Neocons selling the long war in Iraq using the fear of defeat

[ProSense]

From the National Review:

Thursday, June 07, 2007

For You Fans of Conservative Intellectual Trivia...

(John Podhoretz)

...please note that Peter Rodman co-authored a piece about the cost of defeat in Iraq in the New York Times today with William Shawcross. Twenty-eight years ago, in the pages of the American Spectator, Rodman wrote one of the most authoritative takedowns I (or anybody else) has ever read or written. The subject? William Shawcross's Sideshow — a book that blamed the Khmer Rouge genocide in Cambodia on the United States and on Henry Kissinger. Shawcross, then perhaps England's foremost leftist journalist, has undertaken a singular journey over the past two decades to the view that the United States is the key positive force for good in the world. Today's op-ed completes that journey, and it represents a degree of grace in transformation that is very, very rare.

The article Podhoretz is jumping for joy over is posted here: Defeat’s Killing Fields

[OHdem10]

1. In Many Red States--Nationalism is High including

Groups of Christians Nationalists. Nationalistic Pride
makes people cringe at the thought of Defeat.

The Neocons shrewdly use this to keep Republican Base
supporting War even if they are upset with Bush.

Here is how they work in some instances.
Rosie's comments brought the Media down on her big
time. Her comments were interpreted as anti Nationalistic.
and she is called by some as one who hates America.

Ron Paul has had to re-gigger the way he expresses his
opposition to the war. Nationalistic Terms Only.

I am not saying this is the right thing to do. It
is a fact of life. America is never at fault. Then
find a way to express yourself.

They would not use the message of Defeat, call Democrats "Defeatists"
or "carrying the white flag of surrender" if they thought
it does not work. In those same states there are Dems
with National Pride also.

[KansDem]

2. Whenever I hear proponents of this war exclaim "we have to win because..."

I'm reminded of Vietnam and how, for so many years, we were told that we had to win there because we needed to stop the spread of communism. "Leave there before victory and the country will fall to the communists. Then it would be just a matter of time before the pinkos will march right down through southeast Asia and into Australia. Then...Main Street, USA!!!" In essence, we had to stop them there so we wouldn't have to stop them here. Sound familiar? I used to believe that crap...now I don't. Now I see Vietnam as completely communist, yet CorpUSA is falling all over itself trying to get into there with its malls, fast-food places, and factories. I find it ironic that we lost some 58,000 Americans in Vietnam, yet we've established relations with that country. I find it ironic that we still maintain an embargo with Cuba: how many Americans have we lost in Cuba?

With the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, the neo-cons lost their "boogieman." Now, though, that boogieman is "terrorism" which got its start bigtime in the first WTC attack of 1993. Four years without a boogieman; how did CorpUSA manage?

It's all about money. And the "nationalist pride" wildcard will be played as long as there's money to be made from Iraq's oil fields.