“A War to Be Proud Of”?

Well, almost… While, as usual, I find much to disagree with in Christopher Hitchens’ latest screed, he does manage to touch on some points apart from the d’irty underwear of the d’underground-minded.  For example (and yeh, this is a long excerpt, but it’s a much longer piece): The subsequent [as response to 9/11] liberation of Pakistan's theocratic colony in Afghanistan, and the so-far decisive eviction and defeat of its bin Ladenist guests, was only a reprisal. It took care of the last attack. But what about the next one? For anyone with eyes to see, there was only one other state that combined the latent and the blatant definitions of both "rogue" and "failed." This state--Saddam's ruined and tortured and collapsing Iraq--had also met all the conditions under which a country may be deemed to have sacrificed its own legal sovereignty. To recapitulate: It had invaded its neighbors, committed genocide on its own soil, harbored and nurtured international thugs and killers, and flouted every provision of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. The United Nations, in this crisis, faced with regular insult to its own resolutions and its own character, had managed to set up a system of sanctions-based mutual corruption. In May 2003, had things gone on as they had been going, Saddam Hussein would have been due to fill Iraq's slot as chair of the U.N. Conference on Disarmament. Meanwhile, every species of gangster from the hero of the Achille Lauro hijacking to Abu Musab al Zarqawi was finding hospitality under Saddam's crumbling roof. One might have thought, therefore, that Bush and Blair's decision to put an end at last to this intolerable state of affairs would be hailed, not just as a belated vindication of long-ignored U.N. resolutions but as some corrective to the decade of shame and inaction that had just passed in Bosnia and Rwanda. But such is not the case. An apparent consensus exists, among millions of people in Europe and America, that the whole operation for the demilitarization of Iraq, and the salvage of its traumatized society, was at best a false pretense and at worst an unprovoked aggression. How can this possibly be? Hithcens answers his own question plausibly, but without reaching root causes. He correctly points out the childishness of liberalist responses, but misses out on pegging the venality. Yes, the childishness of the dhimi-crats and their ilk is a portion of the reason.  And yes, the Stupid Party, in its White House and congresscritter representation, has “made a hash” of explaining the case for the Iraq war—both in the leadup and since.  But that’s not enough to explain the mind-numbingly stupid arguments against the Iraq adventure made by leftists. No, the best explanation for such mind-numbingly stupid arguments as the “boring [and disingenuous] mantra” of Bush lied…”is two-fold: those who are wittingly promulgating such lies, disinformation and idiotic catch-phrases are evil.  Yeh, I mean it. They are wittingly manipulating (the essence of evil: manipulation or coercion via lies, slander) the sheep they herd (D’underground as examples of such sheep) into chanting their lies… and depending on the stupidity of their sheep for success, such as it may be. It is this I find so offensive in so-called “progressives.” The assumption by leftist elites that the masses are simply too stupid to tell when they’re being lied to and encouraged to spread lies is beyond vile.  Mass Media Podpeople who wittingly (or stupidly) trumpet leftist lies and convince the sheep who think MMPs are “reporting news” are beneath contempt.  Politicians who… ah, but I run the danger of engaging in Mark Twain redux. (NOTE: D'underground and its fellow travellers do demonstrate that liberalist elites, Mass media Podpeople and pols do have a point: there are an aweful lot of "useful idiots" out there for them to manipulate.) My position on the war in Iraq? Well, you could search my archives, but here’s the digest version: I’d have preferred other options.  Sure, given Saddam’s belligerence and flouting of both treaty constraints (Note: the first Gulf War was never ended: cease fire only) and U.N. resolutions, well beside his other behaviors, alone would have legally justified bombing him and his regime back into the stone age where they belonged.  But even given adequate just causes, I’d have preferred other options. The aftermath of the fall of Baghdad was handled exceptionally poorly.  Paul Bremmer was an idiot. Immediately enlisting non-republican guard military and the aid of willing tribal leaders instead of shutting them out in the cold would have gone a long way toward solidifying the situation quickly.  And there were any number of folks telling him so at the time. I’d have preferred setting the Kurds, the Shi-ites and the Sunnis up in their own lil nation-states (fully arming the Kurds as a poke in the eye to turkey) and telling ‘em, “We’ll stick around for a while to make sure the playground fights between you three don’t get outa hand.  Handle your own internal security, though.” Still, once in, we’re  much worse withdrawing now and encouraging the Islamofascist barbarian bastards. And, it is good that nearly 100,000 Islamofascist barbarian bastards have been “put to the sword” in this adventure.  Kill them there rather than let them kill us there, indeed. I’m distressed that the Bush administration hasn’t sent a platoon of marines to knock over the Saudi regime that encourages and funds Islamofascist barbarian bastards. I’m not pleased that the Bush administration hasn’t plainly labeled the Palestinians as Islamofascist barbarian bastards and offered to (forcefully) “relocate” them to Saudi Arabia for their Muslim brothers to tend to, in typical Muslim charity. And I’m not pleased that the Bush administration has not closed our borders, has encouraged outlaws to steal into this country, and has allowed Minetas Morons to hold sway over air travel. That said, has the Iraq adventure actually enhanced our nation’s security (the PRIMARY constitutional job of the federal government)? Well, in a word, yes. I’d have done it differently.  I have emailed and phoned congresscritters my views.  The decisions were made “above my pay grade” as the saying goes, and we’re there now.  Creating a Vietnam-style defeat out of victory again is the goal of leftists, a goal completely consonant with their “defeat America” agenda—whether they be foreign leftists or home—grown. And yeh, I can definitely challenge the defeatists’ soi disant “patriotism” on that ground alone. As for me, nah, rather not.