Wednesday, August 17, 2005


Recently, as I've listened to my new morning-drive infotainment, and have been checking Mudville's Dawn Patrol, it seems to me that those who wish to repeat the history of the last five decades -- a history where good and evil were turned upside down in the eyes of free men, opening the door for those espousing "traditional" totalitarianism (as opposed to the mythical kind allegedly derived from the PATRIOT Act) to grow in strength and reach -- seem to be getting louder.

Again, we hear how "this war was a mistake" ... "this war was started for the wrong reasons" ... "this war was for oil" ... in the MSM.

Apparently, it doesn't matter to such as these that, according to the Duelfer Report, Saddam was the one who lied -- to his own generals -- about the presence of WMD stockpiles, while STILL protecting the means to restart the R&D needed for WMD production.

You would think they would realize that the blindness within our intelligence appratus ...a blindness that they, in attempts to tie our nation down like Gulliver in the name of "peace" and "accountability", actively encouraged in government policy ... kept us from seeing through what Saddam was telling his own staff.

Given that blindness, then how ... once the inspectors had given Saddam a clean-bill-of-health, and we were told by the (now shown to be corrupt) UN to leave him alone and lift the sanctions ... do these critics suggest we should assure that Saddam didn't build on what he already had to get weaponized WMD?

They never seem to answer that.

And ... if this was a war for oil, why aren't we seeing evidence of Americans profiting from that oil, like we did with UN Oil-for-Food?

You would think they would understand the need for resolve, even in the face of tough going, if we are to stop a determined enemy (something we knew going into this). You would think that they would understand that September 11 was only "the end of the beginning" of a greater war, involving more than just Al Quada, that threatens our way of live with a terrible tyranny that will impoverish this now-highly-interconnected world in the short term, and oppresss billions in the long term, if left unchecked.

You would think that they would agree with me, that the way of life our enemies seek to impose on ANYONE THEY CAN is simply NOT morally equivalent to our way of life ... and in fact is diametrically opposed to many of the critics' "progressive" tenets.

You would think that those with the education the critics have could also show us even ONE instance where the negotiation and passivity they advocate has ever stopped a tyrant in the absence of confrontation with the CREDIBLE threat of force ... let alone show us were even ONE tyrant stopped expanding his empire on his own accord, in the absence of such "warmongering" confrontation as my President advocates.

You would think that history, since 1979 certainly, would show us that ignoring such tyrants is counterproductive in terms of promoting peace and security ... while confronting them leads to the liberation of millions, and the promotion of true peace.

But, they don't. Why?

I submit that, for many, it is because they simply cannot believe in a society that is based upon free enterprise. They simply do not trust America, in the face of history, to do the Right Thing ... ever ... because they believe that our respect for the profit motive will always distort Right into Wrong.

Now, that view, by itself, could be plausible (though still wrong). We have made our mistakes. Where the critics turn error into foolishness is when they gloss over the inadequacies ... and in a few cases, evil ... of societies/economies/nations other than America.

They wax poetic about Old Europe ... and the socialism that could only exist there by the continued presence of strong capitalist enterprises that somehow have resisted the choking creep of socialist ideology that has killed off smaller businesses and produced double-digit unemployment. (And, let's not forget 50 years of protection from the "hard rain" of Soviet socialism, under the American nuclear/military umbrella ... that allowed them to divert resources into social services with relative impunity.)

They see the democratic Israeli govenrment and the kleptocratic Palestinian Authority as morally equivalent ... and some even view such "peacemakers" as Hamas as freedom fighters instead of the thugs that they are.

They see Saddam & Sons as either being oppressed by the American bully, or too insignificant in power (despite their total control of Iraq's resources and infrastructure, and the nearby resources they could "annex") to merit the attention of our military ... or limit their consideration of the threats Saddam & Sons posed to conventional warfare, and claim that containment worked ... even though that was a very leaky bucket in terms of looting Iraq's resources, with some going to corrupt the international community, and some going to support terrorism, and some going into building unconventional force (i.e. the aforementioned WMD R&D efforts).

It is interesting that such as these will support, or at least tolerate, LIMITED military force, as was seen in Kosovo, on two conditions:

> America (though it provides the bulk of the force) must submit itself to the control of a "coalitiion" that will make sure it doesn't act in its own interest (right or wrong).

> There must be NO WAY that Americans can engage in profitable enterprise from their presence in such a conflict, or her motives will ALWAYS be suspect.

> The leadership that takes us into war, is on the same ideological track as today's critics ... and therefore the critics inherently trust them.

Other than that ... the planning doesn't matter, the provisioning doesn't matter, armor doesn't matter, troop strength doesn't matter, civilan casualties don't matter. Those aspects are no different in such a conflict than they are now in Iraq ... but because people like Halliburton MIGHT profit in Iraq, and/or progress in Iraq might validate to some degree the ideological viewpoint of conservatives, all these aspects are looked at under a microscope there, in stark contrast to the relative inattention given such details in places like Kosovo.

They are seeing a threat ... the wrong one. As I've often said, the critics are more concerned that America (and by extension, themselves) "might" look bad if one of our officials is in a position where he/she "might" shred paper ... than they are concerned that thugs, in control of vast resources that can be used to threaten today's highly-interconnected world, are ALREADY shredding people.

The flaw in your argument is that we are selective in the tyrants that we take on...and to tell the truth we probably need to be. If Saddam Hussein were the ruler of Zimbabwe, we would not have invaded to depose him...nor will we invade Zimbabwe anytime soon. Unless they discover oil reserves. So in its purest sense it is about oil. Oil which is needed to preserve US economic stability and national security. That's certainly a better reason than some fuzzy desire to promote democracy. National self interest and the preservation of it is an inherent right and responsibility of the President.

Plus to be honest, I don't see the real "main stream media" saying the war was just for oil. None of the mainline periodicals due and even the New York Times does not say that. What they are taking issue with is the open ended nature of the occupation and to be honest there is probably real merit in having that discussion. In that regard if the polls are to be believed, the American public supports the efforts of our troops, but is becoming more than a little frustrated that this is dragging out for so long. The administration has no one but itself to blame for its poor shaping of expectations and the need to more clearly communicate why this fight is important.

The American people are supportive, but they are getting war weary I think.
Skippy-san, Zimbabwe is not a WMD threat. Zimbabwe did not try to assassinate an American President, was not a key player or obstacle in the W.O.T. and did not violate the terms of ceasefire won by the sacrifice of brave American defenders. Zimbabwe has no suspicious ties to the 9/11 attack, as Saddam Hussein did.

And as for the defeatist lib media, let's just say that Americans have alternatives to them now. That's why they've lost so much audience.
I think what people are weary of is incessant lib sophistry and whining. Do not succumb to it.

The fighting only appears to be "dragging on" -I don't see it that way but its an understandable view- because it is viewed in the context as a war with "Iraqi insurgents" only, while terrorists are going in from Iran and Syria. As Lt. Gen. DeLong has said, they will be dealt with.

In the proper context of what's going on, Iraq is the battlefield in an active REGIONAL WAR. The WMD may or may not ever be satisfactoraly accounted for, but one thing is for sure, Saddam did have them. But if the same interrogation techniques that were applied to a 1993 WTC bomber that led to his release (and escape into Iraq BTW) are used with Saddam, I have little hope of ever finding them.

One would think that this would highlight the nature of the threat that Iraq posed.
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?