Perception - And Why I Still Think the Left is Way Off on Foreign Policy

Different narratives have sprung up about Iraq. Each day we read about disasters and hope. For those who supported the war, we favor stories we read from soldiers and civilians and politicians who report about progress and hope, and how Iraqis are voting, learning to protect themselves, prosecuting Saddam for his crimes, and generally trying to become a civilized country. For those who either were always were against the war or have now become against the war, they favor stories of mayham, misery, enormous cost, and empowered terrorists.

How can these two groups, and most of the Americans residing in them, including myself, who don't really know the full story, have such competing views? What drives these differences? Is it what we read? What we choose to read? Or is more about perception...and how we want to be perceived in the world?

I think the Left wants to be perceived as amiable and fair to the rest of the world. That is why they have such a problem with Iraq.

I think the Right wants to be perceived as tough and steadfast to the rest of world. That is why we are in Iraq.

My concern is specifically with Islamic Extremists. IF the prevelent narrative on Iraq is that it was a mistake, a big huge costly mistake for the United States, the extremist movement will consider Iraq a victory for themselves. They have done this before in every single instance in which they have attacked the US and survived - claimed victory, become more emboldened, more wealthy, and more powerful.

To me, we cannot fathom "losing" Iraq, in perception or in truth because it will be handing the Jihadis their biggest victory, even bigger than 9/11.

But the anti-war Left will not allow a winning narrative to take hold. They will argue, it is a failure because it is a failure. But what isn't a failure? Every choice, including a non-choice, fails in some respect. Was the first Persion Gulf war a failure? Not considered so at the time. But in hindsight, we left the Kurds to be massacred and allowed Saddam to set his country back another 10 years, and now we're in the mess we are now.

Was Vietnam a failure? Yes, but at the same time, in the context of the 50 year Cold War, maybe not. We averted nuclear disaster.

Was WWII a failure? Not considered one, unless of course you ask the 50 million who died.

Was doing nothing about the Armenian genocide in 1915-1917 a failure? No one considers this a failure of the US, because we sat around and did nothing...

But why is doing nothing not considered a failure? It seems to me a morally bankrupt position...

Then again, read a specific article about the middle east and it makes you want to throw up your hands and just let them all kill one another - the shi'ite, sunni, christians, israelis...f-em.