likely that the iraqi population will succumb to the temptations of Al-Qaeda or the radical Shias of Iran. What a mess this "let's just invade shit" policy has unleashed. I hope some thinkers in the blogosphere have learned something and will adjust their thinking on these kinds of issues in the future.

Your analysis is thin: "unfortunately we are learning that in lands long ruled by tyranny, the mass of men lead lives of quiet subjugation."

You make a decent point here. But you overlook some key facts.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6562601.stm

Because of the violence, millions of Iraqis have fled. And who are the ones who fled? The poorest or the wealthiest? Legitimate governments depend on organization, and organization depends upon people having a stake in something. For example a business owner wants his street to be safe, because that effects his livelihood. A day-laborer has much less at stake. An unemployed, even less. Many of the middle-class Iraqis fled because of the invasion, because of "shock and awe" and as such, many of those left have little stake in supporting peace and stability. Why did we think it would turn out any different?

In my opinion, if all the President is going to offer is surges of 10,000 to 50,000 more troops, then we should pull out. If the president truly wants victory, then ask for 300,000 or so. Ask for a draft if you need it. If you can't get it, then America has spoken. These half-assed surges are doing nothing.

[Nikolay]

"It will be far worse. It will either become an Iranian client state"
OK, what possible action could prevent Iraq from becoming an Iranian client state? You might as well say "but they will all be Muslims there when we leave!" Sure, they will be Muslims, and there's nothing you could do about that.
Iraq turning into an Iranian client state was ensured the moment US was goaded into invading the country by the Iranian spy (Chalabi) and gave power to Iranian parties (SCIRI etc.)

[BobInStamford]

Bill O'Reilly does not support the troops. He hates our freedom. He needs to follow the example of the Decider and stay the course.

The SURGE is WORKING, heros!!

[Purple Avenger]

O’Reilly is an ass.

[Buzzy]

O'Reilly doesn't even pretend to be conservative. He's correct on some matters, wrong on some others and talks too much about everything. I don't watch him much anymore.

LOL, that's probably the most intelligent thing you've written on this site. I wholeheartedly agree that 300k is the number and that 20k to 50k "surges" while helping will only protract the war. Having just gotten over a sinus infection I'll liken our efforts to antibiotics. You get your prescription and are told to take the whole bottle even if you get feeling better before they're gone. You've got to get rid of all those nasty bacteria and if you stop taking the meds too soon they just come back stronger and more resistant. Iraq's infection come from two foreign substances that need to be removed, al Qaeda and Iran. Al Qaeda can be removed and actually we're doing a pretty fair job of it lately but we're never going to stop Iran's arming Shi'a militias as long as the border is wide open and we're afraid of pissing off the Iraqi Shi'a politicians.

Iraq WILL be nothing more than an Iranian stooge. I honestly don't believe that there is anything we can do at this point to prevent it. That was a forgone conclusion when we handed a Shi'a majority Iraq a democratic vote.

My history in the Middle East is with the Kurds and I count many of them among my friends. I have long contended that leadership of all of Iraq should have been handed to the Kurds with strong oversight to ensure that both Sunni and Shi'a were stripped of the ability to wage terror but treated well and fairly. Not a perfect solution by any means but much better than what we ended up with.

No, I'm not happy with either Bush or the war in Iraq, but that doesn't mean I'll lay down with the surrender monkeys of the Democratic Party either. I was about to swing that way, just as an alternative to Bush's "stay the course" message but Pelosi's hob nobbing with Assad and Reid's "the war is lost" speech showed me once again how terribly naive they are about our nations enemies and terrorism in general. Then there is Obama's plan to double our foreign aid to terrorist sponser states so "they'll like us more" and Hillary's (God, who in the hell knows what Hillary will actually do before she doesn't anymore), Edwards is just a joke, a prissy silky pony $400 haircut floating in empty space.

What I do know is that America is at far greater risk today because the Democrats wanted to attack Bush harder than they wanted to attack the terrorists. I knew all was lost when Bill Clinton forgot that he too made speeches about Saddam's WMDs, dropped bombs on Iraq, and sent men there to fight and die.

[southdakotaboy]

Why is it that we never really back the best guys in these third world crap holes. If anyone with half a brain looked at the three largest ethnic groups in Iraq ( shia, kurds, sunni arabs) the best are the Kurds.
Just look what they have done after over 10 years without Sadam. The Kurds show that the people of the middle east can be productive successful people and they are worth trying to save.
What the Dems should be doing is come up with a plan that makes the rest of Iraq look like Kurdistan.
And if we start up the draft lets get them right out of highschool and leave them in the millitary for about 6 years. They would have 9 weeks basic, 1.5 years vocational training and the rest could be devoted to actually being good at what ever duties they were assigned. Make manditory savings plans for them to, so when they get out they have a nice nest egg to buy a house or something or complete college (something constructive not booze and chicks/guys ).

[nowinger]

That's true, but if we had put the Kurds in charge, wouldn't that be also inviting disaster since they are such a small minority? Sometimes the smartest move is no move at all, we should have never gone into Iraq and toppled his government. Yes, now we're stuck there and have to find some kind of resolution. But, what's it going to be? If the Iraqis aren't ready or able to manage a functioning democracy we can't change that unless we are committing to a decade or more over there. We have to face facts, we went into a country and apparently didn't consider the religious and ethnic issue. Its virtually impossible to believe that, but how else to explain that we ended up disenfranchising the Sunnis and putting the Shia in control of the country and then have been SHOCKED that they're getting orders from Iran? Wouldn't this have been uncovered as likely in Iraq Planning 101? In hindsight, seems like we should have backed the Sunnis since they would have the defacto support of the rest of the arab world and would hostile to Iran automatically. Membership in the Ba ath party was likely the same as the old communistu party in the USSR, if you wanted to get ahead you joined, sure there would be some true believers, but weeding them out might have been a better idea than what we did. The situation is fucked now. We let it get out of hand and there is no putting the revenge genie back in the bottle. We have to cut our losses and get out within 2 years.

[templar knight]

Damn, I just saw a pig fly by. Nowinger is actually trying to make some sense. Split Iraq into three separate entities, just like the Turks did. Make them republics, provinces, whatever you want to call them, but split them along ethnic line, ie Kurds, Shia, Sunni. That it how it is going to end up anyway. This is about the only way left.

[southdakotaboy]

Nowinger step back for a minute and look at the pro's and con's of staying for the next ten years.

Con's : Higher American death toll. Huge expansion of the millitary beyond volunteer force. Huge short term and long term costs.

Pro's : Disproving to the Arab world and world at large that America is a paper tiger. Bigger and more combat experienced millitary. A stable Democracy in the heart of the middle east. Being able to cut Iran off from large scale interaction with the rest of the world.

[warrenb]

Bill Oreilly is emboldening the enemy his trash talk. The surge IS working because King Cheney said so...It is a slam dunk! 15 month troop rotations and no less will get the job done. No artificial timetables...Actually no timetable at all. Surge and Surge only is the only way to victory....

Uh what is "victory" again? I forgot what the goal of nonsense actually is?

SURGE ON indeed.

[warrenb]

Bill Oreilly is emboldening the enemy his trash talk. The surge IS working because King Cheney said so...It is a slam dunk! 15 month troop rotations and no less will get the job done. No artificial timetables...Actually no timetable at all. Surge and Surge only is the only way to victory....

Uh what is "victory" again? I forgot what the goal of nonsense actually is?

SURGE ON indeed.

[nowinger]

I wouldn't have a problem with that, I would rather see a democratic Iraq than an Iraq ruled by a dictator with a different name than Hussein or turn into an ongoing bloodbath that expands to the rest of the ME. However, this is what happens when you declare victory too soon and continually overstate the progress that is being made, its hard to go back, after 4 years of saying we were turning the corner and then say, we need another 10 years at least. I don't believe its realistic, and not only because of the Democrats or the Ameircan public. I'm not sure that US troops in Iraq for that long, really being an occupying power a la the old British system wouldn't provoke even more jihadists to flock to Iraq and martyr themselves to kill some Americans. From what I've read, the reason that partitioning Iraq is a bad idea is that nobody would abide by it, it would precipitate full scale war with the sunni states backing sunnis and Iran backing the Shias and they would fight for control over the whole country.

It's also beyond my understanding that our military has had 30 years to learn the lessons of Vietnam in fighting an insurgency, shouldn't we have perfected a symetrical warfare and Iraq should have been a perfect testing ground for new strategies of how an organized army can fight a guerilla army and win? It LOOKS like, the army learned nothing and no new stragegies for fighting rogue elements in villages and cities have been developed. It LOOKS like the army has been playing with its tech toys for the last 30 years and done squat to rejigger itself for fighting these kinds of conflicts which are most likley the type we will encounter in the future. Hard to understand, it should have been a showcase for our military superiority not only technology but strategically as well. Instead, we come out looking slow, stupid and easy to bog down with this kind of terror tactics. That is all bad for the future security of this country.

[nowinger]

PS, also in order to support a truly long term commitment I would need to know WHO made all these bad decisions, was it the military, in which case I couldn't support it because I would have no confidence that 10 more years would yield a better result...if the military planners were overruled by Wolfowitz and his cadre and it was the neocons who were making all these bad decisions, then I would be willing to give the military, real military, another chance to succeed. However, the truth of who was really running the show for the last 4 years isn't going to come out for several more years. Its hard to trust a team that has failed consistently to miraculously get smart and start suceeding.

[Phoenix]

Good comments. Good analysis, Dan.

I've lost all respect for O'Reilly. His ego won't let him stop with the first-person declarations of BS that follow whatever will keep his ratings up. A phony.

It really is true that we tend to think other people think as we do. We have been brought up to believe in the power of individualism and that we can do anything we want if we try hard enough. It is a most wonderful American trait. And it's also common to project the way we think onto others. The 'great' intellectuals whose tomes we still study as if they are the be all and the end all had a common denominator that ultimately lead to the failure of their great ideas to 'fix' the world: They did not take into account human nature. They were totally detached from it as if ideas alone could work magic.

I believe in the beginning that we all thought the Iraqis would embrace liberty, but it is apparent that generations of oppression and violent trauma have left them unable to grasp what our idea of freedom is. We can't fault them.

It is so damn sad to think a culture can cause such trauma that the minds of those immersed in that culture do not have a clue that they deserve better. If they understood, as we do, that each individual counts as worthy, they would be able to fight for that scintilla of self-worth.

I'm leaving the politics out. Our good intent seems to have fallen victim to deeply scarred minds. We will learn from this, but I don't think that learning will be hailed as victory.

[Phoenix]

I was too slow..... Not all the comments are good.

God, I am so damn naive sometimes.

[Kelvin]

Rednecks are funny.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/26/weapons.raids.ap/index.html

[David M]

Trackbacked by The Thunder Run - Web Reconnaissance for 04/27/2007 http://thunderrun.blogspot.com/2007/04/web-reconnaissance-for-04272007.html
A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention.

[Tessy Bryan]

The current strategy in Iraq is a losing and slow bleeding nonsense strategy. We are fighting an enemy that is determined
and ruthless. Doing it halfway and halfheartedly is stupid. Fight with all you got and face Iran in the process or get out and stop the bleeding! The Iraq government is a JOKE and is using the US!
Build a wall/stop the wall/ fight Sadr/stop fighting Sadr!!!!
What a farce!
Get out because we do not have the WILL to fight a REAL war.
Iraq should be partitioned and we can help the Kurds, regroup, save money and have a REAL STRATEGY to face: Iran, Putin, Syria... before it's too late!

[Fred Beloit]

zerodegreeskelvinBoob, when you gonna git offen yeo fat a-- and come ta 'bama an tell us in person. Y'all come, heah.

[Kelvin]

Go to Alabama?? I don't think so. Lighten up!

Cmon, isn't it a bit funny to think of the rednecks v. the mexicans? Of course, the rednecks would ultimately lose - they aren't know for their ambition or stick-to-itness.

[Fred Beloit]

Why not go to Alabama? Warm climate, Gulf coast, hospitable people, love their children, kind to old folks. A lot to like.

[Fred Beloit]

BTW I believe the word is stick-to-it-ive-ness.

[Sue]

Hear! Hear! Well put. Now, is the Western World ready for the insanity that is to follow all over the planet? There is no safety zone anywhere, anymore. Here in the U.S. the citizens will take care of the "danger" if the authorities don't. That is who we are for a time yet. It will be bloody and ugly but we still have a little bit of balls left. But, maybe not. I come from another time, another age, another culture. The new American culture left me behind decades ago. I may be old, but I will fight! How many of the young today would?

[Kelvin]

I'm glad to see that Sue is willing to take on the Mexicans.

[Phoenix]

",,, what we will be guaranteeing ourselves is subsequent generations of Middle Eastern populations ripe for exploitation by terrorist groups and governments like al Qaeda and Iran."

On the news now: Saudi Arabia has uncovered a 'huge' Al Qaeda plot the likes of 9/11 - on their country.

Does anyone not get it now? Go to the next post and read Victor David Hanson's article that Dan linked.

[nowinger]

I'm not exactly who Sue thinks she's going to be fighting, whether she's going to vigilante and start rounding up anyone she thinks is a muslim or sympathizer and 'take care' of them, or if she is envisioning that somehow a large muslim army is going to land on our shores, despite the US navy, army, air force, marine corp and coast guard, or if she thinks get ahold of intercontinental ballistic missles and launch them at us from the ME or what....

[nowinger]

I don't believe the Saudis anymore than I believe the Bush Administration, it might be a real terrorist plot or it might be some Saudis that the House of Saud wants to get rid of and so labels them terrorists. This is what happens when you lie and torture suspects, decent people don't find you credible and can't trust what you say.

[Kelvin]

Hey, let me tell you about Sue. She may be old, but she has balls and knows a Muslim when she sees one and what to do about it. She should be sent off to go find bin Laden - sounds like the right person for the job.

[jong]

You guys hear that Mitt Romney said catching Osama Bin Laden wasn't worth the money it would cost?

Good thing it a was a Repub and not Pelosi that said that or Dan and friends would be apoplectic.

[templar knight]

Hmm....how long has it been since we've heard from Osama? I have a feeling we will never have to hear from Obama again. He's celebrating with his raisins.

[LOL]

I certainly think that any withdrawal plans should leave some small force in the Kurdish northern areas, as that group seems to have little problem with American presence.

[templar knight]

LOL, if American soldiers are left in the Kurdish enclave, they will become a target for the jihadists. I doubt whether the Kurds could completely control their borders. Of course, America will be a target of the jihadists worldwide, wherever there is a Muslim population in which the jihadists can operate. So look for attacks in Germany and Britain.