November 29, 2006
"It was not naive idealism"
If you haven't already read it, this Fouad Ajami column is worth reading...
...It was not naive idealism, it should be recalled, that gave birth to Bush's diplomacy of freedom. That diplomacy issued out of a reading of the Arab-Muslim political condition and of America's vulnerability to the disorder of Arab politics. The ruling regimes in the region had displaced their troubles onto America; their stability had come at America's expense, as the scapegoating and the anti-Americanism had poisoned Arab political life. Iraq and the struggle for a decent polity in it had been America's way of trying to extirpate these Arab troubles. The American project in Iraq has been unimaginably difficult, its heartbreak a grim daily affair. But the impulse that gave rise to the war was shrewd and justified....
That's what I've argued all along. Democracy is a weapon. (And the terrorists seem to agree.) Also, no one has another plan. The "realist" and appeasement nostrums being currently floated have all been tried and found wanting. In fact, they got us into this war. And they are not plans—not plans on how to conduct the War on Terror in general. They pretend that Iraq is the whole war, or a separate war from the greater war on Islamic fascism.
Also, it should always be kept in mind that the opposition to the Iraq Campaign by leftists and fake-pacifists has never been due to disillusionment. They've hated and opposed all American military action from the beginning. They gave only the most grudging support to even our campaign against the Taliban, and were calling it a quagmire within days. And even the happiest moments of the Iraq campaign, with millions of Iraqis risking their lives to vote, pleased them not in the slightest. They don't give a damn about Iraqis, and they don't care if American soldiers die. It's America they hate.
And especially, they hate the idea of Americans fighting, risking their lives, in defense of our freedom and our land. This strikes right at the heart of their nihilist hearts, for they have nothing in themselves they believe in enough to fight for,
Posted by John Weidner at November 29, 2006 06:32 AMAlso, no one has another plan. The "realist" and appeasement nostrums being currently floated have all been tried and found wanting. In fact, they got us into this war. And they are not plans—not plans on how to conduct the War on Terror in general. They pretend that Iraq is the whole war, or a separate war from the greater war on Islamic fascism.
You know, this is the ultimate argument, to my mind. I mean, there is a war on - as the Trotsky quote on your side-bar reminds us, "You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you."
And the United States is not going to lose this war. We will not live like Israel - when our kids start being targeted on school busses and suicide bombers start going off at Midnight Mass, all happy-diplomacy-state-department stuff is off the goddamn table, and people will start dying. We will not lose that fight.
To my mind, the choice here has always been between a) going berzerker on everyone who looks cross-ways at us, or b) trying to transform those societies so they can co-habitate with us and each other. There is no third way - the third way is just waiting until there's no choice but Option A.
And Option A is a nightmare, a true horror. But if it's kill or be killed, nobody should doubt that the American people will chose to kill.
Which is why I don't understand the sincere lefties, the ones who truly want peace. Do they honestly think that if we just withdraw, things will get better? That if we had not gone into Iraq, that the exact same level of outrage would not exist because we're in Afghanistan? That Afghanistan would have served equally as well for a focal point of world attention as Iraq does? And that, had we not gone into Afghanistan, then the world would be at peace?
And the United States is not going to lose this war... Hope you are right. 4g warfare is insidious stuff, and these guys have studied us well. There won't be another 9/11. Just a thousand pricks that will tend to herd us along the path of least resistance.
"Sincere lefties." I haven't seen these bugs. Maybe I should go around with a lamp in daytime, like Diogenes?
Posted by: John Weidner at November 29, 2006 12:56 PMI think Ethan has the better of this argument, John. There will be another 9/11 (or worse) simply because too many of the Jihadists like to "swing for the fences" and go for the spectacular act. Lord help us all if they nuke an American city.
As for "sincere lefties", there are no doubt a great many of them out there. To be a jerk like Michael Moore or Jimmy Carter requires a level of sophistication and guile that many people don't sink to. I know a woman who is a kind-hearted soul and a thorough "leftie" of the harmless sort one might find in any large city. She doesn't hate America, but does wonder why we all "just can't get along". A useful fool, in other words.
Posted by: Hale Adams at November 29, 2006 04:44 PMYes - what Ethan said.
Posted by: Mike Plaiss at November 29, 2006 05:16 PMI'll stick with my position. I don't think there will be another 9/11. My guess is that Osama bing Laden is not actually too well thought of over at Evil Mastermind Headquarters. He woke too many of us up...
(and thanks for disagreeing. Makes life less boring.)
Posted by: John Weidner at November 30, 2006 10:56 AMI have to go with Adams and Hahn, except that if the Jihadis nuke an American city, Lord help them.
And while Bin Laden may not be thought of as an Evil Mastermind, that's because he "didn't do it right", just like all the Communist regimes weren't done right. But the next set will make it work and bring down the American Paper Tiger!
Posted by: Annoying Old Guy at November 30, 2006 09:21 PM
