[Stultis]

Ping for your scotch-swilling, left-leaning love interest. (O.K., O.K., he's right, again.)

[Stultis]

"I have noticed lately a distressing tendency on the part of those who support the intervention in Iraq to rest their case largely on underreported good news. Now, it is certainly true, as I have said myself, that there is much to celebrate in the new Iraq. The restoration of the ecology of the southern marshes, the freedom to follow the majority Shiite religion, the explosion of new print and electronic media, the emancipation of the schools and universities, and the consolidation of Kurdish autonomy are all magnificent things. But those who want to take credit for them must also axiomatically accept the blame for the failure to anticipate huge lacunae in the provision of power, water, and security.

More to the point, one has to be prepared to support a campaign—or a cause—that is going badly. The president has been widely lampooned by many a glib columnist for saying that increased violence is not necessarily a cause for despair and may even be evidence of traction. He is, in fact, quite right to take this view, which was first expressed, to my knowledge, by Gen. John Abizaid. Those who murder the officials of the United Nations and the Red Cross, set fire to oil pipelines and blow up water mains, and shoot down respected clerics outside places of worship are indeed making our point for us. There is no justifiable way that a country as populous and important as Iraq can be left at the mercy of such people. And—here is my crux—there never was."

[JmyBryan]

Thanks for this post.

[McGavin999]

I find it amazing that the Greens of europe have been totally silent about the Marsh Arabs. The marshes were almost totally destroyed and the people who lived that life were almost destroyed along with it, yet these supposed lovers of the environment have remained totally.....silent.

[duckln]

But do you want to try and imagine what former Yugoslavia would look like now if there had not been an international intervention (postponed and hobbled by the United Nations) to arrest the process of aggression and ethnocide?

What the heck is he talking about? We sided with terrorist who were raising hell in Bosnia and Kosovo. Milosevic responded and we chose the Islamists. What we have now is a bigger problem with the Islamists in defacto control of the area.

It was a 'civil war' and should have stayed as such.

[Billthedrill]

It's been a good evening for real meat here on FR, between the Ralph Peters article and this one by Christopher Hitchens. While I would caution the latter against an over-reliance on the Noriega point - Saddam has, in fact, proven quite difficult to apprehend if he's still alive - the bulk of the article is relentlessly accurate.

One is left with the impression that Bush fils has embarked on an absurdity - that a modern representative government may be established over the bones of a vicious despotism despite the desperate resistance of the latter's apologists and fellow-travelers, first by force of arms and then by force of persuasion. Everything in that is entirely topsy-turvy. We'll probably pull it off, and what is most terrifying to both the radical Islamicists and to an equally ossified Old Europe is what the world is going to look like when we do. Bismark and Richelieu would be groaning, but Franklin would be laughing. Interesting times.

[WhistlingPastTheGraveyard]

*ping*

[lainde]

Bump for later read