In the Aesop’s fable of “The Goose That Laid the Golden Egg” we meet a farmer whose goose gives him every thing he could ever have dreamed of ; then the greedy farmer cuts the goose open to get at the eggs inside. Too late, the fool realizes that now he has nothing at all. The coming of the New Year has prompted many to prognosticate the future of America, its President, its War in Iraq, and the failure of all. I am reminded of the prophets of gloom of the past whose confident doom saying only got them egg on the face.
Rush Limbaugh put me onto an article by the Historian Victor Davis Hanson from the National Review Online. Through the wonders of my classroom’s computer network hookup I had a hard copy in my hands within five minuets. All that computer training is paying off!!!
I will abridge it here and then supply some documentation to back up Hanson’s wisdom.
THE PLAGUE OF SUCCESS
http://www.nationalreview.co,/“After September 11 national-security-minded Democratic politicians fell over each other, voting for all sorts of tough measures. . . Patriot Act. . . war in Afghanistan. . . the removal of Saddam. . . and nodded when they were briefed about Guantanamo or wire tap intercepts of phone calls . . .
Now the horror or 9/11 and the sight of the doomed diving into the street fade. . . The Democrats and the Left, in their amnesia, and as beneficiaries of the very policies they suddenly abhor, now mention al Qaeda very little and Islamic fascism hardly at all.
Apparently due to the success of George Bush at keeping the United States secure. . .
Afghanistan in October, 2001, conjured up almost immediately warnings of quagmire, expanding Holy War at Ramadan, unreliable allies, a trigger-happy nuclear Pakistan on the border, American corpses to join British and Russian bones in the high desert – not a seven week victory and a subsequent democracy in Kabul of all places.
Nothing in our era would have seemed more unlikely than democrats dethroning the Taliban and al Qaeda – hitherto missile-proof in their much ballyhooed cave complexes that maps in Newsweek assured us rivaled NORAD’s subterranean fortress. . .
Are we then basking in the unbelievable notion that the most diabolical government of the late 20th century is gone from Afghanistan, and in its place are schools, roads, and voting machines? Hardly. . .
The same paradox of success is true of Iraq. Before we went in, analysts and opponents forecasted burning oil wells, millions of refugees streaming into Jordan and the Gulf kingdoms, with thousand of Americans killed just taking Baghdad alone. Middle Eastern potentates warned us of chemical rockets that would shower our troops in Kuwait. On the eve of the war, had anyone predicted that Saddam would be toppled in three weeks, and two-and-a-half-years later, 11 million Iraqis would turn out to vote in their third election – at a cost of some 2100 war dead – he would have been dismissed as unhinged. . .
What explains this paradox of public disappointment over things that turnout better than anticipated? . . .
(A bitterness of disappointment we are familiar with here in the Agora)
One cause is the demise of history. The past is either not taught enough, or presented wrongly as a therapeutic exercise to excise our purported sins. . .
Second, there is a sort of arrogant smugness that has taken hold in the West at large. Read the papers . . . in Washington D.C., Los Angeles, Detroit . . . The headlines are mostly the story of mayhem – murder, rape, arson, and theft, Yet, we think Afghanistan is failing or Iraq hopeless when we watch similar violence on television, as if they do such things and we surely do not. . .
A greater percentage of Iraqis participated in their elections after two years of consensual government than did Americans after nearly 230 years of practice. It is chic now to deprecate the Iraqi security forces, but they are doing a lot more to kill jihadists that the French or Germans who often either wire terrorists money, sell them weapons, or let them go.
Third, our affluent society is at a complete disconnect with hard physical work and appreciation of how tenuous life was for 2,500 years of civilization. . . The result of this juvenile boredom with good news and success? Few stop to reflect how different a Pakistan is as a neutral rather than as the embryo of the Taliban, or a Libya without a nuclear-weapons program, or a Lebanon with(out) Syrians in it, or an Iraq without Saddam and Afghanistan without Mullah Omar. . . .
Precisely because we are winning this war and have changed the contour of the Middle East, we expect even more – and ever more quickly, without cost in lives or treasure. So rather than stopping to praise and commemorate those who gave us our success, we can only rush ahead to destroy those who do not give us even more.
(Sounds like Aesop' s fable to me!)
Had the farmer in the Aesop’s story been smart enough to truly look ahead he would never have murdered his goose. By way of evidence to Hanson’s exposition above I offer the following foolish farmers.
We begin with the war in Afghanistan. Before the seven weeks of war brought Liberty to Afghanistan many sought to kill the effort with demoralizing claims. Note how all have proven false. There is much disappointment in the anti-Bush crowd now. Disappointment sparked by the bitterness of having ones predictions made lie by events. Please observe the dates of the quotations presented. I will be doing a lot of quoting now. We have all heard these silly claims before, but I would implore you to read them so you can stand witness to the RECORD. My words are “bolded” to help you discriminate them from the quotes.
Maureen Dowd (NYT) October 28, 2001 “Liberties; Can Bush Bushkazi?
(I had to pay for this one, what a waste!)
The terrorists and Taliban have the psychological edge on three fronts: military, propaganda and bioterror. . . President Bush has been lured through the high-altitude maze to the minotaur’s lair, or as it’s know in the novel “Flasman,” “the catastrophe of Afghanistan.” Now, like the British and Russians before him, he is facing the most brutish, corrupt, wily and patient warriors in the world, nicknamed dukhi, or ghosts, by flayed Russian soldiers who saw them melt away.
(No!! I'm not making this up, Maureen actually wrote this. I wonder if she even knows what in means to flay someone. Her stupidity cooked her own goose!) . . . Are we quagmiring ourselves again? “Yes, it may be a quagmire,” President Musharraf of Pakistan said to Peter Jennings. (Now he tells us.) . . . Just as terrorists, American or foreign, cunningly used our own planes and mailboxes against us, so they used our own morality against us. We were stumbling over scruples against a foe with no scruples.
(Interesting this from a woman who now condemns Bush’s lack of scruples. I guess one should just pay for her comments and not follow her advice.). . . With Muslims, the media-savvy troglodytes in a cave were still out spinning Ari Fleischer at a podium. And even as Rear Adm. Stufflebeem denied we were getting bogged down over there - - always a sure sign we’re getting bogged down over there - - the pentagon issued a disconcerting plea. . .”
(I guess Stufflebeem, then chair of the Joint Chiefs, was right after all. Not so, Maureen.)
From Stars and Stripes
(Of all places. It shows the courage of our military to tell their “students” ANYTHING), Tuesday, September 26, 2001, “Chorus grows against military intervention in Afghanistan”, by Tom Jensen,
RAF MIKDENHALL, England – American cruise missiles and ground troops are not useful weapons in a war on terrorism, some people have stated saying about any military intervention in Afghanistan. “you can go in and rearrange a hell of a lot of sand and rock [with bombs and missiles], but what is accomplished?” asked retired Rear Adm. Eugene Carroll, . . . .Carroll cautioned, too, against any ground force. Not only will land mines be a major factor, he said, but the Afghan Taliban fighter have the advantage of the terrain, which they know intimately. . . Historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr . joined the chorus Sunday . . . “It would only demonstrate once again the impotence of the American superpower,” the double Pulitzer Prize winner wrote. Such an attack, he wrote, would push moderate Muslims toward hatred of the U.S. and produce a new generation of suicide bombers. The historian and former adviser to President Kennedy said Afghanistan is “Famous for its unconquerability,” a lesson learned by the British Empire and the Soviet Union.
(I guess Schlesinger failed to note that the British Empire and the Soviet Union, had learned the same lesson about the unconquerability of the United States, and now so have the Taliban! I wonder if Schlesinger has?) . . “American troops in Afghanistan would be even more baffled and beset than they were a third of a century ago in Vietnam,” Schlesinger wrote. . . . To allow the situation to become a clash of civilizations, he wrote, would be a catastrophe. “Bin Laden has set a trap for the United States,” He wrote. “Let us not walk into it.” Jay Farrar, an analyst for the Center for Strategic and international Studies in London [said] “. . . there is very little a conventional military force can do.”
(I found Schlesinger invoked again on) : “Radtimes
resist@bes.com for Sun, 04 Nov. 2001.
Arthur Schlesinger: Are we trapped in another Vietnam? . . . Today the enemy is in the shadows; he strikes in cities well know to every American; and he turns the most familiar conveniences, the airplane and the letter into vicious weapons – and ordinary people are the target. . . Remember the optimistic remarks a couple of weeks back about the way American bombs were evisceration the enemy?
(Something the bombs did do.) This has given way to somber comment about the Taliban’s dogged resistance. . . . Perhaps they should have reflected on Vietnam. We dropped more tons of explosives on that hapless country than we dropped on all fronts during the Second World War, and still we could not stop the Vietcong.
(“Thanks” to a politically motivated and constantly interfering Democrat controlled Congress.) Vietnam should have reminded our generals that bombing has only a limited impact on decentralized, undeveloped, rural societies.
(I guess that limited impact was all it took to undo the invincible Taliban.) . . . we may have to send in our own ground forces. Do we do that next month in face of the grim Afghan winter, Moslem religious holidays and unexploded land mines?
(Which of course America did.) Or do we wait for spring? In any even , a quagmire looms ahead. As for the post -Taliban regime, this has vanished into a gruesome tangle of tribal feuds and rivalries.
(Oh YA?) . . . Nearly every day newspapers carry stories about new and mysterious instances of anthrax poising. Behind anthrax looms the specter of smallpox, which, unlike anthrax poisoning, is contagious. . . If terrorists can find ways of unleashing a smallpox plague, it might be like the Black Death, which ravaged Europe in the 14th century.”
Arthur Schlesinger Jr him self wrote on 9/24/01 at
http://www.digitalnpq.org/global_services/global%20viewpoint/09-24-01schlesinger.htmlBombing is not likely to eliminate Bin Laden and his crowd, who have well prepared hide-outs. It would only demonstrate once again the impotence of the American superpower. . . . The only thing that would probably please Bin Laden more would be an invasion by American ground forces. Afghanistan is famous for its unconquerability. The British Empire and the Soviet Union failed in their efforts to dominate the country, and they at least knew the rocky terrain and had people who spoke the languages. American troops in Afghanistan would be even more baffled and beset than they were a third of a century ago in Vietnam. There is, in addition, the land-mine problem. According to Robert Fisk, Middle Eastern correspondent for the Independent in London, Afghanistan contains one-tenth - - more the 10 million - - of the world’s unexploded land mines, laid by the Soviet Red Army. . . Moreover, by November, freezing weather will arrive, and the Pentagon has no hope of dispatching troops and winning the war in the six weeks remaining before winter come to Afghanistan. Nor could an invading American army count on serious assistance from the internal anti-Taliban resistance their most effective leader, Ahmed Shah Masoud, having been assassinated shortly before the assault of America. . .
(I guess Schlesinger didn’t know about Hamit Karzai) Bin Laden has set a tarp for the United States, let us not walk into it . . . The quest for a knock-out blow is an illusion.
(NO! it was Schlesinger who was crafting illusions!)
(Here are some great “Mistaken Wartime Predictions from the Punditry" collected by Glenn Reynolds posted on the Free Republic December 11, 2001, sixties@lists,village.virgnia.edu )
Richard Cohen, Washington Post, 11/6/01: “Whatever the case, this war appears to be behind schedule.:
Jacob Heilbrunn, Los Angeles Times, 11/4/01: The United States is not headed into a quagmire; it’s already in one. The U.S. is not losing the first round against the Taliban; it has already lost it.
Sen. Joe Biden: Los Angeles Times (news story0, 10/26/01: Sen. Joseph Biden, Jr. (D-Del.) warned that unless the air attacks end “sooner rather than later,” the U.S. risks appearing to be a “high-tech bully. Every moment it goes on, it makes the aftermath problem more severe . . .”
Cokie Roberts, ABC News, 10/28/01 (to Donald Rumsfeld): “the perception is that this war the last three weeks is not going very well.”
(And my favorite from the NPR)
Daniel Schorr, NPR, 10/27/01: “Well, I don’t know how long this was supposed to take, but it’s certainly going a lot wore than was expected . . .”
(Here are two more I dug out of Newsweek)
MSMBC.com Newsweek, “Letter from Afghanistan: Ragtag Army by Owen Matthews, Sept. 28, 2001: The grim reminders are everywhere in this hostile terrain. Every road, every ditch and field from Afghanistan’s capital of Kabul up to the Hindu Kush 80 miles to the north, is littered with the rusting and twisted remains of Soviet tanks and armored personnel carriers. . . a boy-soldier carries a Martini-Henry rifle of 1880’s vintage. That’s a souvenir of an even earlier incursion; the British attempt to subdue the tribes of Afghanistan.. . . Afghanistan’s Northern Alliance . . . rolled out its crack troops . . . The intention was probably to show that the alliance is willing and ready to topple the Taliban regime. It ended up looking more like something out of the Keystone Cops. . .
( It turned out that these “cops” were very effective after all, in spite of News Week’s scorn.) But the display did more to illustrate why the alliance has over the last five years lost some 95 percent of the territory of Afghanistan to the Taliban. . . “Without our help the Americans will not be able to do anything.” Says Quayum, a native of the nearby Salang district. “It is difficult for me to imagine how Americans can fight here.”
(We don’t have to imagine it now, we know they fought very well. And then this on Bagram airport) . . . the base is now a wasteland of shattered concrete barracks and the littered wreckage of MiG-21 jets. A forlorn memorial to Soviet war dead stand among the debris, and the base's gates with their red star motif swing free.”
(Now Afghanistan is free!)
MSNBC.com Newsweek, “Ultimate Fighters” Sept 28, 2001 – Tom Carew look to history for proof of the fighting qualities of the Afghans. “The last time they were conquered was by Alexander the Great in the forth century B.C.”
(Something I pointed out to my student at the time; by way of giving lie to the much touted claim that Afghanistan had never been conquered.). . . And his conclusion may be unwelcome to military planners in Washington. “They are the ultimate fighters in their own terrain.”
(Until American soldiers came!) . . . the nature of the country produces a super tough breed of warriors adept at using the terrain to their own advantage, says Carew. “They know the land like a Welsh sheep farmer know his hillsides.”
(Isn’t it wonderful that far better fighters can be produced right here in American classrooms and training camps were students and soldiers are taught to deal with ANYTHING?) If crude, their [the Taliban] tactics were adapted to their strengths. “they will only attack when they want to . Otherwise you just won’t see(m) them. They will hide like foxes. “supplies are buried in dumps across the country, known only to the guerrillas. . . They are very hard and ferocious fighters. . . That ferocity can show itself as barbarism, especially in the treatment of prisoners, Carew has told of how mujahedeen slashed open the stomachs of captured Russians and left them to die in the baking heat. Indeed, the brutality is one reason why Carew is convinced that Afghanistan will be no place for conventional troops. . . the technology of modern warfare may be ill-suited to Afghanistan. Armored vehicles may be bogged down; misty valleys add one more hazard to helicopter flying.”
(Where is Carew’s retraction of all this silliness?)
I know this is getting long, but my efforts have not even scratched the surface of the inanity presented just before and during the first weeks of the Afghan War. Of course reality was completely contrary to the dire predictions. The weekly news magazines couldn’t even get their “doom and gloom” warnings of American defeat onto the news stands before the war was over and Afghanistan on its way to democracy!
I had thought to present the same "quantity" of shameful doom saying by the know-it-alls on the left pertaining to the Iraq War. We all know that the results were the same. Even as weekly new magazines and Sunday talk shows joined Baghdad Bob to line up and bewail American defeat before the walls of Babylon, the liberated Iraqis were dancing in the streets and pulling down the statues of Saddam. Perhaps, if any kind of discussion ensues, I can post some for consideration, for now I will present only the two most telling “quality” misstatements by Senatorial Prognosticators. I’m sure both of these Democrat prophets of doom would like to hide their silly fears. They will not retract, but it's ALREADY ON THE RECORD!
Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Sept 27, 2002, to the School of Advanced International Studies:
. . . Some who advocate military action against Iraq, however, assert that air strikes will do the job quickly and decisively, and that the operation will be complete in 72 hours. But there is again no persuasive evidence that air strikes alone
(Never the Bush plan.) over the course of several days will incapacitate Saddam and destroy his weapons of mass destruction. Experts have informed us that we do not have sufficient intelligence about military targets in Iraq. Saddam may well hide his most lethal weapons in mosques, schools and hospitals, If our forces attempt to strike such targets, untold number of Iraqi civilians could be killed.
(But they were not.)
In the Gulf War, many of Saddam’s soldiers quickly retreated because they did not believe the invasion of Kuwait was justified. But when Iraq’s survival is at stake, it is more likely that they will fight to the end.
(In fact they saw Saddam’s cause as no more just this time around; because it was not.) Saddam and his military may well abandon the desert, retreat to Baghdad, and engage in urban, guerilla warfare.
In our September 23 hearing, General Clark told the Committee that we would need a large military force and a plan for urban warfare. General Hoar said that our military would have to be prepared to fight block by block in Baghdad, and that we could lose a battalion of soldiers a day in casualties. Urban fighting would, he said, look like the last brutal 15 minutes of the movie “Saving Private Ryan.”
Senator Conrad, Democrat of North Dakota, in a floor Speech on Oct 11, 2002, Under:
THE DANGERS OF BATTLE IN BAGHDAD
Third, an invasion of Iraq for the purpose of regime change would necessitate a march on Baghdad. Such a course would expose our forces on the ground to serious risks, in hand-to-hand, street-by-street urban warfare in a foreign capital. We would lose much of our advantage in superior air power and technology. The military and civilian casualties could be substantial.
The former Commander in Chief of the U.S. Central Command, retired Marine Corps General Joseph Hoar, testified before Congress, and I quote, “In urban warfare you could run through battalions a day at a time. All our advantage of command and control, technology, mobility . . are in part given up.” Those are sobering words, Mr. President: “Battalions a day at a time.”
Consider how silly the facts made all these predictions. With the beginning of 2006 we have a host of predictors, fans of catastrophe, and politicians invested in defeat; who prophesy disaster for American, and for Iraq, Afghanistan, and the West. They are fools so greedy for power or determinedto force their views on all, that they have decided to kill the goose and take all the golden eggs. History will hold them to account because their words are ALREADY ON THE RECORD!