Tuesday, June 21, 2005

Upsurge in Defeatist Rhetoric

I think it is pretty evident that there has been an upsurge of defeatist talk this week. Calls for a deadline for a pull out. Mistreatment of prisoners etc.

What could it mean? I think it tells us two things. First thing it tells us is Red on Red. What does that mean? The "insurgents" are fighting among themselves. This shows they are on the ropes.

So what is the second thing it tells us? It tells us who the agents of influence for the enemy are. Keep your eyes on those who were the most defeatist in the past week. They are not on the side of America or liberty.

Welcome Instapundit readers.


vnjagvet said...


Just picked this blog up from the blogfather's link.

I really have enjoyed your comments on Roger Simon and other great blogs. Glad to see you have your own.

I am having trouble identifying with the defeatist attitude. I was five when WWII ended. I had no clue that there were over 115,000 casualties on Iwo Jima and Okinawa suffered, of which over 25,000 were KIA, between February and June, 1945. An average casualty figure of over 900/day and KIA over 200/day.

I never had the impression that anything but Victory was inevitable.

Those having had that experience, are sadly older and in the vast minority. I think this has something to do with the lack of confidence and determination over the long haul, through thick and thin.

That said, I fault the political leadership from the top down for not using all measures at its disposal to counteract this tendency.

I am well aware of the difficulty of such an effort, but look what the SwiftVets were able to do with a small budget and the facts on their side.

The Apologist said...

"So what is the second thing it tells us? It tells us who the agents of influence for the enemy are. Keep your eyes on those who were the most defeatist in the past week. They are not on the side of America or liberty."

I've been giving this some serious thought. I think you're over stating things here a bit. (Maybe you already know that though.) What we're seeing is a very real panic among the foriegn policy elite in this country similar to what we saw last term in Europe. They bucked and screamed because 9-11 upset the old order and they weren't being consulted as closely as they were post WWII in the restructuring of the new order. America was making it's choices under a very American President with less inclination toward and less trust of European ideas on the balance of power. France and Germany fought their minor Cold War against us and we beat them, their proxy Saddam, and are still beating them today. Chirac and Schroeder are finished in Europe (for reasons having nothing to do with us) and their respective replacements, Sakalov and Merkel, are much more friendly to Bush and America.

At home the Dems hated Bush and the realists teamed up with the internationalists in a full on rhetorical assault, but stopped short of actually sabatoging American morale because they thought they would win easily. They didn't. Now the only hope to retain the old order, and the influence and power that come with being the de-facto experts, is to sabotage the new structures before the foundation dries. The arguments are no longer about the effectiveness of Bush's policies, as they are obviously effective, nor is it about the wisdom of this new and uncharted course, as that criticism was a bluff anyway considering the uncertainty of any foriegn policy in the real world. Now the argument has become one of whether or not you can believe your lying eyes. The only option left to them is to make coercion and interrogation into war crimes and to make our inevitable victory into a house burning down around us.

My point here is that the sabotage is not meant to help our enemies as much as it is meant to hurt Bush. The left is trying to burn down the house to spite the Bush administration, not to help the Islamists. Of course it does help the Islamists and Bush is the President so you can't make him fail without making the country fail, so your point is still valid in some respects, but not with respect to motive. And understanding motive is the key to outflanking them and beating them at the game they're actually playing instead of the game it looks like they're playing.

They are engaged in sabotage. We knew this would happen. It happened in the 60's and 70's. The question is how do we fix it? What have we learned from the Vietnam era protests?

vnjagvet said...

The quest for power when one has suddenly become powerless makes people act irrationally.

That is happening now, and is well described by the Apologist

UML Guy said...


I'm just not all that interested in their intentions. To me, if the results help our enemies, then the defeatists are objectively siding with the enemies.

But I'm willing to listen to an alternative approach. If you can suggest a way that understanding their intentions can help us to eliminate their ddestructive effects, I would love to hear it. Always open to new ideas.

Soldier's Dad said...

Dick T(D)rbin was apologizing with fake crocodile tears on national TV. The man was a trial lawyer...so the "I chose my words poorly" is just plain crap. Trial lawyers choose their words carefully when adressing the jury.

Basically, the Dems saw some polls and decided to "test" the depth of "anti war" sentiment.

Yep...eveyone in America would like to see our troops coming home soonest possible date. No one more than myself.

Except for a few looneys, the entire country wants our troops to come home victorious.

M. Simon said...

There are George Galloways among us.

Fellow travelers if not paid agents.

I believe the insurgency is failiing and the fellow travelers have been instructed to try and pull a political victory from the jaws of a military defeat.

I find it interesting that there have been an increased volume of complaints about how the war is being won just as we are getting close to victory.

I don't think it is an accident.

BTW the FBI report is at least several months old. It is a report on events of up to three years ago.

So why make a fuss now?

Whether this is all a spontaneous happening due to impending loss of power or due to whispers from our enemies I leave it to you to decide in each individual case.

We do have Reps. taking Islamic fascist money. I'd bet some Senators do as well.

What are the odds?

blueenclave said...

Hi M. Simon, was too much of a coward to come over here for months, but came in the latest instalanche.
I am waiting for the Iraqi constitution to be written and approved before I decide if we have "won" or not on this battlefield. There are several countries such as the PA, Syria and Saudi Arabia where our progress against Islamofascism can kindly be called slow.

The Apologist said...

uml guy: One difference it makes is in what you accuse them of doing. If you accuse Durbin of supporting Islamic fascitsts he'll point to five or six things that flatly contradict that accusation. But if you accuse him of what he's actually doing he won't have cover. It's important that we understand our adversary, not just by his effect but by his motives and values.

Consider this - Bin Laden is blowback. How many times have you heard this canard from the Left? How many times has Ward Churchill spoken of this? But the real question is, why are they wrong? Bin Laden is not "blowback" because he is not an oppressed minority abused by the dictators we supported. He's the dictator we didn't support. Bin Laden isn't angry at America's hypocrisy, as Churchill and the Left claim to be, he's angry we didn't pick him or someone who shares his philosophy as our ally against the Soviets in the broader ME instead of just in Afghanistan. He's fighting for Caliphate not against Empire. This was important in that it tipped us to our solution, democracy. A U.S. sponsored reform of the ME is a fine alternative to the new Saladin as far as the citizenry is concerned, as long as it's real democracy and real reform.

I don't yet know how to defeat our defeatists in America, but I do know that we'll never hit upon the right strategy if we insist on characterizing them by their effects and not by their motives.

Blueenclave: Check out MEPI. It's the long road we're taking in places where military intervention isn't viable or advantageous. It's proved very effective, though you'll never hear about it on the news as it makes Bush look too good. Also check out Condi doing her thing in the ME this last week.

M. Simon: Galloway. That's a good point. It never hurts to be vigilant. I'd still be shocked if we found U.S. Senators helping the enemy knowingly.