Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics
On Point

"Give 'em Hooey" Surrenders


by Austin Bay
April 24, 2007

On Harry Reid's planet, America's enemies need only have one objective: to murder, in a sensational, media-magnifying manner, enough of their own citizens to discomfit and distress Harry Reid Democrats.

I distinguish Harry Reid Democrats from Harry Truman Democrats. Between these two Harrys spreads a vast moral chasm that 60 years of history do not fully explain.

"Give 'em Hell" Truman possessed a large quotient of common sense, as well as the courage of his convictions.

Assess Reid for yourself. Last week, the Senate majority leader said, "Now I believe myself ... that this war is lost, and that the surge is not accomplishing anything, as indicated by the extreme violence in Iraq yesterday."

But within minutes after declaring Iraq lost, Reid returned to the mikes to backtrack. "The (Iraq) war can only be won diplomatically, politically and economically, and the president needs to come to that realization," Reid said,

It's lost, but can only be won, if ? if what? If "Give 'em Hooey" Harry Reid is in charge?

How refreshing if Reid had the courage of his defeatist convictions, except his convictions aren't convictions, they are postures. Reid tosses a line to Democrat defeatists, then when he discovers his mistake, edges toward reality with an oily pirouette.

There are (and have been) four lines of operation in Iraq: security (military operations and building Iraqi defense capabilities), governmental (political participation and structure building), information (intel, media and political perception) and economic (economic development and infrastructure creation).

Our media tend to favor sensationalism, not contextualism. (If contextualism wasn't a word, it is now.) Reid's attempted political slither relies on "tyranny of the immediate" reporting and headline preference for violence. He's pretending his belated qualifications say something new. They don't. Mayhem and military macho are hot, fast stories. Economic development and infrastructure are incremental and slow.

Ironically, Reid's rhetorical retreat unintentionally acknowledges the hard slog of economic development and political stabilization. However, the man and those for whom he speaks lack the key traits required to achieve those goals: determined will and gutty perseverance.

The War on Terror and its Iraq phase are not lost and certainly haven't been lost militarily. The phase where military operations were pre-eminent ended in April 2003. Since mid-April 2003, the economic and governmental components have been the decisive dimensions. Check Iraq's GDP -- it's growing. It has elected a democratic government. Many critics read Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki as weak. I do not. He hung Saddam. He has followed a calculated policy of steel and velvet with Shia radicals. He is, in his own way, reminiscent of Truman, having a heavy burden of history dropped squarely on him.

On the other hand, Saddamists, al-Qaeda and Iran-influenced Shia militias have had enormous information successes, with Reid's rhetorical surrender the latest. One reason for these successes is that they are not penalized by the conventional media and the political left for a campaign of mass murder overwhelmingly directed against Iraqi civilians.

Do you want to help end the terror in Iraq? Condemn the terrorists as the Cho Seung Hui-like psychopaths they are. Deny them the false celebrity they gain when dubbed "insurgents."

Denis Keohane, writing for AmericanThinker.com on Nov. 29, 2006, demonstrated why Harry Reid's planet is a truly dangerous place.

"Thanks to the development of mass media inclined to oppose the nation's efforts to obtain military victory," Keohane wrote, "a new path to victory has opened up for America's enemies."

Though the various terrorist groups in Iraq have failed "to gain even minor real tactical victories against coalition (and now Iraqi) forces, all are targeting civilians, with death squads and bombings that intentionally kill civilians in large numbers."

The death toll, Keohane concluded, is "presented as evidence that we are not winning, and cannot win. That makes the reverse true: that if they can merely kill, even civilians, they are winning tactically and even strategically. Merely killing a lot of civilians is not a high bar to attain, and that lesson will be learned and copied, again and again."

Copied again and again on Harry Reid's planet. Firing Reid as Senate majority leader would send a useful if belated political signal that Harry Truman and FDR haven't been expelled from the Democratic Party.

Send Link to a Friend
Comment     View Comments (5)
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Brian H    Saint Reid   4/25/2007 12:51:02 PM
Let's try that again: Holy Me!
 
Quote    Reply

Brolan       4/25/2007 1:03:37 PM
Isn't Reid just saying what everone is thinking, but is afraid to say?   The majority of the American public would not be against the war if they thought we were winning it (IMHO).
 
Quote    Reply

Kammak    Hang him   4/25/2007 1:05:23 PM
I am completely serious when I say he should be hung as a traitor.  Information warfare is a recognized component of modern warfare, and his statements of defeat, coming from an elected official and in opposition to the US Military and Executive branch's view of the war's status, is nothing but an Information Op for our enemies.  It serves no purpose except to demoralize and misrepresent our military's efforts in an ongoing shooting war.
 
It is information war, against our military and our electorate, and that makes him a traitor as much as if he placed an IED to ambush American forces.
 
Free Speech - its not protected and here is why - we are at war, and statements/misinformation from elected officials that aid the enemy are not protected.  This statement was not made in the midst of a debate on the floor, or as a query to stimulate discussion or a response, this was a bald statement made for maximum media coverage for maximum Info Op effect.  That is not free speech, that is providing aid and comfort to the enemy.
 
He should be hung as the traitor he is.  With maximum press coverage of the hanging, of course.   :)
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Mr. Bear    Shiite vs Sunni   4/25/2007 4:00:48 PM
Question for Austin:
Was part of the rational for going to war in Iraq to not only have an Arab democratic state as an alternative to the despotic ones now in existence, but also that it would be a Shiite-Sunni-Kurd democracy that would show others in the Middle East that the sectarian divisions that create so much bloodshed also have an alternative?  And, would that be the reason al Qeuda has made such an effort start the so-called civil war between Shiite and Sunni?
 
Further, if one of the reasons we went to war, per your earlier article, to force al Qeuda to fight us in a place of our choosing, could al Qeuda be trying to get us into a war on their terms, either one we can't win in Iraq (info war over Iraq that Reid is now conceding), or could they be trying to get us to overextend by getting us into a war with Iran?
 
It would be nice to get your opinion on this.
 
MEC
 
Quote    Reply

Brolan       4/25/2007 8:34:39 PM
Of course free speech is protected, even in war.  The last time I checked this is a democracy, and in a democracy you discuss the pros and cons of any issues in a public forum.

If there is only one way to think and act, if all discussion must be in secret; then we aren't any better than the communist dictators we all loathe so much.
 
Quote    Reply
Return to Index For More Austin Bay    



To find out more about Austin Bay and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2001 - 2013CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.


StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2013StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy