Our enemies have had a long experience with subverting and distorting the words of good men and women into the tools of tyranny and slavery, more experience than we have with beating back such darkness.

The International Red Cross was founded by a man that saw the carnage of the American Civil War first hand and the conditions on many other battlefields. Yet, look at the IRC now. An organization designed to standardize care and ensure that doctors would not be targeted, because it was already hard trying to save the lives of soldiers in tents full with the buzzing of flies and the crawling of maggots.

In fact, evil can do greater harm by hiding their motivations behind the mask of Goodness. Nobody is going to support Nazism, because it has been shown for what it is. Yet people will follow other organizations with the same intentions, such as the ACLU or CAIR, because they believe them to be good. Using a Constitution as justification for subversive actions can make such actions even more harmful, GC.

The forces of evil are very tricky, deceptive, and cautious. In some ways, we must think in the same ways if we are to face them and their allies.

This goes against the core of good men and women, who believe that honesty and transparency is the way to go. Yet there is no justification for refusing to use tools that might benefit others simply because those tools are distasteful. If necessary, I would even support the use of the Left, regardless of the amount of blood such tools acquired in Vietnam.

I don’t want to hear talk about bringing down the government, because the last time that happened was with Diem. I am not confident the US has the intel, the intelligence, or the wisdom to know what is safe or unsafe.

Here’s my post on Markos Moulitas’ Trojan Horse pragmatism:

http://burkeanreflections.blogspot.com/2007/08/trojan-horse-pragmatism-markos.html

Have a great weekend!

Morgan’s account:

My final event of the day before leaving the embassy was unexpected – Gen. Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker were briefing a delegation of three Congressmen, and they permitted me… to sit in. [One of them,] Washington Democrat Brian Bird (sic), stunned me with his knowledge of the situation in Iraq, reasonable perspective on the surge and Iraqi political process, and above all his suggestions for Petraeus’ September visit to DC and how he could make sure that the American people understand the message of his report.

You wrote:
This soldier’s idea of “progress” is one of increased security, but the progress in even this field has been sporadic and limited geographically, at best.

First: it is nice of you to admit that “progress” is happening!

Second: progress in war is almost always sporadic. “Sporadic” “progress” does not constitute a reason to surrender.

Third: “limited geographically” is an invalid measure of progress in a desert nation with unevenly distributed population.

Moving on…
You wrote:
Progress in bringing long-term stability to the country via some political reconciliation among the warring parties? It’s not happening, and even venerable neo-cons like Charles Krauthammer agree with that.

I’m guessing you are referencing today’s Krauthammer column, which I found at NRO. While Krauthammer says national political reconciliation is not happening at this exact moment, he also asserts that it could happen in the future – if the Maliki government is replaced. Maybe you had read a Dowdified quote on another blogsite, and had not read Krauthammer’s entire context. Krauthammer:

Serious people like Levin argue that with a nonfunctional and sectarian Baghdad government, we can never achieve national reconciliation. Thus the current military successes will prove ephemeral.

The choice is difficult because replacing the Maliki government will take time and because there is no guarantee of ultimate political success. Nonetheless, continuing the surge while finally trying to change the central government is the most rational choice because the only available alternative is defeat — a defeat that is not at all inevitable and would be both catastrophic and self-inflicted.

I think you’re asking the wrong question. Try this one: What devoted professional in any field would beg for more of a chance to spin his/her wheels, at considerable risk to both him/herself and others, with no possibility of success? The quote is not from someone who is saying he doesn’t want to quit. It’s from someone who sees that he isn’t just spinning his wheels, that there is a chance to succeed, and that the risk to himself and his colleagues is worth the continued effort.