Month: January 2007

A reader responds to John O’Sullivan’s case for staying in Iraq:

All of the arguments I’ve been reading simplify matters, even when they, as this argument by John O’Sullivan does, show other arguments to be overly simple.

The International Crisis Group, in response to the ISG analysis, reports:

"Contrary to the Baker-Hamilton report’s suggestion, the Iraqi government and security forces cannot be treated as privileged allies to be bolstered; they are simply one among many parties to the conflict. The report characterises the government as a "government of national unity" that is "broadly representative of the Iraqi people": it is nothing of the sort. … The only logical conclusion from the report’s own lucid analysis is that the government is not a partner in an effort to stem the violence, nor will strengthening it contribute to Iraq’s stability."

This report by John O’Sullivan gives too much credit to this "national unity" government, saying it is one of "three politico-military forces that could plausibly win the kind of military victory that would determine the political shape of Iraq." A moment later he concedes that improvements must be made, but according to O’Sullivan they need only be "marginal," to get the extremists out of the government.  But just a few paragraphs later he agrees that the Shiite militias – if we were to leave – "would have the backing of an increasingly Shiite-dominated government."  We have got to stop believing in this unity government; if we really want to move ahead with a politico-military push for success, then we need to free ourselves of the illusion that the Maliki government either (1) is the force we are in Iraq to support (as Tony Snow has told us recently) or (2) can be easily salvaged.

(Photo: Waziq Kuthaie/AFP/Getty.)

"Want a little tough truth with your morning coffee? McCain can do this, and Rudy can do that, and Romney can do the other thing. But if tonight’s speech doesn’t herald the beginning of a serious turnaround in Iraq that is plain to see by spring of next year, the Risen Christ could be the Republican nominee in 2008 and He wouldn’t be able to win against Al Sharpton," – John Podhoretz, National Review Online. A reader comments:

I generally concur with the spirit of what J-Pod is saying, but the premise is ridiculous. The Risen Christ would never make it through the GOP primary.

The Mexico border scene didn’t make it into the movie but Clive Davis has seen it.

From Patton, in the movies:

"Some Americans ask me, if completing the mission is so important, why don’t you send more troops? If our commanders on the ground say we need more troops, I will send them. But our commanders tell me they have the number of troops they need to do their job. Sending more Americans would undermine our strategy of encouraging Iraqis to take the lead in this fight. And sending more Americans would suggest that we intend to stay forever, when we are, in fact, working for the day when Iraq can defend itself and we can leave. As we determine the right force level, our troops can know that I will continue to be guided by the advice that matters: the sober judgment of our military leaders," – president George W. Bush, June 28, 2005, when more troops might actually have helped.

We may have a president with an excruciating ability to do exactly the wrong thing at the wrong time – every time.

(Photo: Mandel Ngana/AFP/Getty.)

A reader writes:

You ain’t seen nothing yet. Some weeks ago I had the misfortune to view an exhibition by Jack Dawson in Eureka Springs, Arkansas – on the grounds of Gerald L.K. Smith’s "Great Passion Play." (Yes, that Gerald L.K. Smith.)

Here’s a picture of Jesus in a GI’s uniform, mending an American flag. The title, "If My People," comes from 2nd Chronicles. There’s guide to the symbolism here:

Another wacky fave of mine is "Reviewing the Troops" — and in case you’re wondering just who’s doing the reviewing, look for the face of Jesus in the upper right-hand corner (it’s in the foliage of a tree). The paintings currently hang here.

This one may be the most informative yet, because its questions are more exhaustive, and its left-right/libertarian-authoritarian axis can yield more nuance. It’s also less dated. Try it yourself. I came out once again as a rightist libertarian – in the center of the lower right quadrant: socially lbertarian, economically conservative (but not extremely either). My actual scores: Economic Left/Right: 4.50; Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.26

John O’Sullivan lays out his own Iraq strategy.

"A disposition to be conservative in politics] is [not] necessarily connnected with any particular beliefs about the universe, about the world in general or about human conduct in general. What makes it intelligible is nothing to do with a natural law or a providential order, nothing to do with morals or religion," – Michael Oakeshott, "On Being Conservative."

"Vietnam presumably taught us that the United States could not serve as the world’s policeman; it should also have taught us the dangers of trying to be the world’s midwife to democracy when the birth is scheduled to take place under conditions of guerrilla war," – Jeane Kirkpatrick, Commentary, 1979.