Tuesday, February 20, 2007

America's Baghdad?

This story detailing the spiraling crime in New Orleans is a great example of democracy guaranteeing the people the government they deserve. This line struck me particularly:
Before Katrina struck on August 29, 2005, there was little public pressure to do something about the number of murders, which peaked in 1994 with 425 killings.
Considering they re-elected the incompetent Ray Nagin as Mayor, who thought race-baiting and Bush bashing would be just as effective as filling busses with refugees before the storm, not to mention sending the coldly dishonest William Jefferson back to Congress, one wonders just how much pressure there was after the storm, either.

But taking a cue from the Congressional Democrats, I have a solution to this mess. We should set a date six months from now to withdraw all federal monetary, logistics, and personnel support from Louisiana. This will send a signal to the corrupt state and local officials that the American People's patience with incompetent government, rampant corruption, and out-of-control violence is not limitless. If we set a date to withdrawal, they will know they have to get on the ball themselves.

Any takers? Didn't think so. So why does this sound logical when people are talking about retreating from Iraq? And as far as I know, no Cajuns have threatened to blow up landmarks in New York, if only they were left alone by the feds long enough to hatch an appropriate plot.

Yes, yes, I know New Orleans is in our country, and Baghdad isn't. But isn't it a liberal argument that international borders are outmoded, and that humanitarian efforts should not be determined by geopolitical considerations?

The idea that withdrawing from Iraq will motivate the Iraqi democratically elected government as opposed to destroying it is a pipe dream, a preemptive salve to the consciences of the Democrats who can't bring themselves to face the fact that their policy proposals will result in wholesale slaughter for years to come. If they're OK with that, fine - but let's be honest about the results of our actions: Freedom lost, democracy stillborn, millions dead, thousands more dead in vain, and a victory which will embolden the Islamofascists for generations to come.


PubliusRex said...

It is amazing that the democrats who almost exclusively run America's big cities are never held to account for the problems they run on but are totally incapable of solving through liberal policies. It's not at all unlike the fact that our school system continues continue to erode under the direction of the NEA, but the union never seems to take any heat.

You would think some cities would look to the Big Apple and realize that you if want to clean up, you need to elect a Giuliani, not a Nagin. Liberals simply do not have the skillset to deal with crime - let alone corrupt liberals.

Cato said...


I think you are being willfully hyperbolic, but I'll take it at face-value, since you've got a real point in there.

1. Louisianans don't view our troops as an occupation force, and non federal personnel are dying in Louisiana.

2. While some liberals believe borders to be outmoded, it isn't them you should be trying to convince. If we're going to stay in Iraq it'll be because you've convinced moderates, moderate liberals and libertarians that we ought to. And all of these groups understand the importance of sovereignty, national borders, and the difference between New Orleans and Baghdad.

So saying "here's an obvious argument that makes my analogy flawed, but it isn't an argument extreme liberals can make" doesn't really help your cause. I can make that argument, and it tears your analogy to pieces.

Anonymous said...

While you raising the point destroys his analogy, it does nothing to defend the utter incoherence and hypocrisy of "borderless" liberals who will follow your lead. Orrin's highlighting of that stands, which I took to be the main one of the post - which was surely hyperbolic and tongue in cheek.

Indeed, their position here is as incoherent as their incompatible Darfur and Iraq histrionics.

Anonymous said...

But really Orrin - pointing out the intellectual dishonesty and inconsistency of liberal politicians is so easy it's not even sporting.

Orrin Johnson said...

My point is aimed at the people who claim they DON'T want mass slaughter and chaos in Iraq, DON'T want the experiment in democracy to fail, DON'T want Iraq to become a "stable" pawn of Iran, DON'T want millions of innocents to die, and DO want the Maliki government to stabalize and step up faster. You can't both retreat and have those things.

The absurdity of removing federal support as a "solution" to the chaos in New Orleans highlights the flawed logic of the defeatists in Congress (in both parties), who allow themselves to believe the lie that an immediate withdrawal from Iraq will be anything but a complete and total disaster for all parties.

PostalMed said...

I agree with you 100%! And I think your analogy is dead on. Hyperbole? Of course it is. But it has to be to highlight the utter absurdity of thinking that pulling the rug out from under the Iraqi government will do anything but cause it to fall over faster. Just like what happened in Vietnam.

The Demoncrats in Congress insist on calling Iraq another Vietnam. It won't be unless they vote to pull our support for those in Iraq that want freedom just like they did to Vietnam 34 years ago. Do they learn nothing from their mistakes?

Cato said...


I think I see your point now, and it is a good one.

I'm not sure that pulling out will improve the Iraqi situation, but I'm not sure that staying in will either.

Orrin Johnson said...

Even if it doesn't improve in Iraq (which I think it is already), things would certainly be worse for the US if we left. Our steadfast preence is an important symbol of strength and fortitude - important attributes in the Muslim mind. Leaving would encourage a fulfillment of the Arab proverb that "a falling camel attracts a thousand knives."