Posted on 03/14/2003 9:49:24 AM PST by mrustow
Toogood Reports [Weekender, March 16, 2003; 12:01 a.m. EST]
URL: http://ToogoodReports.com/
The closer we get to extending the War on Terror to an Iraqi front, the more frequently I have been coming across strong anti-war arguments. Not surprisingly, the arguments have largely been from conservatives of the group referred to in some circles as paleo-conservatives, with some coming from libertarians. (I say, "some circles," because in most circles they are ignored.) The articles that since 911 have essentially said, "Praise the Proposition Nation, and pass the ammunition," have all come from folks who are known as "neo-conservatives." At least since 911, the neocons have been spoiling for a fight against ... well, the world, and certainly the Islamic world.
(Paleocons, who are politically marginalized, are localists who believe in states' rights vs. Leviathan; are highly critical of the notion of "civil rights"; seek to limit or put a moratorium on immigration, and deport illegals; champion an isolationist foreign policy; are no fans of Israel; and seek the preservation of a uniquely American identity and culture. Leading paleocon writers include Paul Craig Roberts, Sam Francis, Steve Sailer, Pat Buchanan, Charley Reese, Paul Gottfried, Chilton Williamson and Thomas Fleming.
Conversely, neocons are politically connected globalists, who think that Leviathan is great, if it can be made to serve "our side"; they support "civil rights"; are pro-immigration; champion a radically interventionist foreign policy; love Israel; and think that being an American comes down to supporting certain philosophical propositions, regardless of whether one was born and raised in Tennessee or Timbuktu. Among the most influential neocons are writers Mark Steyn, Charles Krauthammer, George Will, David Horowitz, Bill Kristol, Jonah Goldberg, Heather MacDonald and Victor Davis Hanson, and Undersecretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz and defense advisor Richard Perle.)
The most humorous argument I've seen against attacking Iraq, came from Glenn Jackson, the founder of the American Reformation Project. Jackson cited conditions that would support our attacking Iraq:
Jackson is of course talking about the Saudis, who attacked us on 911, who bankroll al Qaeda and terrorist mosques across America, whose agents have been recruiting convicts in American prisons to be terrorists, seeking to infiltrate the U.S. military as chaplains, whose officials have obstructed the pursuit of terrorists on Saudi AND American soil, and who are the proper targets of a war. Jackson argues that our government leaders are too "compromised" to do the right thing.
I'm not so sure about that last point. Granted, I have read of corrupt State Department officials who, while working in Saudi Arabia, have refused to protect American citizens and American interests, because they knew that betraying their country would issue in cushy, Saudi-financed jobs. But I don't think that's the real reason we are going to attack the "wrong" country.
On 911, the Sword of Islam pierced America, murdering almost 3,000 people. It is not a matter of choice whether America goes to war against Islam; on 911, Islam declared war on America.
Leading neocons (and Evangelical Gary Bauer) reacted to 911, unfortunately, by signing an open letter, calling on President Bush to go to war with Afghanistan and Iraq, and likely Iran and Syria down the road. (And Jews are supposed to be so smart!) It's one thing for an individual columnist to call on America to invade Islamic countries, and force them to convert to Christianity, as Ann Coulter did, and quite another for an influential group of 41 people, including some with close ties to the White House (e.g., Richard Perle and Frank Gaffney) to do so. The only good thing to come out of such foolishness, was that President Bush was able to present himself as the "good cop" by not only ignoring the letter, but by publicly praying with Moslem terrorists. (And Bush is supposed to be so dumb!)
The neocons' newest talking points philosophy, from that sage of situation ethics, William Kristol, has us pursuing an "idealpolitik," in the phrase used by blogger Josh Chafetz, a morality-based foreign policy, of "liberating" the Iraqi people and spreading the gospel of democracy to the Middle East. But the legitimate basis for a war on Iraq is not America's desire to bully the world and spread her empire, with or without the neocons' phony, sanctimonious moralism. It is America's survival.
We will not be establishing a democracy in Iraq, or any other Arab nation — as opposed to say, a military protectorate — or "liberating" the Iraqi or any other Arab people, because, as Zev Chafets has pointed out repeatedly, Arabs hate freedom and democracy down to their bones, and will not abide it. "No Arab society anywhere has ever manifested the slightest desire for freedom as we understand it.
"Arab students demonstrate for more state and religious repression, not less. Arab crowds march for war, not peace. Arab leaders like Jordan's first King Abdullah and Egyptian President Anwar Sadat are assassinated because they are considered too liberal, not too harsh."
"The Iraqis have their own reasons for wanting to do away with Saddam. His family, tribe, sect and faction have ruled them ruthlessly and stolen them blind. Now they would like the chance to murder Saddam's family, tribe and faction - and enrich themselves. This is the pattern of what is known as modern Arab political reform. There is no other."
American foreign policy must protect America's vital interests. That is a dangerous enough business, without indulging in fantasies of bettering the world.
We won't be attacking our mortal enemy, which is responsible for 911, because Saudi Arabia is the capital of what my colleague, Alan Caruba, calls Islam, bloody Islam, and attacking it now would unify one billion Moslems against us. But if other measures fail, if toppling Saddam fails to put the fear of Allah into the Saudis, we may yet have to do just that. But for now, we will fight a proxy war, with Saddam standing in for the house of Saud.
Note that, apparently unbeknownst to the socialist, mainstream media, and the paleo, alternative media alike, the proxy war actually began 12 years ago, and has continued ever since, against a dictator who, if we do not end things now, will soon be trading in Samoud missiles for nuclear missiles.
Next column: Our Enemy is in the Sand.
To comment on this article or express your opinion directly to the author, you are invited to e-mail Nicholas at adddda@earthlink.net .
If Saudi Arabia didn't sit on so much damn oil, Bush could have included them in his axis of evil. And there are three oil giant countries we have to deal with in that region - Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Iran. If we invade Iraq, we've split them apart. If we stabilize Iraq, the mullahs in Iran have lost their justification to hold onto power, namely as a shield against Saddam. And if we stabilize Iraq and Iran as oil producers, it blunts the edge of the Saudi oil sword, and we can take on the ultimate enemy in the terror war - Wahhabism. That, IMO, is where the end game lies.
"Note that, apparently unbeknownst to the socialist, mainstream media, and the paleo, alternative media alike, the proxy war actually began 12 years ago, and has continued ever since, against a dictator who, if we do not end things now, will soon be trading in Samoud missiles for nuclear missiles."
...Nic hasn't taken his eye off the ball.
Stixx does a pretty good job of grouping -- by definition -- the prevelent "conservative" pundits who've assumed the role of speaking for the political right these days, too.
OK, so talk!
Where do y'all fit-in here?
...paleo *or* neo?? ;^)
I'm not really sure where I fit in. Is there an honest con?
I'm a big Mark Steyn fan..and he's a neo..and I don't like Pat Buchanan much...and he's a paleo...
How about I'm...confused? ;-)
Oh, a confession, huh? {g}
Closest I could come to pegging myself, would be some kind of neoleopaleoconmon.
I suppose that'd take some translatating though, huh?
Well, work it out one syllabel at a time & it comes together quite nicely.
ne (new) oleo (old) paleo (need more sun) con (conservative) mon (male).
...I've a paleontologis't knack for names, ~eh?? :^)
Why am I not surprised that you didn't fit a stereotype? Kinda like putting a round peg in a square hole! :-)
...I've a paleontologis't knack for names, ~eh?? :^)
Paleontologist that's good with words? A thesauraus-rex? :-)
One of the weird things about this neo-paleo spitting match, is that each group is essentially a tiny, little political cult or clique. (The paleos are even tinier than the neos, because they have less $.) I mean, how many real, thinking people fit exactly into these cramped, little niches?
I think you need to look at each of these magazines as a clique presided over by a Queen Bee who wields absolute power over her worker bees. And so, each writer for the magazine in question has always to toe the line ideologically, by at times saying things he doesn't believe, because otherwise he'll find himself without a job or a freelance outlet. These queen bees control money and power in a field -- political commentary -- that is quite limited. Oh, sure, anyone can get published nowadays, on the 'net, but how many people can earn a living doing it? And so you get a lot of pathetic hackery. The whole miserable business reminds me of grad school.
Note that Thomas Sowell has refused to be forced to choose sides. But then, as America's greatest living social scientist, he has a singular stature, and between his temper and his intolerance for apparatchiks, even at 72, he'd be likely to take a swing at anyone who tried to bully him.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.