Four more years!
The problem with the invasion of Iraq was not the invasion itself, which I think was a morally justified, albeit long overdue, coup de grace for the first Persian Gulf War, but that its rationale didn’t lend itself readily to soundbites or pithy justifications. That’s why I object to the term “Iraq War.” I think Iraq Battle is more accurate.
Most people forget that our involvement against the Nazis in WW2 began with our invasion of Algeria, a French colony that was being administered by the puppet Vichy government. We went there first because our army wasn’t yet battle tested and we wanted to take an easy pawn off the board. We also wanted to lend assistance to the British who were having their asses handed to them by Rommel’s Afrika Corps in Egypt. There was no “Algeria War.” Algeria was only the American debut in what was to be a horribly long and destructive war. Algeria was taken because it was, in a sense, low-hanging fruit.
That’s why we started with Iraq. Saddam had been a problem for decades; he had murdered hundreds of thousands of his own people, invaded three of his neighbors and shot at our planes over the no-fly zones on a daily basis. He also tried to engineer the assassination a former U.S. president. And he was, liberal hyperventilating notwithstanding, a devotee of WMD’s. The fact that we didn’t find them is unfortunate, but I think the intelligence lapse is forgivable in light of the fact that the British, French and even the Russians all thought they were there, too. Saddam had them before, had even used them, and was trying to get them again. I call that, if not an imminent, than certainly an impending danger.
Guys, though it isn’t nice to say this in polite company, we really are in a war of civilizations. And don’t tell me that the radical Muslims we’re fighting are only a fringe sect, and not representative of “mainstream” Islam. Don’t tell me that when even American Muslims can’t bring themselves to unequivocally denounce Islamic terrorism. We are at war with a malignant culture that has sprung up in a cesspool of despotism, religious fanaticism, and state engineered hatred of the West all fueled on oil wealth. This is the culture that succors al-Qaeda. The only way we can end this fight is to show the Muslims a way out of the darkness. That’s why Iraq is so important. We have to show not the governments but the people of the Mideast that the way to better their lives involves freeing them so they can work to build better countries for themselves, not strapping on bomb vests and blowing up infidels for the greater glory of Allah. The way to do that is to prop up Iraq until its new government can stand on its own. When the Iraqis turn their country around, when they freely elect their own leaders and begin to earn and enjoy the prosperity that will surely follow, THEN it is hoped that the people of Syria and Iran and others will begin to agitate for the same freedoms from their leaders.
That, in a nutshell, is why I think we went into Iraq.
To use another analogy, Rob, let’s say that we all live in a town on the edge of a swamp. Let’s also say that this swamp breeds alligators that occasionally come into our town and devour our children. Do we limit our response to posting guards to keep vigil on the swamp and simply react to each alligator as it appears (trusting that we’ll see them all before they can eat someone else) or do we do the right thing and drain the swamp? Draining the swamp is scary. It’s fraught with peril and it is assumed that the alligators will fight to defend their domain and that some more of our people will thus die in the effort. But it’s still the right thing to do.
Changing minds on a grand scale like this is never easy and never quick. But to try is still the right thing to do. Until John Kerry can convince me that he takes this responsibility seriously and that he won’t cut and run, I will not consider voting for him. Simply offering platitudes about his Vietnam service over and over ad infinitum, as he’s been doing thus far, won’t do it.
BTW, about "working with allies like the French" is a non-starter. Even Joe Lieberman has said that Chirac wouldn't have cooperated with us no matter how low we bowed to him.
Most people forget that our involvement against the Nazis in WW2 began with our invasion of Algeria, a French colony that was being administered by the puppet Vichy government. We went there first because our army wasn’t yet battle tested and we wanted to take an easy pawn off the board. We also wanted to lend assistance to the British who were having their asses handed to them by Rommel’s Afrika Corps in Egypt. There was no “Algeria War.” Algeria was only the American debut in what was to be a horribly long and destructive war. Algeria was taken because it was, in a sense, low-hanging fruit.
That’s why we started with Iraq. Saddam had been a problem for decades; he had murdered hundreds of thousands of his own people, invaded three of his neighbors and shot at our planes over the no-fly zones on a daily basis. He also tried to engineer the assassination a former U.S. president. And he was, liberal hyperventilating notwithstanding, a devotee of WMD’s. The fact that we didn’t find them is unfortunate, but I think the intelligence lapse is forgivable in light of the fact that the British, French and even the Russians all thought they were there, too. Saddam had them before, had even used them, and was trying to get them again. I call that, if not an imminent, than certainly an impending danger.
Guys, though it isn’t nice to say this in polite company, we really are in a war of civilizations. And don’t tell me that the radical Muslims we’re fighting are only a fringe sect, and not representative of “mainstream” Islam. Don’t tell me that when even American Muslims can’t bring themselves to unequivocally denounce Islamic terrorism. We are at war with a malignant culture that has sprung up in a cesspool of despotism, religious fanaticism, and state engineered hatred of the West all fueled on oil wealth. This is the culture that succors al-Qaeda. The only way we can end this fight is to show the Muslims a way out of the darkness. That’s why Iraq is so important. We have to show not the governments but the people of the Mideast that the way to better their lives involves freeing them so they can work to build better countries for themselves, not strapping on bomb vests and blowing up infidels for the greater glory of Allah. The way to do that is to prop up Iraq until its new government can stand on its own. When the Iraqis turn their country around, when they freely elect their own leaders and begin to earn and enjoy the prosperity that will surely follow, THEN it is hoped that the people of Syria and Iran and others will begin to agitate for the same freedoms from their leaders.
That, in a nutshell, is why I think we went into Iraq.
To use another analogy, Rob, let’s say that we all live in a town on the edge of a swamp. Let’s also say that this swamp breeds alligators that occasionally come into our town and devour our children. Do we limit our response to posting guards to keep vigil on the swamp and simply react to each alligator as it appears (trusting that we’ll see them all before they can eat someone else) or do we do the right thing and drain the swamp? Draining the swamp is scary. It’s fraught with peril and it is assumed that the alligators will fight to defend their domain and that some more of our people will thus die in the effort. But it’s still the right thing to do.
Changing minds on a grand scale like this is never easy and never quick. But to try is still the right thing to do. Until John Kerry can convince me that he takes this responsibility seriously and that he won’t cut and run, I will not consider voting for him. Simply offering platitudes about his Vietnam service over and over ad infinitum, as he’s been doing thus far, won’t do it.
BTW, about "working with allies like the French" is a non-starter. Even Joe Lieberman has said that Chirac wouldn't have cooperated with us no matter how low we bowed to him.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home