Norman A. Lockman, a Pulitzer Prize winner, is an idiot.
Posted on 04/16/2003 12:13:09 PM PDT by NativeNewYorker
Whether it was necessary or not, the Iraq war happened. Arguments
against it during the victory celebration make eyes glaze over.
Now we have to deal with the ''facts on the ground,'' a phrase
coined years ago by Israeli Ariel Sharon and now frequently used by
U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. It's another way of saying,
''Now that we're here, what are you going to do about it?''
The facts on the ground in Iraq are simple. With only a shadow
coalition standing in the wings, the United States and Great Britain
stormed Iraq and conquered it in less than a month, exploding all
kinds of myths about Saddam Hussein's dangerousness, some of which
they created. At the moment, regardless of their pronouncements about
liberating Iraq for the Iraqis, they own the place, lock, stock and
barrel (pun intended).
Make no mistake about it, the Bush administration has blown away
the theory that conventional warfare is obsolete. It has proved that
if you have the will to use high-tech weapons at full force against a
weak opponent, you can overwhelm it in short order. That is not a new
concept, but it has been held in ill repute since Germany's abuses in
World War II.
The lesson will not be lost on nations that have gotten away with
causing political instability or projecting terrorism by counting on
international aversion to invasions and traditional U.S. distaste for
striking the first blow.
The neoconservative ideas that produced the Iraq war, stripped of
their moral pretensions, basically hold that it is folly to let the
weak threaten the strong, and if you smash a few of the weak
threateners, others with similar intentions will fall into line for
fear of the same treatment. Call it whatever you like -
neocolonialism, neo-imperialism, democratization or liberation - it is
based on the ability to quickly subjugate whole nations by military
force.
In the minds of millions watching the day that the first statue of
Saddam was pulled down in Baghdad's central square, Iraq was
subjugated. The goal line had been crossed. This perception was even
stronger in the Arab world than it was here at home. And that was the
point.
The issue is what comes after the subjugation, even if it's
intended to be benign and temporary, because that is when unintended
consequences begin to arise. Unfortunately, that is also the time when
a lot of us, including the media, begin to lose interest. Rebuilding a
nation is not nearly as much fun to watch as a war victory. Nobody
sticks around after the Super Bowl to watch the cleanup crews.
Therefore, this is the time for mischief in Iraq. Whoever takes
control of it will not be able to ignore a large fact under the
ground. Oil is money. It will determine Iraq's future and its
relationship with the rest of the world, even if we choose to turn our
backs on direct control of it.
In fact, having gone this far, turning our backs on Iraq's oil
might actually be a blunder. Somebody is going to control it and
whoever it is will have power to affect the world economy. We'd look
pretty silly if, after failing to find significant weapons of mass
destruction, we then create a petro-power that, under cover of
democracy, works against our economic interests.
Neoconservatives understand that. True democratization, with all
its vagaries, is not their goal; economic control after threat
elimination is.
In Iraq, the goal is Americanization, not merely de-Saddamization.
If it is successful, it's going to make a few shrewd neocon
capitalists richer than Arabian sheiks.
And your point is, Mr. Norman A. Lockman????
That is not a new concept, but it has been held in ill repute since Germany's abuses in World War II.
Bush is a Nazi.
Call it whatever you like - neocolonialism, neo-imperialism, democratization or liberation - it is based on the ability to quickly subjugate whole nations by military force.
Bush is a Nazi.
True democratization, with all its vagaries, is not their goal; economic control after threat elimination is.
Bush is a Nazi.
In the minds of millions watching the day that the first statue of Saddam was pulled down in Baghdad's central square, Iraq was subjugated.
Liberation is a bad thing.
In fact, having gone this far, turning our backs on Iraq's oil might actually be a blunder. Somebody is going to control it and whoever it is will have power to affect the world economy. We'd look pretty silly if, after failing to find significant weapons of mass destruction, we then create a petro-power that, under cover of democracy, works against our economic interests.
Amazing. This is the classic liberal approach of criticizing you no matter what you do - if the Bush Admin pays attention to the oil, it just confirms that this was a war about oil. If the Bush Admin does NOT pay attention to that oil, it shows incompetence. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
It certainly doesn't. In the 30's, New York Times correspondent, Walter Duranty, won the Pulitzer for not reporting Stalin's forced famines in the Ukraine.
The Pulitzer has become so sullied with questionable awards, that the notice of it raises an eyebrow, rather than prestige or interest.
Norman A. Lockman, a Pulitzer Prize winner, is an idiot.
Self defense?
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.