Neocon Apologizes for Iraq War

No, seriously, he apologizes. It's sort of mind-boggling.

John Derbyshire, conservative columnist, eats crow and declares that he was wrong about the whole thing.

Key quotes:

We are stuck there in that wretched place with no way out that would not involve massive loss of geostrategic face. Getting on for 3,000 of our troops have been killed, and close to 20,000 maimed. We’ve spent untold billions of dollars. For what?

One reason I supported the initial attack, and the destruction of the Saddam regime, was that I hoped it would serve as an example, deliver a psychic shock to the whole region. It would have done, if we’d just rubbled the place then left. As it is, the shock value has all been frittered away. Far from being seen as a nation willing to act resolutely, a nation that knows how to punish our enemies, a nation that can smash one of those ramshackle Mideast despotisms with one blow from our mailed fist, a nation to be feared and respected, we are perceived as a soft and foolish nation, that squanders its victories and permits its mighty military power to be held to standoff by teenagers with homemade bombs—that lets crooks and bandits tie it down, Gulliver-like, with a thousand little threads of blackmail, trickery, lies, and petty violence.

Just ask yourself: Given that Iran is the real looming threat in that region, are we better placed now to deal with that threat than we would have been absent an Iraq war? If we could ask President Ahmadinejad whether he thinks we are better placed, what would his honest answer be?

We are not controlling events in Iraq. Events in Iraq are controlling us. We are the puppet; the street gangs of Baghdad and Basra are the puppet-masters, aided and abetted by an unsavory assortment of confidence men, bazaar traders, scheming clerics, ethnic front men, and Iranian agents. With all our wealth and power and idealism, we have submitted to become the plaything of a rabble, and a Middle Eastern rabble at that. Instead of rubbling, we have ourselves been rabbled. The lazy-minded evangelico-romanticism of George W. Bush, the bureaucratic will to power of Donald Rumsfeld, the avuncular condescension of Dick Cheney, and the reflexive military deference of Colin Powell combined to get us into a situation we never wanted to be in, a situation no self-respecting nation ought to be in, a situation we don’t know how to get out of. It’s not inconceivable that, with a run of sheer good luck, we might yet escape without too much egg on our faces, but it’s not likely.

He appears to be less contrite about the deaths (note he doesn't even bother with Iraqis killed) than how soft the US has been to the locals.

He seems to wish that a long range attack on Iraq would have shown "them"... something. Something good obviously and It Would Have Sorted Everything Out.

Does he not understand that carpet bombing Iraq - regardless if it's Basra or elsewhere or both would be worse in terms of world opinion - and probably wouldn't tackle Saddam.

Or was it attack, depose Saddam and then leave? He'd be back within the month with fanatical support from the populace that he was in fact right all along!

Apology? :laugh4:

~:smoking:

Oh, look ... a "sheet-of-glass"-loony

:inquisitive:

Who's the sheet-of-glass loony, me, Rory or Derbyshire? And what does that mean, exactly?

This kinds implies "Why didn't we torch the place and leave it in smoldering ruins?"

I agree with rory, that the columnist is more worried about the image of the US than human life.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Who's the sheet-of-glass loony, me, Rory or Derbyshire? And what does that mean, exactly?

---

Derbyshire of course - statements like these

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by John Derbyshire

It would have done, if we’d just rubbled the place then left.

[...]

a nation that can smash one of those ramshackle Mideast despotisms with one blow from our mailed fist,

[...]

we have submitted to become the plaything of a rabble, and a Middle Eastern rabble at that.

---

remind me of the gung-ho types who say that the whole region should be turned into a sheet of glass (i.e. nuked)

You can't be serious - think of the poor oil!!!

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

It would have done, if we’d just rubbled the place then left.

---

The article, and this sentiment, shows that he just doesn't get it.

The neo-cons don't seem to understand their own countrymen. Apart from a very few nut-jobs, as far as I can see the vast majority of the American people won't stand for 'rubbling' countries. They might react that way when something truly shocking like 9-11 comes along, but they get mighty guilt-stricken at the pictures of 'rubbled' children. This is the country that 'rubbled' Japan and Germany, and then rebuilt them into stable countries.

Sure the current administration has led the country astray. But this is as much the fault of the Democratic party for not providing a credible alternative.

I believe most Americans just want to be left in peace and security. All of the ones I know have no desire to be the new Roman Empire. The neo-cons need to move to another country - maybe Afganistan will listen.

What makes this fellow a neocon?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

What makes this fellow a neocon?

---

His desire to see American military might dominating the world.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spetulhu

His desire to see American military might dominating the world.

---

Is this one of his views?

What makes this fellow a neocon?

Well thats a problem with defining peoples positions isn't it . He describes himself as a paleo not a neo , yet the stances he takes a mixture of old and new on different issues .
There you go a new topic , perspective and identity of rightism ~;)
JD has been known to get quite emotional in taking some positions:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

Derbyshire - what a strange fellow. I like his stance on immigration, for starters. And his radio program thingy rocks. I didn't realize he was so all over the spectrum. Thanks for the wiki, Lemur.

I'm disappointed that he thinks we should withdraw, but to an extent I agree with him. A little more show of force, best manifested in a much larger deployment, would have helped, I think.

Before this devolves into a "Derbyshire is an evil conservative like the rest of the racist neanderthals" thread, I'd like to post my small hope that we'll make it through OK in Iraq. There's plenty of (admittedly biased and blog-based) good news out there in Iraq. I think that maybe, just maybe, Iraq can become like the Phillipines in the early twentieth century, except for the colony part.

not an apology. just bad irony.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ser Clegane

the whole region should be turned into a sheet of glass (i.e. nuked)

---

quote=Divinus Arma /quote

:balloon2:

Quote:

---

I believe most Americans just want to be left in peace and security. All of the ones I know have no desire to be the new Roman Empire. The neo-cons need to move to another country - maybe Afganistan will listen.

---

As an American, I could not agree more with the first sentence. We've been poking our nose into everyone else's business for so long now that it's no wonder we get a bloody one from time to time. As to the second point...well that's the problem isn't it? A nation can't very well send its military forces into another country uninvited and expect the rest of the world to not think of them as "empire building" in the process. Afghanistan was a different matter in my opinon. The coalition had the moral right to go there and seek out its enemies. The fact that some in power have direct ties with the oil consortiums and international investment firms who want to construct a pipeline there throws taints this action, but that is just MHO also. Don't really know what to say about the third point. Perhaps they should become American citizens, republicans even, and have a more active role in the imperialistic dreams of some of my fellow Americans.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spetulhu

His desire to see American military might dominating the world.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pindar

Is this one of his views?

---

"One reason I supported the initial attack, and the destruction of the Saddam regime, was that I hoped it would serve as an example, deliver a psychic shock to the whole region. It would have done, if we’d just rubbled the place then left. As it is, the shock value has all been frittered away. Far from being seen as a nation willing to act resolutely, a nation that knows how to punish our enemies, a nation that can smash one of those ramshackle Mideast despotisms with one blow from our mailed fist, a nation to be feared and respected, we are perceived as a soft and foolish nation, that squanders its victories and permits its mighty military power to be held to standoff by teenagers with homemade bombs—that lets crooks and bandits tie it down, Gulliver-like, with a thousand little threads of blackmail, trickery, lies, and petty violence."

Doesn't this sound like it? He wants everyone to fear and respect the US for it's military power.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spetulhu

"One reason I supported the initial attack, and the destruction of the Saddam regime, was that I hoped it would serve as an example, deliver a psychic shock to the whole region. It would have done, if we’d just rubbled the place then left. As it is, the shock value has all been frittered away. Far from being seen as a nation willing to act resolutely, a nation that knows how to punish our enemies, a nation that can smash one of those ramshackle Mideast despotisms with one blow from our mailed fist, a nation to be feared and respected, we are perceived as a soft and foolish nation, that squanders its victories and permits its mighty military power to be held to standoff by teenagers with homemade bombs—that lets crooks and bandits tie it down, Gulliver-like, with a thousand little threads of blackmail, trickery, lies, and petty violence."

Doesn't this sound like it? He wants everyone to fear and respect the US for it's military power.

---

No, it sounds like he likes decisive victories over U.S. enemies. The above doesn't mention U.S. military might dominating the world.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

What makes this fellow a neocon?

Well thats a problem with defining peoples positions isn't it . He describes himself as a paleo not a neo , yet the stances he takes a mixture of old and new on different issues .

---

That would seem to suggest he is not a necon then.

It also suggests he is not a paleo-con either .

The "victories" of which he speaks and the methods of achieving them appear to be at the level of a 5 year old: no thought about consequences afterwards either in or out of the country.

If the USA is to achieve "victories" with their mailed fist all over the road, how is this to be achieved without military domination?

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

[B]He describes himself as a paleo not a neo.

---

And therein lies the Lemur's folly. I should have titled the thread "Paleocon Apologizes," not "Neocon Apologizes." My bad. Political affiliations are elastic and amorphous enough that I tend to take people at their word. If they say they're an anarcho-syndicate capitalist, then that's what they are.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

You can't be serious - think of the poor oil!!!

~:smoking:

---

ahahahah....classic....:laugh4:

We are stuck there in that wretched place with no way out that would not involve massive loss of geostrategic face. Getting on for 3,000 of our troops have been killed, and close to 20,000 maimed. We’ve spent untold billions of dollars. For what?

One reason I supported the initial attack, and the destruction of the Saddam regime, was that I hoped it would serve as an example, deliver a psychic shock to the whole region. It would have done, if we’d just rubbled the place then left. As it is, the shock value has all been frittered away. Far from being seen as a nation willing to act resolutely, a nation that knows how to punish our enemies, a nation that can smash one of those ramshackle Mideast despotisms with one blow from our mailed fist, a nation to be feared and respected, we are perceived as a soft and foolish nation, that squanders its victories and permits its mighty military power to be held to standoff by teenagers with homemade bombs—that lets crooks and bandits tie it down, Gulliver-like, with a thousand little threads of blackmail, trickery, lies, and petty violence.

Just ask yourself: Given that Iran is the real looming threat in that region, are we better placed now to deal with that threat than we would have been absent an Iraq war? If we could ask President Ahmadinejad whether he thinks we are better placed, what would his honest answer be?

We are not controlling events in Iraq. Events in Iraq are controlling us. We are the puppet; the street gangs of Baghdad and Basra are the puppet-masters, aided and abetted by an unsavory assortment of confidence men, bazaar traders, scheming clerics, ethnic front men, and Iranian agents. With all our wealth and power and idealism, we have submitted to become the plaything of a rabble, and a Middle Eastern rabble at that. Instead of rubbling, we have ourselves been rabbled. The lazy-minded evangelico-romanticism of George W. Bush, the bureaucratic will to power of Donald Rumsfeld, the avuncular condescension of Dick Cheney, and the reflexive military deference of Colin Powell combined to get us into a situation we never wanted to be in, a situation no self-respecting nation ought to be in, a situation we don’t know how to get out of. It’s not inconceivable that, with a run of sheer good luck, we might yet escape without too much egg on our faces, but it’s not likely.

Doh?

And therein lies the Lemur's folly. I should have titled the thread "Paleocon Apologizes," not "Neocon Apologizes." My bad.
No bad at all ,he describes himself as a Paleo but takes a Neo stance on some things , it must be all the emotional identity problems that are associated with rightism , conservatism , etc-ism .

Perhaps a better title would have been .......
"criminal homophobic racist eats crow"