MORE TROOPS FOR IRAQ?

Wayne Lusvardi writes:

I refer to an article in "Foreign Affairs" headed "What Went Wrong With Iraq": The article is a sobering analysis of the Iraq War that makes the case that the main blunder was the lack of troop deployment by the U.S.

As a Vietnam War vet, I question the notion that what has been needed are more troops and a broader coalition with European forces involved. The experience of Vietnam is clear - the more troops you flood the country with, the more reliant the Iraqis will be on them to fight their war for them. This is what happened in Vietnam. The Vietnamese embraced the trappings of modernity (the motor scooters, the crappy American music, the money that comes from various sorts of prostitution and patronage) but, despite some valiant battles, didn't really want to fight their own war. The Iraqis don't even want to embrace modernity let alone fight for anything beyond their tribe. Flooding the country with more outside troops won't solve that. Like big welfare programs, big warfare programs will only make the populace more dependent. The prospect of a partition such as occurred in Korea and Germany is now becoming more apparent. But will Baghdad be in the Iranian camp or in the Iraqi camp?

*************************************

ELSEWHERE

A great letter from a U.S. Marine here: Just one excerpt: "The pre-emptive doctrine of the current administration will continue to be debated long after I'm gone, but one fact stands for itself: America has not been hit with another catastrophic attack since 9/11. I firmly believe that our actions in Afghanistan and Iraq are major reasons that we've had it so good at home. Building a "fortress America" is not only impractical, it's impossible. Prudent homeland security measures are vital, to be sure, but attacking the source of the threat remains essential".

This sounds apocryphal but I like it: "T. Bubba Bechtol, part time City Councilman from Pensacola, Florida, was asked on a local live radio talk show the other day just what he thought of the allegations of torture of the Iraqi prisoners. His reply prompted his ejection from the studio, but to thunderous applause from the audience: "If hooking up an Iraqi prisoner's scrotum to a car's battery cables will save one American GI's life, then I have just two things to say: "Red is positive, black is negative""

I have just been reading Michelle Malkin's brilliant book In Defense of Internment, which rightly says that "everything you have been taught about the World war II "internment camps" in America is wrong". A very minor bonus I got from the book is to note that her real surname is "Maglalang", which is obviously from the Tagalog language. I had always carelessly assumed that her ancestry was Japanese. From the name, it is in fact Filipino. As the WWII internments were the work of America's first socialist President (FDR), no conservative should feel much need to defend them but the facts show that what was done was both reasonable and carried out with overall humanity. And since Left-leaning historians have managed to convince just about everybody that the internments are a blot on America's honour (rather than on FDR's) it is good to find that the whole story about them is a great load of steaming dung. But I will not try to summarize a big book beyond that. Regnery are one of the few commercial publishers of conservative books so, if you are the book-buying type, log on here to read more about the book and perhaps buy it.

More glories of socialized medicine: "The healthcare research group, Dr Foster, reports today in the British Medical Journal that one in every ten patients admitted to NHS hospitals in Britain will suffer at the hands of medical errors. Such errors contribute to the deaths of 72,000 people a year, and are directly blamed for the deaths of 40,000 people. Medical errors in the NHS now constitute the fourth largest cause of death in Britain. The charity Action Against Medical Accidents states that the figures under-estimate total errors by not including those which take place at the primary care level of family doctors, and are based only on reported errors. The figures do not include hospital-acquired infections".

A pretty sensible editorial in USA Today about the importation of cheap drugs from Canada into the USA. If the U.S. administration had given the drug companies more support in their negotiations with foreign governments, the artificially high prices for Americans would never have happened.

There is a good post here pointing out that the Leftist hunger for change often leads to large costs (like death) for the individuals involved. I personally think that hunger for change for change's sake is pretty infantile. I have had a great life with lots of changes in it (including four wives) but I did not need to do anything radical in order to remain interested.

"Spectator" on Go Nuclear: Makes a good case for atomic power but it relies too much on running-out-of-oil ideas: "Rod Liddle says the answer to our energy needs is obvious: cheap and reliable nuclear power. But before we can embrace a sane future we have to overcome the Cold War superstitions of the Green Left"

Gipperism of the week: "..when Reagan was offered a ride on a submersible to get a look at the continental shelf, The Gipper turned it down, cracking, "I get claustrophobia when I draw the curtains." "

Leftist warmongers: "Contrary to the conventional wisdom, American imperialism is, at its roots, a left-wing disorder rather than a conservative impulse. A seemingly ceaseless supply of new books and radio talk-show commentary in support of George W. Bush and his foreign policy give the impression that the only controversy in America worth mentioning involves patriotic Bush supporters and knee-jerk opposition to war by liberals. Two arguments are being made here: that the Iraq War and foreign-policy aggressiveness constitute the self-evidently correct conservative position and that liberals are philosophically and historically squeamish about going to war. The first of these arguments has been addressed at length in these pages. It is the second claim, involving the American Left's alleged aversion to war, that remains to be overturned, for ever since the Spanish-American War of 1898, leftists have more often than not been at the forefront of calls for American military intervention abroad".

Promethean Antagonist is a bit unusual. He not only blogs from Japan but takes astrology seriously. He notes that astrology seems to be mostly Left-leaning but explains why "that aint necessarily so". His account of his trip to Fascist China is more outspoken than we usually hear now that everybody wants to think the best of China's reforms.

For more postings, see GREENIE WATCH, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH and GUN WATCH. Mirror sites here, here and here

********************************

Leftists acclaim "diversity" yet say "All men are equal". Figure that one out.

Why can those who claim to understand the dangers of meddling with a complex ecosystem like the natural environment, not understand that government interference with a complex system like the economy is perilous too?

The conflict between conservatives and Leftists is not usually a conflict between realists and idealists. Mostly it is a conflict between realists and people who will say anything to win applause

Comments? Email me here. If there are no recent posts here blame Blogger.com and visit my mirror site here or here. My Home Page is here or here.

********************************