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 .
It's amusing to think of Kristol ruling over the unwashed masses, arrogant smirk and all, but 9/11 was the first day of kindergarten for a whole lot of people whose only picture book was CNN or the network nightly news.
Let Kristol think he pushed Bush into strangling Iraq. Let Buchanan bury himself in confusion about who he hates most. Use them.
It's amusing to think of Kristol ruling over the unwashed masses, arrogant smirk and all, but 9/11 was the first day of kindergarten for a whole lot of people whose only picture book was CNN or the network nightly news.
Oh, that smirk! Talk about a guy begging for a punch in the nose!
Let Kristol think he pushed Bush into strangling Iraq. Let Buchanan bury himself in confusion about who he hates most. Use them.
ROTFL. You have those guys nailed. They're choking on their own narcissism (or is it, megalomania?).
I dunno. I'll bet they remember the millions, if not billions of dollars in lost productivity, and new security expenses. They orgasm at the thought of harming America, be it economically or militarily.
American foreign policy must protect America's vital interests. That is a dangerous enough business, without indulging in fantasies of bettering the world.
I can’t remember. Am I still allowed to say ‘Amen’ in this country? (If so, please insert one here. If not, I’m saying it anyway. And let the chips fall where they may. :)
I generally don’t allow myself to be labeled as part of a group …. thus my disdain when a few people, in the recent past, have chosen to affix the paleoconservative label. I will admit to feeling sympathy for paleos -- with the vehement exception of their unfriendliness toward Israel. They are generally purists who long for the good old days (when we weren’t such a hedonistic, secularly humanist, superficial, easily-led, easily-duped society). Paleos are determined to battle against bigger government, more powerful (than individual) business interests, and the unprecedented omnipotence of the unelected media. In all of those frightening -- and frighteningly increasing -- phenomena, they are justifiably concerned about the demise of our republic form of government.
The paleos cringe when the extent of others’ dedication to liberty consists of flag waving and debating the merits of superficial cures to what ails us. They want real, reactionary (in the good sense of the word) change, back to the way things used to be. Trouble is, while I embrace ninety-nine percent of their vision, I also see much of its realization as hopeless. You can’t go home again -- i.e., back to the glories of the old republic. The citizenry is just too complacent -- and the majority of them have never even been taught about those old glories,* so they have no magnificent point of comparison from which to assess the current decay.
* I occasionally ask my piano students questions about the time period during which a piece of music I assign them was written. In doing so, I have been dismayed to learn that, even receiving their education in our supposedly high-quality, rural public education system, my otherwise intelligent junior high and high school students can’t answer such questions as: Which side won the American Civil War? What was the Jamestown settlement? During which century was the American Revolution fought? Can you identify one of the amendments to the Constitution? What was President Reagan’s greatest accomplishment? Can you tell me something about Robert E. Lee? What was the Cold War? On what continent is Austria? Did we 'win' the war in Vietnam? Why (or why not)?
How can these children (and their children) help us to lift this country back up to (or at least close to) the heights that it used to occupy, if they have absolutely no concept of what went before? They have no sense of national heritage, roots, or brave ancestry.
Forgive the digression …. :)
And it was such a long digression that I think I forgot what I wanted to say about Stix’s article. Ah yes …. he’s right you know, about the fact that you can’t necessarily liberate a people who have no affinity for democracy (no matter the neocon’s phony, sanctimonious moralism). As difficult as it is for the average modern American to comprehend, Arab civilizations have existed for more than a thousand years, and one would be hard pressed to study them, up until the present day, and find any indication that they revere individual liberty. So, despite the fact that we would like to think that post-war Iraq will see less brutality against civilians, we would be fools to believe that the liberation of Iraq will lead to western-style respect for individual life and liberty. Anyone harboring that Pollyanna notion needs to think more in terms of intervention for the sake of America’s survival, rather than for the sake of Iraq’s enlightenment. Some cultures prefer the dark ages.
‘African Queen’ is on cable now. Gotta go watch Bogart and Hepburn blow up the Louisa (yet again).... :)
BTTT.
Quite right, here is another from my simple mind, After we dispose of Sadam and his "army" how do we think Saudi Arabia will feel without an army. Can they take this any way but as a warning?
Huh?
Quite right, here is another from my simple mind, After we dispose of Sadam and his "army" how do we think Saudi Arabia will feel without an army. Can they take this any way but as a warning?
But that's what the essay says.
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.