T Nation

The Capitulation Caucus

An article that makes some interesting observations IMHO.

I will disagree however with the authors description of the British sailors as “capitulators”. They were just doing what they had to do to survive I think. There are however, many others that see no other option for the U.S. besides complete surrender to our enemies. For that matter, they would rather see the U.S surrender to the will of the great and benevolent UN. Needles to say, I disagree.

The capitulation caucus is indeed a growing force in the west. I’m starting to think that the west is beginning to lose it’s stomach for any kind of war, while the nations of the middle east are showing a thirst for it.


http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/04/the_capitulation_caucus.html

April 06, 2007
The Capitulation Caucus
By Rich Lowry

It is growing in strength and boldness. It is not a political party or a cohesive movement. But it is on the verge of becoming the most significant force in the West, one that perhaps will shape our world for years, even decades, to come.

It is the Capitulation Caucus.

Its membership consists of most nationally elected Democrats in the United States, much of the American foreign-policy elite, the balance of the U.S. media, most international bureaucrats and nongovernmental organizations, and the European political elite.

They are loosely united around their beliefs that the Iraq War is lost or not worth trying to win, that we have to accommodate ourselves to anti-Western thugs in the Middle East and that the United States today is a reckless, malign influence in the world.

On one day this past week, the Caucus had two high-profile symbolic standard-bearers: the captured British sailors smiling and shaking hands with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, thanking him for their release; and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi meeting with the criminal Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad, relaying an offer from the Israelis to negotiate, without mentioning that they want him to abandon terrorism first. Pelosi and the sailors thus demonstrated the Caucus’ favorite posture of the ingratiating cringe.

People come to their membership in the Caucus for different reasons, some of them quite legitimate. They look at Iraq and conclude that it is lost. Or believe in the power of negotiation over any other international tool. Or think that the Middle East is a hopeless cesspool. These are reasonable views, but also in the mix are a yowling Bush hatred, an ideological anti-Americanism in Europe, and a shameful will to defeat.

A strength of the West always has been its ability to generate self-criticism. (As long ago as 1901, a British politician was complaining that “eminent men write and speak as if they belonged to the enemy.”) This makes it easier to correct errors and avoid excesses. The problem is, if the self-criticism becomes too sweeping and unrelenting, it amounts to a kind of self-sabotage, as it did in the mid-1970s when the United States lost the Vietnam War by refusing even to provide aid and air support to the South.

Many actors in the West will always tend toward capitulation. The key “swing state” is the United States. It is the exceptional nation, more willing to defend – by force, if necessary – the security and ideals of the West than any other country. If it is robust (think Reagan), the West is strong; if it’s not (think Carter), the West is not.

America is now lurching toward a repeat of Vietnam and all the national neuroses that followed. The debate over Iraq is becoming less about how to win, than about how and when to lose. Should it be by September 2008, as House Democrats propose, or by March 2008, as Senate Democrats propose, or right away, as Senate Democratic Majority Leader Harry Reid is beginning to suggest with his flirtation with an immediate cutoff of funding for the war?

The narrative of defeat in Iraq is zealously defended. Sen. John McCain could have spoken more judiciously about hopeful signs in Iraq, but the alacrity with which much of the press denounced him for his optimism was extraordinary. It wants to impose an Eleventh Commandment: “Thou Shalt Not Covet Progress in Iraq.”

If we lose in Iraq, Sunni or Shia radicals will likely gain all or portions of the country; jihadists will be emboldened and the war in Afghanistan likely will deteriorate; Iran will be in a stronger position with which to obtain its game-changing nuclear weapon; our Middle East allies will lose confidence in us and become even less cooperative. All of this will mean that we will have even less leverage than we do now, and it will further encourage advocates of retreat and engagement-no-matter-what.

Just complete garbage, straw men and falsehoods.

[quote]bigflamer wrote:
There are however, many others that see no other option for the U.S. besides complete surrender to our enemies. [/quote]

What in the crap are you talking about? Are you drunk? “Complete surrender?” Either you’re drunk or you’re an idiot.

I would like to hear George Bush (or you, you take a shot at it) come out and define exactly what victory in Iraq is… what is the mission? Iraqi Unity? And that will be accomplished by… gunpoint?

How will we know we have “won” in Iraq? What is the benchmark?

I’m sure that since this goal is so freeaking important, there is a benchmark we are working towards, and not just some vague sense of “unity” and “the Iraqis can defend themselves”. No vague platitudes about “kill all the terrorists”… what is the goal, and how is our military supposed to achieve it, just by being there?

Frankly the mission has changed so many times, and nobody credible can explain how being there is in our national interests, except to say that leaving is worse than staying. That is probably the lamest rationale for a military action I can imagine… we don’t know how to leave, so we have to stay.

By the way, Nancy Pelosi was in Syria because Syria wants to come to terms with Israel.

Only an idiot would think that Syria and Israel coming to terms is bad. But Bush won’t even talk to Syria. That is just stupid. But since there is no diplomacy component to Bush’s foreign policy, he can just sit on the sidelines pouting, while smarter people do his job for him, if that’s what he wants. Lead, follow, or get out of the way. Bush is not leading.

In two years, we can get competent and sensible leadership again, and hopefully start mending some fences. And I don’t just mean Democratic leadership… almost anybody would be better than the idiots running the show now.

[quote]bigflamer wrote:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/04/the_capitulation_caucus.html

April 06, 2007
The Capitulation Caucus
By Rich Lowry[/quote]

Lowry? Why not put something by O’Reilly or Hannity next time. Better yet, link to Coulter’s website. Oh…wait, HH did that already.

I read the piece out of curiosity and it’s complete garbage. He assumes the war in Iraq has any chances of being “won”. Get over it, as long as there’ll be one Iraqis standing, they’ll continue to fight your presence on their soil.

LOL! you’re both so cute when you’re upset.

I’m glad that a couple of charter members of said caucus responded to this article, but I’ll have to respond in more detail later ladies. I have to get my son some breakfast and get ready for class.

Later.

[quote]lixy wrote:
bigflamer wrote:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/04/the_capitulation_caucus.html

April 06, 2007
The Capitulation Caucus
By Rich Lowry

Lowry? Why not put something by O’Reilly or Hannity next time. Better yet, link to Coulter’s website. Oh…wait, HH did that already.

I read the piece out of curiosity and it’s complete garbage. He assumes the war in Iraq has any chances of being “won”. Get over it, as long as there’ll be one Iraqis standing, they’ll continue to fight your presence on their soil.[/quote]

Rosie O’Donnell has a national forum with which to present her hatred of America. Why does Ann Coulter NOT have a similar setup? Ask yourself sometime.

We will win in Iraq. The people there KNOW what will happen if we were to leave. Our goal there is to establish a functional republic based upon intelligence, not the Koran and its mystical barbarism.

Iraqis are learning to leave their religion at home and not try to impose it on others. When they’ve learned that and start stamping out the snakes from Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia, then we’ll be close to done.

Good Post Bigflamer.

RealClear Politics is a good site. Up to the minute polling data and it usually has a number of articles representing current thinking from all political sides.

The current congress, and it’s leaders, are behaving like they have a mandate, rather then a majority. We should all keep in mind that foriegn policy is handled by the executive branch and not elected leaders from certain congressional districts. That goes for both parties, regardless who is in office.

If the people want to change the constitution so be it. I don’t see a movement that thinks the speaker of the house should be making foriegn policy decisions…perhaps I’ve missed something.

[quote]We will win in Iraq. The people there KNOW what will happen if we were to leave. Our goal there is to establish a functional republic based upon intelligence, not the Koran and its mystical barbarism.

Iraqis are learning to leave their religion at home and not try to impose it on others. When they’ve learned that and start stamping out the snakes from Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia, then we’ll be close to done.

[/quote]

We dont live in the same universe, do we? Theres exactly one thing that will change if the US-troops pull out of Iraq: The will be no more american casualties in the Iraq civil war.

[quote]Ken Kaniff wrote:
We will win in Iraq. The people there KNOW what will happen if we were to leave. Our goal there is to establish a functional republic based upon intelligence, not the Koran and its mystical barbarism.

Iraqis are learning to leave their religion at home and not try to impose it on others. When they’ve learned that and start stamping out the snakes from Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia, then we’ll be close to done.

We dont live in the same universe, do we? Theres exactly one thing that will change if the US-troops pull out of Iraq: The will be no more american casualties in the Iraq civil war.[/quote]

True. Then it will anyone living in a large American city. Following up on their victory in Iraq, do you honestly think those people will stop?

Kind of like expecting Hitler to be satisfied with Czechoslovakia, eh?

This whole article only works under the assumption that this war can and must be won.

If it cannot be won however, and who knows if it can or not, those “capitulationists” are simply realists.

All in all this article only tries to question the motifs of political opponents, it is an attempt to smear an nothing else.

To stop hitting your head against a brick wall is usually a good thing.

Even if you call it “cut and run” and the opponents “brick-appeasers”…

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
When they’ve learned that and start stamping out the snakes from Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia, then we’ll be close to done. [/quote]

15 of the 19 hijackers of 9/11 were Saudis. The Saudi government is financing extremist groups worldwide. Yet, the US supports the Al-Sauds.

[quote]hedo wrote:
RealClear Politics is a good site. Up to the minute polling data and it usually has a number of articles representing current thinking from all political sides. [/quote]

This is hilarious. RealClear is a hard-line conservative site. It’s represents as much “current thinking from all political sides” than Fox news is “fair and balanced”.

[quote]Ken Kaniff wrote:
We dont live in the same universe, do we? Theres exactly one thing that will change if the US-troops pull out of Iraq: The will be no more american casualties in the Iraq civil war. [/quote]

Not only; you’ll also strip off the cause some terrorists groups use to recruit. Add to that the cost in US dollars for tax-payers.

[quote]orion wrote:
To stop hitting your head against a brick wall is usually a good thing.[/quote]

ROTFLMAO!

[quote]lixy wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
When they’ve learned that and start stamping out the snakes from Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia, then we’ll be close to done.

15 of the 19 hijackers of 9/11 were Saudis. The Saudi government is financing extremist groups worldwide. Yet, the US supports the Al-Sauds.

hedo wrote:
RealClear Politics is a good site. Up to the minute polling data and it usually has a number of articles representing current thinking from all political sides.

This is hilarious. RealClear is a hard-line conservative site. It’s represents as much “current thinking from all political sides” than Fox news is “fair and balanced”.

Ken Kaniff wrote:
We dont live in the same universe, do we? Theres exactly one thing that will change if the US-troops pull out of Iraq: The will be no more american casualties in the Iraq civil war.

Not only; you’ll also strip off the cause some terrorists groups use to recruit. Add to that the cost in US dollars for tax-payers.

orion wrote:
To stop hitting your head against a brick wall is usually a good thing.

ROTFLMAO![/quote]

LOL

Your post has no substance, only attacks. Realclear pulls articles from all sources. Clearly you have never read it.

Again I’ll point you to the article at the top of the home page, above the articles on training, that deals with the demise of T-Nation and the trolls with an agenda who have brought it down.

It’s a US Bodybuilding site not an anti-US jihad portal. That’s clearly the position you are vainly attempting to further. You are at the top of the list of trolls who use this site to further an agenda and have no contribution or interest in training whatsoever.

Mods…you need an example. You can’t find a better one then lixy…just read his posts.

[quote]Brad61 wrote:
Just complete garbage, straw men and falsehoods.[/quote]

I look forward to you pointing out these straw men and falsehoods

[quote]bigflamer wrote:
There are however, many others that see no other option for the U.S. besides complete surrender to our enemies.

What in the crap are you talking about? Are you drunk? “Complete surrender?” Either you’re drunk or you’re an idiot.[/quote]

I will admit to the occasional episode of drunk and stupid, this is not the case right now however.

[quote]I would like to hear George Bush (or you, you take a shot at it) come out and define exactly what victory in Iraq is… what is the mission? Iraqi Unity? And that will be accomplished by… gunpoint?

How will we know we have “won” in Iraq? What is the benchmark?[/quote]

Well, we’ve already technically “won” in Iraq. For all of the reasons that’ve been hashed and rehashed a million times on this forum, we went in and toppled saddam, removed his brutal govt., and achieved a smashing military victory.

What we’ve had difficulty with is the rebuilding and stabilization of the country so we can leave. Get it? It would be irresponsible of us to leave prior to:

-Ensuring that Iraq’s police can keep order on their own, without the help of the US and it’s allies

-Ensuring that Iraq’s military is up to snuff and can defend it’s own borders without the help of the US and it’s allies

-Ensuring that the freely elected government of Iraq is on track to rebuild an infrastructure that was completely unsanitary, depleted, broken down, and horribly neglected by saddam.

-Ensuring that Iraq’s economy is able to support is emerging democracy

Do you not think it would be irresponsible of us to leave before these things are completed?

I’m thinking of Germany and Japan. We smashed them in WWII, then rebuilt them. They seem to be doing fine today, why can’t we do the same with Iraq? We can with a good plan and a firm commitment to getting the job done.

The military cannot do the job all on it’s own, this is glaringly obvious. Success in Iraq will be achieved militarily and politically. The later is where Bush has obviously fucked up, no arguments from me on that one. But what’s with all of the “we can’t win”, “success in Iraq is imposible”, and “there’s no chance we’ll ever win”?

This is defeatism at it’s worst and is really sad. It’s a tough go in Iraq for sure, but that’s no reason to throw our hands in the air and give up. The way I see it, we have two choices; we can cut and run, or we can formulate a new plan and get back to work.

The enemies of the United States and Israel will IMEDIATELY fill the power vacuum that will be created by our premature departure and you know it. Is that in the best interest of the US and her allies? It is not.

A free and democratic Iraq will benefit the world, not just the United States.

No they don’t, they’re just playing the game with a naive politician doing nothing but political posturing. Period.

Syria refuses to condemn terrorism and stop supporting terror groups. This is a hard line that I’m glad the US is taking, well we were taking until chief capitulator herself stepped out of line and went to Damascus and undercut the presidents foreign policy.

This was way out of line as foreign policy is not the function of the speaker of the house. Political posturing was the sole reason for her trip.

See above. Like it or not, foreign policy is not the function of the speaker of the house. She was way out of line.

Giuliani in '08.

[quote]lixy wrote:
I read the piece out of curiosity and it’s complete garbage. He assumes the war in Iraq has any chances of being “won”.[/quote]

Why can’t we have success in Iraq? Please enlighten me.

You assume that the US isn’t actively working on leaving in a responsible manner. You assume too much lixy.

[quote]bigflamer wrote:
Why can’t we have success in Iraq? Please enlighten me.
[/quote]

Success in Iraq, from your perspective would be a stable Iraq with a pro-US government that lets foreign companies exploit its national resources.

Given the history of the region, US support for Saddam, GW1, embargo that only reinforced the dictator in power while the population starved, GW2, Abu-Ghraib and all other episodes, it’s only logical that given the choice, Iraqis will elect a hardline anti-US government. Therefore, the only way to get a pro-West leader is to enthrone a dictator; If that’s done, kiss stability good-bye. Lastly, the people of Iraq in majority support a nationalization of their oil, and that goes against US interests. Add to that the fact that the Shia majority is bound to get a pro-Iranian governement into office if the process is any democratic. An alliance the US will never allow.

If you mean that Iraqis will allow US bases on their soil and US companies pumping their riches, you’re very mistaken. The US is builidng the world’s biggest embassy in Baghdad. Why do you think that is for? Why also do you think the Bush administration is pressuring the Iraqi parliament to ratify a law that grants permission for foreign oil companies to pillage the country?

Get me any other reasonable explanation that refutes my assumption and I’ll shut up.

[quote]lixy wrote:
bigflamer wrote:
Why can’t we have success in Iraq? Please enlighten me.

Success in Iraq, from your perspective would be a stable Iraq with a pro-US government that lets foreign companies exploit its national resources.

[/quote]

You’ve said this last bit several times now. What do you mean by ‘exploit’? If oil is a substance that simply fouls the drinking water for your herd of goats, then along comes an oil company which gives you billions of dollars for what you used to regard as a nuisance, then how in the world is that exploitation?

Without the oil companies ‘exploiting’ this resource, the Arab countries would be lands of nomads and goat herders engaging in tribal warfare, and no one would give a rat’s ass about any of you.

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
lixy wrote:
bigflamer wrote:
Why can’t we have success in Iraq? Please enlighten me.

Success in Iraq, from your perspective would be a stable Iraq with a pro-US government that lets foreign companies exploit its national resources.

You’ve said this last bit several times now. What do you mean by ‘exploit’? If oil is a substance that simply fouls the drinking water for your herd of goats, then along comes an oil company which gives you billions of dollars for what you used to regard as a nuisance, then how in the world is that exploitation?

Without the oil companies ‘exploiting’ this resource, the Arab countries would be lands of nomads and goat herders engaging in tribal warfare, and no one would give a rat’s ass about any of you.
[/quote]

There’s a problem. The natives have caught on. They have internet now and are no longer interested in glass and mirrors.

[quote]Wreckless wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
lixy wrote:
bigflamer wrote:
Why can’t we have success in Iraq? Please enlighten me.

Success in Iraq, from your perspective would be a stable Iraq with a pro-US government that lets foreign companies exploit its national resources.

You’ve said this last bit several times now. What do you mean by ‘exploit’? If oil is a substance that simply fouls the drinking water for your herd of goats, then along comes an oil company which gives you billions of dollars for what you used to regard as a nuisance, then how in the world is that exploitation?

Without the oil companies ‘exploiting’ this resource, the Arab countries would be lands of nomads and goat herders engaging in tribal warfare, and no one would give a rat’s ass about any of you.

There’s a problem. The natives have caught on. They have internet now and are no longer interested in glass and mirrors.[/quote]

Yea, cuz the internet is a pristine bastion of the truth, always. No glass and mirrirs on the internet, mmm mmm, no sir.

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
You’ve said this last bit several times now. What do you mean by ‘exploit’? If oil is a substance that simply fouls the drinking water for your herd of goats, then along comes an oil company which gives you billions of dollars for what you used to regard as a nuisance, then how in the world is that exploitation? [/quote]

My, oh my! You don’t have a clue, now do you?

Extracting oil isn’t black magic. Any half-decent country can get it done.

Look at the profits your oil companies make out of it. It’s INSANE. They’re always in the top 5 of the Fortune 500 and their revenues double each year. The only people who benefit from the meager compensations the country gets for the explotation contracts are the ruling elite. Those are always some kind of absolute monarchy or dictatorship.

It’s not the early 20th century anymore and people are more aware than before. War have replaced what was achieved thru deceitful contracts and trickery. The locals can’t be dupped with cheap stuff anymore. They demand what’s theirs! Hence, the resistance of the populations to the neo-empirialistic methods. It’s happening in Chile, Venezuela, Nigeria, the Middle-East, Ecuador and many other places.

[quote]bigflamer wrote:
I look forward to you pointing out these straw men and falsehoods
[/quote]

Okay, to begin with… you said

“complete surrender”???

Name one person who advocates “complete surrender”. You said there are “many” of them.

So name one, jackass. Name one person who advocates “surrender”.

Who is saying our troops should hand over their weapons? Who is saying that our government should cede control to a foriegn power?

Oh wait, maybe you don’t know what surrender means? Or maybe you were just spewing negative bullshit, and didn’t expect anyone to actually pay attention?

[quote]lixy wrote:
Extracting oil isn’t black magic. Any half-decent country can get it done.
[/quote]

Wrong. Dead wrong.

It is extremely difficult and costly to extract oil. Drilling is incredibly expensive, and it’s a total crapshoot as to where you should drill.

You can do geological and gravitational surveys, and you can even set off some underground explosives and listen to their echoes, and most of the time you still only have an educated guess as to whether there’s oil in the ground or not.

Is there oil? How deep is it? How much is there? How much can we extract? How long will it take? Is it worth gambling hundreds of millions of dollars to see if there’s oil down there?

Truth is, Oil Corps don’t get answers to these questions. They have to go out on a limb in order to find the oil.

Compared to nearly every industry, “Big Oil” is almost literally a giant poker game. It’s a huge gamble.

Even if you know there’s oil below you, it’s still difficult to extract it. Even the “Big Oil” corps currently do not have the technology to extract more than a small fraction of what is down there.

You can do some more research on your own lixy, but to imply that all it takes is a shovel and a dowsing rod is patently false.

[quote]lixy wrote:
Look at the profits your oil companies make out of it. It’s INSANE. They’re always in the top 5 of the Fortune 500 and their revenues double each year. [/quote]

Look at oil companies books. Their profits are more than reasonable for the costs they pour in and the risks they assume.

ExxonMobile profited $39 billion in FY 2006. That sounds like a lot until you see that they poured in $310 billion in costs.

That’s $310,233,000,000.

The profit margin on that is merely 13%. That means that ExxonMobile is profiting 13 cents for every dollar they spend, and that’s not much.

And no, their revenues do not double every year.

[b]EDIT: Actually, that 13% could be considered more of a return on investment. Sorry, my mistake.

EM’s operating revenue for FY 2006 was $365B. $39B / $365B = 10.69%, which is even lower than 13%.

So lixy, that means that 89 cents of every dollar that flows in to EM is consumed to cover their expenses. Only 11 cents of every dollar of revenue goes for profit. Even more reasonable, no?

/EDIT[/b]

[quote]lixy wrote:

The only people who benefit from the meager compensations the country gets for the explotation contracts are the ruling elite. Those are always some kind of absolute monarchy or dictatorship.
[/quote]

Sounds like a problem with the Middle-Eastern countries moreso than a problem with the oil corps.

Maybe you guys should fix that, eh?