Wednesday, July 25, 2007

Exhibit 72 of Liberal disingenuousness re. Iraq

Jonah Goldberg poses a great question to the Left regarding their emerging consensus that genocide in Iraq (upon an U.S. withdrawal) would be no biggie.
Posted by at
Labels:

6 comments:

Sean Braisted said...

I like how the term "civil war" has now been replaced by "genocide". If I'm not mistaken, there are already sectarian killings occurring on a large scale even with US Soldiers deployed in heavy numbers in Iraq. The question is, should we maintain our current force level in Iraq because things could get worse? Or should we attempt to try other avenues with the hopes that things may get better?

7/26/2007 08:22:00 AM
ned said...

"Replaced" by whom? I don't concede that the circumstances in Iraq constitute a civil war (or will constitute one) and the op/ed relates to the high probability that leaving Iraq now (or too soon) will result in disorder and "genocide" as Jihadists are given free rein of the country (and that part of the world).

While I'm not sure I understand your comment (i.e., what "new avenues" do you have in mind? don't you think new strategies like the surge need to be actually given a chance to succeed?), but the question (posed by my post) is whether Democrats are being inconsistent on this issue for political expedience; hence, being disingenuous.

7/26/2007 10:28:00 AM
Sean Braisted said...

Define Genocide? Because genocide typically requires that one large group (usually the Government) disproportionally kills another group (usually civilians). Currently, there is large-scale sectarian violence, with dozens of be-headings a day, occurring in Iraq. But both sides are doing it.

So what makes you think the violence would turn into a one-sided kill fest once we leave? Or is it that currently the violence is a minor annoyance, but once the US leaves, the blood will really begin to spill?

As for Democrats being inconsistent, I don't know what you are referring to? Your assumption is that a "genocide" (more so than is already occurring) will occur if and when we leave...what evidence do you have to support that?

7/26/2007 01:14:00 PM
ned said...

I think your definition of "genocide" is accurate, but our disconnect is on your premise that (a) this is a civil war that (b) will either die down or get no worse if/when America forces would just leave. My premise is that the motivation for much of the violence (against civilians) in Iraq is precisely intended to promote chaos, incite intra-Iraqi enmity and drag out the war, so defeating Jihadist elements in Iraq will end much of what is presently characterized as "insurgent" or "internecine" violence.

But the point of my post is that if those purportedly moved to action by genocide don't seem too moved by the prospect of genocide in Iraq. Read the article for the "evidence" folks are offering that it will happen.

7/26/2007 01:27:00 PM
Sean Braisted said...

Ned,

If we agree on the definition of "genocide" then I don't see how this is a "genocide". The assumption that it is just the "jihadists" doing the sectarian violence is, in my opinion, simplistic. As is the assumption that we can just "kill them" and then Iraq will be all unicorns and rainbows.

I don't know if a redeployment out of the Sunni triangle will cause or reduce violence; but our strategy (surge and all) seems to be effectively broken. Sectarian violence hasn't reduced in large numbers in the heavy combat areas of Iraq, and while we can point to some areas in Iraq that are doing better because of our presence, the portrait in the Sunni-triangle seems to be pretty bleak.

If our redeployment eliminates some of the reasons why these people are joining sectarian militias, perhaps overall violence will eventually go down in Iraq, perhaps not, we won't know anything for sure until it happens.

7/26/2007 02:38:00 PM
ned said...

First of all, I don't consider you disingenuous, so this post was hardly directed at you or your policy stances.

But, no, the genocide is what some are saying will happen if/when we hastily withdraw forces.

And my view is that Jihadists are fomenting "civil strife."

And the point of the post was that many of the savedarfur.org crowd are indifferent (knowingly or knee-jerkingly) to a situation that will almost definitely deteriorate to genocide if we withdraw at this point.

And come, come . . . you're reading the reports (Scott Thomas' excepted) from Iraq about the surge to say that it is "broken"?

7/26/2007 03:06:00 PM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)