Choose Genocide

Jules Crittenden summarizes the New York Times’ Iraq plan which favors a likely resulting genocide to pursuing victory in Iraq.

Genocide preferred. NYT should be applauded for its honesty. An outcome that is “even bloodier and more chaotic … further ethnic cleansing, even genocide. Potentially destabilizing refugee flows … power grabs” is better than continuing the path of progress toward eliminating al-Qaeda, exposing and hopefully acting against Iran’s influence, training increasingly effective Iraqi troops, working with a nascent democratically elected government in its fits and starts…

OK, let’s review. Bloody chaos and genocide preferable to what’s going on now. What’s going on now not discussed in any inconvenient detail. NYT has retreat all figured out, will shares plans with Pentagon. Fighting terrorism works better from a distance. Democrats are “foolish” but so is NYT. Iran, Turkey, etc., should all step up to the plate and get Israel to build a fence around Iraq. And finally, Bush lied, people died.

Makes sense to me. Out now!Jules goes through the New York Times’ editorial point by point (he has more patience than me) and shows how incredibly illogical it is. Read it all. Jules also makes the point that the New York Times does not give any detail about what is happening in Iraq now. These are the inconvenient truths those on the left will not address. I get some pretty loopy emails saying I love killing and murder because I think we should finish the mission in Iraq and actually allow those in our military to do their jobs. They always include sweeping statements about Iraq being a hopeless total and complete disaster and say I am delusional if I think there is anything good happening in Iraq. I sometimes respond to the less profane emails by providing links to mainstream news items, milblog posts and reports from people like Michael Yon who are reporting progress in the region. Want to know what the reaction is? Most often silence. I also get “Bush is a murderer” statements in response. Occasionally, but very rarely, someone will actually address the content of the reports I cite. A small few acknowledge that we are rounding up and killing al Qaeda in Iraq, but say it doesn’t matter because there will never be a government in Iraq that will keep the peace after we are gone so it doesn’t make any sense to do anything there now because in the end it will all be a failure. Thank God these people do not make up a sizable portion of our military. Unfortunately, a growing number of them do make up our Congress.

There is an old saying that goes something like “You are entitled to your opinion, but you are not entitled to your facts,” meaning that the facts are the facts no matter what, even though people may interpret their meaning differently. Lately I am seeing more and more cases of those arguing against pursuing victory in Iraq by stating that everything there is already lost and nothing but bad news is coming from the region. Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi declared the surge a failure before all the troops were even in place, much less before they had a chance to do what they were put there for. For those who want to argue for surrender in Iraq I ask that they at least acknowledge the progress that is being made there now. If things are as bad as they say (and I know there is plenty of bad news coming from the region), then what harm is there to acknowledge the good news, too? At the very least that is what is owed to those putting their lives on the line to fight there. I just don’t understand why those on the left are so afraid to talk about the progress that is being made. If they think it is just a waste of time and effort and lives, then they can say that, but at least acknowledge that the men and women of our military are experiencing some success. Then if they want to argue that genocide is preferable to victory in Iraq, I will at least believe they are being honest.

Update: Don Surber writes about the NYT’s “applause-o-meter” argument and reminds us the NYT supports plenty of unpopular things. He then points out just how ridiculous the NYT’s Iraq plan is.

This is madness. It is lunacy to suggest that UN peacekeepers drawn randomly from other countries and thrown into the maelstrom with no leadership skills or experience will do a better job than 150,000 professional soldiers with 4 years experience in Iraq.

Africa burns while UN blue helmets look askance and indulge themselves in child porn and petty theft. That is the Times prescription for Iraq.

The chaos would result in zero civil liberties for 25 million Iraqis. The Times clamored for extraconstitutional rights for 500 or so jihadists at Gitmo — men captured on the battlefield. Now the Times is willing to forfeit any civil justice system at all in Iraq.

Update II: Tom Donnelly looks at dissonance at the NYT when they report succes in Iraq on one page and then declare we must leave Iraq on another.

Update III: More from Crittenden on the NYT front page story warning dire consequences to leaving Iraq.

Weekend Caption Contest™ Winners
Send Lileks Back to the 60's