Today's Tribune carries an article in the Perspective section, written by Jeremy Manier, that shows just how desperate and out of touch the Liberals in the media are in regards to the War in Iraq.
Speaking of Perspective, it appears that Jeremy and his Tribune cronies have little or none of that precious commodity.
Back in the early 70's the radical Left had created a formidable wedge in the fabric of American society, pushing us to the brink of civil war. The issue that most garnered national attention was their opposition to the war in Vietnam. Culling tropes from Marxist propaganda handbooks, the demonstrators called the action in Vietnam an "act of American Imperialism." The radicals claimed that we didn't belong there; that it was an internal Vietnamese civil issue. After all, the French couldn't maintain a foothold there and were soundly trumped off the continent.
The slogans of the time were ubiquitous - "Hell No - We Won't GO!", "Make Love, Not War!", "Flower Power"; were just a few of the empty platitudes that Leftists simply love to project on to their hapless listeners. The slogans filled mingled in the air with the rich smell of marijuana and hashish.
The Leftists were short-sighted and uninformed about the reasons we were in Vietnam. With China supplying the NVA with arms and resources, it appeared that China was going to add another satellite country to its arsenal. Strategists in Washington envisioned the Chinese as crawling across the asian continent, gobbling up swaths of real estate and establishing a Communist powerhouse in conjunction with the Soviets. They were scary times. The cold war combined with nuclear obliteration added up to a threat that the US could ill-afford to ignore.
We made mistakes in Vietnam, especially after Lydon B. Johnson took over the reins of command and control. Battlefield commanders in Vietnam were told to "just bring in a body count, and weapons confiscation numbers." The strategy became a numbers game - not a goal to achieve victory. After we abandoned South Vietnam to the NVA, 1 million people were murdered.
And an even important lesson we learned from Vietnam is that our enemies now know that, by using the US media, they can influence our own domestic policies. In a letter from Al-quaeda's Ayman al-Zawahri who wrote a letter to his top deputy in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. "The aftermath of the collapse of American power in Vietnam – and how they ran and left their agents – is noteworthy. . . . We must be ready starting now." Our enemies now know that all they have to do is turn a few news outlets toward their favor and public opinion will start doing the enemy's dirty work for them.
The Media has tried to pull the tired 60's slogans out of retirement to work public opinion but, thankfully, most people aren't that gullible nor naive. So the Tribune tries to present the Iraq "quagmire" as boardroom fiscal exercise. You have to hand it to the article's author, Jeremy Manier. He tries to pull off a quantifiable - almost academic - examination of why we shouldn't be in Iraq.
But his comparison's are laughable.
He begins with the presupposition that our presence in Iraq is a mistake and an abject failure. By what criteria does he make this misguided assessment? He never says. But if you look at the stories coming out of the MSM, it sure does look like we're losing over there. But the absence of success stories coming out of Iraq doesn't mean that there aren't any - it just means that the MSM's agenda of "doom & gloom" has no quarter for stories about how well we're doing over in Iraq.
He claims that we should be doing "cost-benefit analysis" on the war. Equating money spent with soldiers lives, he writes "Ideally, economists say, prior investments--whether of money or soldiers' lives--should not affect decisions about the future. The only thing that should matter is whether the future benefits of a choice will justify its total cost.
What Manier misses in his exegesis is that we're fighting the Islamic jihadists over in Iraq so that we don't have to fight them here. Back in the 1960s, there was no chance of a group of Vietnamese coming to the US to fly commercial jetliners into buildings in downtown Manhattan. That was a localized conflict, this battle with Islamic extremists is worldwide. Iraq was recognized as a central hub of Islamic jihadists and we were right to go in there and eliminate as many of them as we could. This is a new kind of conflict, one which we've never seen before. It calls for different tactics and new innovations in how we conduct the war.
The reason why this war is being cast in the light of Vietnam is that our Liberal intelligensia are busy demonizing our president, his staff, his policies and our interests overseas. They are taking the side of the "freedom fighters" in an attempt to dethrone and disempower the White House. They're busy bestowing "human rights" on the terrorists where none should be given. They want terrorists to have rights under the Geneva Convention; they want, and have, given the terrorists confidential information about our surveillance techniques and operations; they have gone to the wall on behalf of these murderous savages - all in the name of "freedom of the press" and "human rights."
What the MSM glosses over are the rights of the average American citizen to be safe.
So, nice try Jeremy. This is not a sterile experiment on supply-side economics - it is war. It is bloody, dirty and necessary. You and your ilk in the press sit around at your cocktail parties, chortling over the latest book by Noam Chomsky, but don't understand that by hindering our military operations, you're helping the very people who want to kill you simply because you're a kaffir. By saying we should cut our losses if our "target slips away" boils this conflict down to numbers, goals and budgets. It cannot, in all honesty, be confined to such narrow restraints. Of course, the author of the article portrays Bush as someone who is committed to staying in Iraq, at all costs, and is invested his own self-worth in the war, with the attendant position that no matter how bad it gets Bush won't back down.
How droll and transparent. It is no wonder that newspapers across the country are losing readership. It is this kind of "reporting" that the average American can see right through in an instant.
Indeed, Liberalism is a Mental Disorder. It is minimally a character defect.