Prosecuting The War On Terror!

One of my favorite quotes for prosecuting the current Global War on Terror is this:

"...we will surprise ourselves by facing up to the reality that you can't be a great power unless you are prepared to risk your own citizens' lives. If we discover the strength of character to do the right thing, there is still the question of whether European nations will also be prepared to join in."

Now, I have to admit a bit of subterfuge, I left out part of the above quote because it really wasn't about the GWOT, it was about Kosovo. Here, is the full quote:

Barring a sudden collapse of will on the part of Serbia, there seem to be two possibilities: Either we will shame ourselves by accepting the elimination of Kosovo's Albanians as a fait accompli (perhaps while continuing to throw bombs at Serbia now and then), or we will surprise ourselves by facing up to the reality that you can't be a great power unless you are prepared to risk your own citizens' lives. If we discover the strength of character to do the right thing, there is still the question of whether European nations will also be prepared to join in.

Let's make a couple of changes in the above, e.g.:

Barring a sudden collapse of will on the part of Serbia islamofascists, there seem to be two possibilities: Either we will shame ourselves by accepting the elimination of Kosovo's Albanians Iraqi freedom as a fait accompli (perhaps while continuing to throw bombs at Serbia the islamofascists now and then), or we will surprise ourselves by facing up to the reality that you can't be a great power unless you are prepared to risk your own citizens' lives. If we discover the strength of character to do the right thing, there is still the question of whether European nations will also be prepared to join in.

Of course, standing up for what is right, regardless of what the cost may be is totally foreign to a hack like Paul Krugman who recently said in an NYTimes column:

Let me explain. The United States will soon have to start reducing force levels in Iraq, or risk seeing the volunteer Army collapse. Yet the administration and its supporters have effectively prevented any adult discussion of the need to get out.

Adult discussion? Not too many years ago, Krugman said this:

I remember once (during the air phase of the Gulf War) seeing John Kenneth Galbraith making pronouncements on TV about the military situation, and telling friends that if I ever start pontificating in public about a technical subject I don't understand, they should gag me.

Well, get out the gag. Krugman has no idea of what he was talking about and certainly has no expertise in anything except bashing Bush and anything Republican/conservative or to the right of Paul Krugman. But, I digress, let's get back to that supposed "adult discussion." I've heard that before from those that let their anti-Bush feelings overcome their ability to think rationally (as one of my commenters recently noted "if the shoe fits... wear it.") While I don't object to any discussion from the opposit side of the fence regarding the GWOT or Bush or Republicans, I object like hell to any attempt to shut down discussion with ad hominem attacks designed not to further discussion, but to shut it down.

I can hear it now, "But you do, your commentors do, the right does it all the time." Correct, but I at least can try to minimize it. There are those on the left that use it with every argument to the exclusion of any other type of argument. And its childish, and its non productive and having said that, I understand that anyone can be pushed into it. But Krugman's comment is a typical ad hominem attack. "Adult discussion," and if you argue against a draw down, you aren't being adult. Right Mr. Krugman!

In other blogs, such as QandO Jon Henke discusses Krugman's column. In fact, I borrowed the Krugman quote from his posting for which I give a tip of the GM Chapeaux. Other blogs also rip apart Mr. Krugman. Tigerhawk does a good job, even if he says he needs a chill pill following that. So does Keith Burgess-Jackson over at the Anal Philosopher

Krugman's column (and no, I won't link to it... go to the NYTimes if you want to read that) notes the "increasing" poll numbers showing the GWOT is running out of steam in terms of the support given by the American People. And that is true too, but not for the reasons the left and Krugman would have you believe. The reason is simple, Americans respond to the news, and the news is negative. If you ask a poll question and slant it, you can get any answer you want. For example, compare the following two poll questions on the GWOT:

1. Given the increase in the number of casualties, should the US consider setting a deadline for getting out of Iraq?
2. Given the increase in the number of casualties among the insurgents, and the increase in the frequency of the capture of insurgents, should the US consider getting out before the job is done?

You can get almost any response from a poll if you want. That's why G.W. Bush doesn't pay attention to them (which of course leads to the question as to why Bill Clinton paid so much attention to them) and why touting polls is a meaningless exercise in the discussion. In fact, polls showing that Kerry was behind and staying behind were denied by the left with "Polls don't show what is going on." Unless of course the polls run against Bush, in which case polls are the Oracle at Delphi.

Krugman is such a hack, I wonder why I waste my time dissing him. Maybe I need to take one of Tigerhawks Chill Pills.

Oh, before I go, the quote about putting our soldiers at risk as a measure of "the strength of character to do the right thing." Heh, that was from Krugman too. And for once, he was right.

Major HT to Donald Luskin

Posted by GM Roper at June 25, 2005 09:06 PM | TrackBack