Why the Left Supports Defeat

[John317]

All Viewpoints in response to this are welcome and solicited, both pro and con, as long as they deal with the issues under discussion.

Why The Left Supports Defeat

by Steven D. Laib

I spent the vast majority of my life in the San Francisco Bay Area and what I saw wasn't pretty; it was an unbridled, dedicated, unreasoning and unreasonable hatred of America and all that it stands for. The present defeatist attitude; the belief that we “can't win” in Iraq, is nothing more than a present day iteration of the same fervor we saw during the Vietnam War and the Cold War.

With today's report to the House of Representatives by General David Petraeus the questions were flying thick and fast from the members of the Salem Communications radio talk show team on exactly why MoveOn.org had taken out the full page ad in the New York Times entitled “General Petraeus or General Betray Us ?”

The answer should not be surprising. It should be obvious to all patriotic Americans, or at least to anyone who does not already believe the defeatist propaganda. Perhaps my view is biased because I grew up in that hotbed of the anti-war movement, Berkeley California. I spent the vast majority of my life in the San Francisco Bay Area, before moving to Texas about 5 years ago. What I saw wasn't pretty; it was an unbridled, dedicated, unreasoning and unreasonable hatred of America and all that it stands for. It appears obvious to me that the present defeatist attitude; the belief that we “can't win” in Iraq, is nothing more than a present day iteration of the same fervor we saw during the Vietnam War and the Cold War. It is not that they think we can't win; it is that they simply don't want us to win. It is the desire to see America brought down at any cost or any price. And the current version of this attitude is more vehement than the past in one critical respect; America outlasted the Soviet Union in the Cold War. Nothing could make these folks more angry except, perhaps if the Tiananmen Square demonstrations had brought down the authoritarian Chinese government. Now the defeat of the United States isn't enough; only its total destruction will suffice.

I know that this is hard for a lot of people to understand. It makes no sense to a rational person. To see America defeated would eventually spell the end of our republic, and the end of their dreams of a socialist paradise. Women's rights would be dead; homosexuals would be executed, and the likely return of African Americans to slavery would not be far behind. Lest anyone forget, Arab slavers took many more slaves from Africa than Europeans and Americans, and had been doing it for a lot longer. There is the possibility that without the Arab connection slavery might never have become an institution in the New World; it is, after all, an anti-Christian concept, but I digress.

What happened during the post World War II era was a mass shift in American public opinion to the left. While it never actually claimed a majority of the population, it was sufficient to have a substantial effect on national politics. It is well known that absent this vocal, combative minority American would have assisted the Saigon government to successfully resist Hanoi's Soviet backed conquest of the Vietnamese South and history would have been changed. Sadly, under Henry Kissinger's direction we snatched defeat from the jaws of victory, and a bloodbath ensued. To this day I still encounter people who say it was a great thing, and that the people killed deserved to die. This lack of human concern for the lives of others has been a recent hallmark of the political left who simply will not understand that the political creed they espouse is the antithesis of their purportedly humanistic ideals.

When Ronald Reagan was elected they shouted that we were heading for an Orwellian 1984 type world, which some now claim has happened due to our need for increased surveillance on contacts between people here and potential terrorist connections in Asia. Orwell's prediction has not happened, thank God, and President Reagan would have been one of the last people to try to implement it. His victory was slap in the face to the left who had envisioned a new era of total power following the demise of Richard Nixon. They failed to appreciate Jimmy Carter's bungling for what it was, making Reagan's election that much more distasteful. Then when the Berlin Wall came along with the USSR their Great Red Hope had disappeared. Now they are left to grasp at the only thing left; Islamic militants.

The fact that a victory by bin Laden, Ahmadinejad, and company would spell the end of all the “civil rights” that the American left hold so dear is secondary. They would sell their souls gladly to see American destroyed because to them it is the same “great satan” that the Iranians depict. Perhaps they think that they can win the mullahs over later. More likely, they would end up in line to have their heads cut off, but that's another story.

Entering Iraq was a necessary action by the United States. If not Iraq, it would have had to be another major nation in the same area. Transferring the target of the militants from the US homeland to another location was necessary. The soldiers serving there are paying the price for our safety here at home, and are doing it gladly. They know the risks, and are willing to take them. That has ever been the strength of our nation. Meanwhile, they are also making possible a major change in the region's political fabric. The Arab dominated nations have had little or no experience with democratic rule. They also have no concept of nationalism. Their loyalties have been to their families and tribes. Their political structure has been cross pollinated with the Islamic influence that is totalitarian in effect. This is why these nations have frequently devolved into dictatorships or similar authoritarian systems. They really don't know anything else.

The left, and perhaps other Americans as well want a reasonable time table for our leaving Iraq. The best estimate I can give is starting in 20 years. By then we should have a significant number of Iraqis who are sufficiently acquainted with western ideas, who have not lived under a dictator, and who have begun to develop a nationalism that is based on loyalty to the nation, and not to a single man. Americans have been lucky. We had the English experience to draw on and the rights secured against the monarch by the nobility when King John was forced to sign the Magna Carta. George Washington said that America would have no kings. We didn't need them; we were capable of self government, but a lot of people around the world don't know this skill as yet. For them it must be a patient time consuming process, and it will take lives.

The biggest problem that the Iraqis face if their neighbors who would like nothing better than to see the democratization process fail. This would enable them to fill the power vacuum with their medieval political system that masquerades as religion.

Meanwhile, if the left truly wants rights for women, gays, minorities of whatever stripe, and true freedom for everyone, they will support the American presence in Iraq. Until they do, their constant screaming about human rights will remain nothing but a charade, and their patriotism will be suspect, despite Mrs. Clinton's protestations to the contrary.

[carolaa]

First of all, I haven't met anyone yet who wants to see America "defeated," and I've stated elsewhere that I'm not sure what victory and defeat actually mean in this current occupation. I think that's a basic misunderstanding that the left and right have about each other - what it is they mean by winning and losing. Consequently, they lamely accuse each other of being unpatriotic.

Also, I'm not sure what he means by "defeatist propaganda." It sounds like he means anything that questions the war, which, of course, would simply be freedom of speech that all patriotic citizens should encourage.

I think it would be interesting and helpful to find out why so many view the U.S. as the "great Satan." Maybe we could learn something about how to relate better with our neighbors in the Middle East. I'm sure they didn't just come up with that out of the blue.

And I'm wondering why are we trying to impose a democracy on Iraq. Did they ask for one? Do they want one?

I have to be suspect of our whole intentions over there when we finagle no-bid contracts for our oil companies - among other things.