I find
this thinking fascinating:
The administrations of George W. Bush have virtually assured such a displacement by catastrophically throwing the country off balance, both politically and financially, while breaking the nation's sword in an inconclusive seven-year struggle against a ragtag enemy in two small bankrupt states. Their one great accomplishment -- no subsequent attacks on American soil thus far -- has been offset by the stunningly incompetent prosecution of the war. It could be no other way, with war aims that inexplicably danced up and down the scale, from "ending tyranny in the world," to reforging in a matter of months (with 130,000 troops) the political culture of the Arabs, to establishing a democracy in Iraq, to only reducing violence, to merely holding on in our cantonments until we withdraw.
Good grief. His little historical introduction is made with no real attempt to connect it to the second paragraph quoted above. I'm sure in his own mind, it is a brilliant and irrefutable link.
We've endured economic problems in the past and we will again. The global nature of the problem should be a clue that it isn't a uniquely American problem.
The rest of that one paragraph is filled with nonsense so dense that it has a reality event horizon that doesn't allow the real world to escape his prose.
The fact that we have not endured another 9/11 is tossed off as simply not happening yet. We would have thought that simple fact unimaginable on September 12, 2001, as we woke up to our second day of war. You'd think that this fact would be incompatible with our so-called incompetence.
We've broken our sword? Our military personnel have become the most lethal and experienced troops on the planet. We beat well-armed, well-financed, and fanatical enemies inside Iraq in only five years when insurgencies can last decades. Ask the Colombians and Sri Lankans about that. As for Afghanistan, the real problem lies in Pakistan beyond the reach of our military.
Yes, our Army and Marines are unbalanced, having focused on winning in Iraq. That is how it should be. But as combat subsides in Iraq even more and our troops deployed abroad go down, our military will retrain for conventional warfare and become the best and most well-rounded military we've ever fielded. Our Army especially was stressed by Iraq, but is emerging stronger and not weaker from this war. But give it (and the Marines to a lesser extent) several years and we will have a well-armed, well-trained military led by combat veterans. Our Navy and Air Force retain their capabilities to defeat any other conceivable coalition of enemies right now, since they were not similarly stressed by the fights in Afghanistan and Iraq.
His part about "bankrupt" states is just empty calories devoid of substance designed to get rave reviews from MoveOn.org types or perhaps Pat Buchanan.
As for supposed war aims that fell away as the reality that only Mr. Helprin sees raised its ugly head, what is he talking about? Ending world tyranny? When was that our objective? Surely, we discovered that Realpolitik support for tyrannies doesn't make a lot of sense in the current Middle East. But we've never set our sites on ending all tyrannies in the world.
As for the rest of his supposed slide in objectives down to holding on in our cantonments until we can get out? Dream on, Helprin. Only in your dreams are we facing such a defeat.
Our planned withdrawal from Iraq is made possible by beginning a change in the culture of the Arab world, which at least now rejects al Qaeda and suicide bombings and celebrates shoe throwers rather than celebrate airplane hijackers who slam our planes into our buildings.
And we never planned on doing this in a matter of months with 130,000 troops. We have, in fact, established democracy in Iraq. It has growing to do that requires our help, but this is real democracy that we see in Iraq.
It is also sad that the dramatic reduction in violence is met with a shrug, when surely Helprin was arguing not that long ago that we could never end the violence of the "civil war" in Iraq. We can't end all violence in Iraq. Even when all the jihadis and Iranian stooges are killed, there will still be gang violence. I don't know what the natural level of violence in Iraq is, but what we have achieved is real progress against well-financed, well-armed, and fanatical enemies who stooped to new lows in torture, poison gas bombs, suicide bombs, and death squads.
We are on the way out in Iraq, with victory as our means. Mr. Helprin seems too angry for some reason to even begin to admit this, but I hope my introduction to Mr. Helprin of Reality is the start of a fast friendship that will benefit Mr. Helprin in the years to come.
His damn the left and right attitude may seem to him to be wise cynicism that sees all when the majority of America is dense to the needs to fight the war properly, but it comes off as just idiotic in the face of reality.
President Bush has made us safer and has made our enemies vulnerable. He did not end the Long War, but never promised to do that in his time in office. That's why it is called the "Long" War.
Man up and grow up, people. Let's get on with killing jihadis and their friends. I expect better from the Wall Street Journal editorial page.
