Switching arguments in midstride


Taking a close look at the ever changing voices opposing freedom in the Middle East
Victor Davis Hanson does the most concise summary I have seen so far.

In the larger Middle East, the democratic splash in the Iraqi pond is slowly rippling out, as voting proceeds in Egypt and the Gulf, Syria leaves Lebanon, and Moammar Gadhafi and Pakistan’s Dr. Khan cease their nuclear machinations. Hundreds of thousands of protesters hit the streets in Lebanon and Jordan — not to slur the United States, as predicted, for removing Saddam Hussein, but to damn Bashar Assad and al-Zarqawi as terrorist killers. Walid Jumblatt, the Lebanese Druze leader, now calls for Western pressure to root out the Syrian Baathists.

You’d never know all this from the global media or state-run news services in Europe and the Middle East.

We have sent tens of millions of dollars in earthquake relief to Pakistan, even though for over four years it has given de facto sanctuary to the killers responsible for murdering three thousand Americans. In response, the Pakistani Street expects Americans to provide debt relief, send them aid, excuse their support for our enemies — and then goes wild should we ever cross the border to retaliate against al Qaeda terrorists in their midst who are plotting to trump 9/11.

At home, much about Iraq has been turned around in Alice-Through-the-Looking-Glass fashion. Indeed the debate over Iraq has too often descended into Jabberwocky-like gibberish. We were once slandered as hegemonic; but when we didn’t steal anything in Iraq, and instead spent billions in aid, suddenly we were called naive by the now realist Left.

The war was caricatured as all about grabbing oil. Then when the price skyrocketed, we were dubbed foolish for tampering with the fragile petroleum landscape, or with not charging Iraqi price-gouging exporters for our time and services.

Americans tried to remain idealistic on the principle that Iraqis, if freed and helped, could craft a workable democracy, and that such consensual governments would make the volatile Middle East safer, since elected and legitimate governments rarely attack their own kind. In response, the supposedly idealistic Left charged that we were bellicose and imperialistic — as if being on the side of the purple-fingered Iraqi voter was not preferable to being on the side of the terrorist and insurrectionist, who masked his fascism with national rhetoric.

The realist Right was aghast that profits and the balance of power were lost in the equation. The isolationists felt we were either doing Israel’s bidding, wasting lives and money on hopeless tribesmen, or fattening the government to administer a new empire. And all these alternative views were predicated on the 24-hour pulse of the battlefield, to be instantly modified, retracted, or amplified when events suggested dramatic improvement or disheartening setback.

The exasperated public is told that we had too few troops in postwar Iraq, but have too many now. We wanted to be as inconspicuous as possible, so as not injure Arab sensitivities or create perpetual dependency, but we ended up needing an unfortunately high profile just to put down insurrectionists.

It bothers me when the same people who said one thing proceed to tell you another thing, all while ignoring what they said before. I do not agree with everything that the administration has done in Iraq, but I do agree with the reasoning for the Middle East.

We went into Afghanistan and then into Iraq because the alternatives would have been worse.

We can't afford to ignore Islamist fanatics like we did.

I draw a line between Islamists and Muslims. Islamists are willing to die so that Islam is the only faith practiced anywhere. And not just any version of Islam, but the most extreme mutations.

The world doesn't need any heavily armed people who believe they are Divinely appointed to rule by force. And while most Americans would prefer to let people work things out for themselves, there is no denying that we bear much of the responsibility for turning the Middle East into an ongoing turf war.

And yes, I know all about President Bush and his religious ambitions. It's hard not to be when you are a minority faith in America. But for all of our religious fanatics, I've yet to hear about suicide bombers in local pizza restaurants. Or mortar fire from across the border. I can deal with our fanatics, they aren't interested in murdering everyone who doesn't share their beliefs. That gives me time and the means to stop them cold when necessary. I mean, for crying out loud, we're arguing about prayer in schools and if Intelligent Design should be taught or if the Ten Commandments should be displayed on a courtroom wall.

Islamists do not stop to argue. They destroy their opposition. That is the other thing we are fighting for, time enough for people to make their own choices and accept responsibility for those choices.

We are dealing with the aftermath of a struggle that lasted for a century. We made compromises to reach our goal. This is the cleanup, the restitution. There aren't any good choices left, there are just less bad ones.

— NeoWayland

Posted: Sun - January 22, 2006 at 04:29 AM  Tag


 ◊  ◊   ◊  ◊ 

Random selections from NeoWayland's library


Pagan Vigil "Because LIBERTY demands more than just black or white"
© 2005 - 2009 All Rights Reserved