Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
20% say world "better off" if U.S .loses in Iraq (update)
Posted by: McQ on Friday, October 05, 2007

OK, I'll bite:
Nearly one out of every five Democrats thinks the world will be better off if America loses the war in Iraq, according to the FOX News Opinion Dynamics Poll released Thursday.

The percentage of Democrats (19 percent) who believe that is nearly four times the number of Republicans (5 percent) who gave the same answer. Seven percent of independents said the world would be better off if the U.S. lost the war.
So, anyone - how will the "world be better off" if the US loses in Iraq?

I can certainly see the partisan political angle at home here (although I can't personally imagine how anyone can choose politics over what is best for their nation, but they exist).

But let's talk geopolitics instead of local politics. Tell me the benefits of a loss (we pull out, Iraq implodes and remains unstable, a training place for terrorists and a virtual satellite of Iran) vs. a win (stable Iraq, able to defend itself, terrorists denied sanctuary and a place to train)? How is the world "better off" if the former becomes reality?

UPDATE: Michael Wade of A Second Hand Conjecture asks of those who do believe the world would be better off if the US lost, why are you here?
By the same token, those who wish us to fail should expect to have their patriotism challenged, and indeed they may want to question it themselves (if you really want us to fail, why are you here?). As should those who place political considerations above our national interests in defeating the insurgency in Iraq, stabilizing the government, and getting into a long stare-down with Iran and Syria. If you are more concerned with your political party winning (or with a hated candidate losing) in the elections than with your country winning in the war, your patriotism is suspect at best. That goes no matter whether you are Republican (11% want us to fail), Democrat (34%) or Independent (19%). Rooting for the US mission to fail because it suits your political druthers indicates that you have no patriotism, and really begs the question as to whether or not you're an American. I can sympathize with those who merely want us to end the war, those who thought it was a bad idea from the get-go, and even those who just plain old hate Bush. But hoping that your country fails is simply intolerable, and if you really feel that way, then maybe you should just leave.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
All options require some heavy lifting (a most uncomfortable position).

Even reciting "Allahu Akbar" requires more heavy lifting than required at first glance.
 
Written By: Neo
URL: http://
Not being one of those 1 in 5 Democrats I can’t answer your question with any conviction. I suspect that what the poll demonstrates is that 8-10% of the electorate believes that anything that’s good for the United States is bad for the rest of the world.

That’s enough to make a lot of noise (and populate blog comments sections) but not enough to get anybody elected.
 
Written By: Dave Schuler
URL: http://www.theglitteringeye.com
Those numbers track almost identically with the poll from January:
19. Do you personally want the Iraq plan President Bush announced last week to succeed?

——————————– Yes —- No — (Don’t know)
16-17 Jan 07 ————- 63% — 22 — 15
Democrats ————— 51% — 34 — 15
Republicans ————– 79% — 11 — 10
Independents ———— 63% — 19 — 17

A little over one fifth of Americans would rather see the “surge” fail than succeed. And it’s highly unlikely that the respondents misunderstood the question, since the very next question was “20. How likely do you think it is that the Iraq plan President Bush announced last week will succeed?”
And I’ll say the same thing now that I said then:
By the same token, those who wish us to fail should expect to have their patriotism challenged, and indeed they may want to question it themselves (if you really want us to fail, why are you here?). As should those who place political considerations above our national interests in defeating the insurgency in Iraq, stabilizing the government, and getting into a long stare-down with Iran and Syria. If you are more concerned with your political party winning (or with a hated candidate losing) in the elections than with your country winning in the war, your patriotism is suspect at best. That goes no matter whether you are Republican (11% want us to fail), Democrat (34%) or Independent (19%). Rooting for the US mission to fail because it suits your political druthers indicates that you have no patriotism, and really begs the question as to whether or not you’re an American. I can sympathize with those who merely want us to end the war, those who thought it was a bad idea from the get-go, and even those who just plain old hate Bush. But hoping that your country fails is simply intolerable, and if you really feel that way, then maybe you should just leave.
 
Written By: MichaelW
URL: http://asecondhandconjecture.com
Stock answer: Because it will contain our impereal "hubris" and we will never oppress anyone again

Secondary answer: Because losing the middle east will force us to break our dependence on foreign oil

MK answer: Because losing will somehow be bad for Iran

Erb answer: Blah blah blah, civil political discourse, blah blah blah, cooperation and multilateralism and such
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
It’s perfectly natural to want something you hate to fail. But there’s a distinction to be made. Hating the war in Iraq, and wanting that to fail, you hope it fails because that would forestall "another Iraq." This is probably a fairly common sentiment among those who see Iraq as "another Vietnam."

Let me get back to that in a moment.

Then there are those Americans who simply hate America, and there are plenty of them. The entire "antiwar" movement was organized by those people. (That was going within weeks of 9/11 right down the block from my place in the Big City via ANSWER, the WWP, and the IAC, the first and the last being front groups for WWP.)

So, the hard Left blew the pipe, and the softer Left got to marching, and eventually the thing leached up into the mainstream of the Democratic Party via a Clinton operative (for which there is abundant and conclusive evidence) by the name of Howard Dean. Dean radicalized the base, John Kerry bought three-quarters into the Dean spiel (it wasn’t hard for Kerry, who knew all the tropes) to secure the nomination, and he walked into the general election having "voted against it before he voted for it" or vice versa.

Those one-in-five Democrats who prefer defeat in Iraq are the residue of the hard Left getting through the gate into the Party base to activate sentiments that just need a little added water to start growing and expressing.

Now, about wanting the U.S. to fail in Iraq because you hate the mission. This gets very complicated, and I’ll cite someone who isn’t a Democrat to show one side of it.

That would be Pat Buchanan. Pat seems to think that the history of the Middle East began in 1948, with the founding of Israel. He interprets everything through that prism, and it was finally one piece that he wrote for American Conservative that suggested to me that he was totally out of his mind about it. Pat was, in fact, one of, if not the, first to carp on about "neoconservatives" as little more than shills for Israel, as "thieves" of the conservative movement, with the implication that the role that the U.S. had inherited after WWII (as the status quo superpower and guarantor of strategic peace) should have, or could have, been abandoned at the end of the Cold War, but had been, I guess the word is artificially, extended by neocons for the benefit of Israel.

Pat’s view has now been adopted over on the Left (it was actually long part of the view of the hard Left, but has now gone mainstream in the Democratic base, even among many liberal Jews, I might add), which is why Pat is such a favorite conservative for the likes of Chris Matthews. (I like Pat myself, but I’ve told him quite directly that history did not begin in 1948, not even in the Middle East.) Another quasi-conservative who takes a similar view is Paul Craig Roberts, who is similarly out of his mind about the ’orrible neocons.

So, for those who think like this, or who see Iraq as "another Vietnam," about which they pledged their lives circa 1970 to never allow again, along with their ideological children, the desire to see failure in Iraq is a desire to see no more Iraqs/Vietnams. This was the subject of the incredibly stupid commencement speech given by New York Times publisher Arthur Sulzberger Jr. at SUNY New Paltz a couple of years ago. He apologized to the students because "my generation" had failed to rid the world of Iraq wars, or something like that.

Sulzberger would sort of represent a mainstream bridge, among very powerful elites (George Soros also comes to mind), who also want America to fail, generally, because they essentially see it through the Chomsky prism.
 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://mcphillips.blogspot.com/
I’m not one of that 20% but, why on earth would you frame the choice this way?
Tell me the benefits of a loss (we pull out, Iraq implodes and remains unstable, a training place for terrorists and a virtual satellite of Iran) vs. a win (stable Iraq, able to defend itself, terrorists denied sanctuary and a place to train)?
Surely the more likely choice is between a loss soonish and a continuation of the status quo. A loss now versus ten more years of occupation with one to two US casualties a day, and at the end of it an authoritarian Ismalish dictatorship maybe with elections but certainly not with any of the other trappings of democracy? Mayber magic will happen and in six months everything will be better, but surely we need at least three possible paths from which to imagine prefered outcomes.

Also in your loss scenario, who exactly is giving the terrorist a place to train, given that the Sunnis tribes have turned against them and the Kurds and Shia hate them?

Finally, your win scenario "stable Iraq, able to defend itself, terrorists denied sanctuary and a place to train" is what we had before we invaded. Unless by sanctuary you mean a retirement village for terrorists from past decades. And if that is the case, I look forward to your calls to lead the Shoah Foundation on an invasion of Argentina.
 
Written By: Retief
URL: http://
The question is based on a false premise: that this is a question of victory or defeat. The US already won the war, and cannot be defeated. How the US decides to leave, when, and how Iraq will operate are really the issues at hand.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
... the hard Left blew the pipe, and the softer Left got to marching ...
Now, we get this story about how the size of U.S. protests shrink while antiwar sentiment grows.

Frankly, I think we have reached a "jimmy moment", malaise has set it.
 
Written By: Neo
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider