For myself, I can say without hesitation that I support the "insurgency", and would do so even if my only 21 year old son was serving in Iraq. There’s simply no other morally acceptable option.
Usually we get moral relativity from the left. It's refreshing to see a lefty engage in moral absolutism, no matter how whacked. Shortly after, he refers to the founding document of the United States:
As Americans, we support the idea that violence is an acceptable means of achieving (national) self-determination. This, in fact, is how our nation was formed, and it is vindicated in our founding document, The Declaration of Independence.
He follows with an extended quote to prove his point and then lays this on us:
The Declaration of Independence is revolutionary in its view that we have a “duty” to overthrow regimes that threaten basic human liberties. We must apply this same standard to the Iraqi people.
Okay, this is some kind of satire, right? If we have the duty he describes, then we had an absolute duty to remove Saddam, and have an equal duty to remove the governments of Iran, Cuba, North Korea, China, the list goes on and on. Does this guy even realize what he's saying? Moving on:
Terrorism or not, there’s no doubt that the vast majority of people in the region and in the world, believe that the war was entirely unjustifiable.
Belief does not equal correctness. I'm sure that, when asked whether or not all the people in the world who believe Jesus Christ is the son of God are correct, he'd probably answer no, or answer that they are misinformed or misguided. I would hazard a guess that most people who think the war was unjustifiable don't know all the facts but are simply parroting the views of their governments and/or major media.
The argument most commonly offered by antiwar Americans (who believe we should stay in Iraq) doesn’t defend the legitimacy of the invasion, but provides the rationale for the ongoing occupation. The belief that “We can’t just leave them without security”, creates the logic for staying in Iraq until order can be established. Unfortunately, the occupation is just another manifestation of the war itself; replete with daily bombings, arrests, torture and the destruction of personal property. Therefore, support of the occupation is a vindication of the war. The two are inseparable.
And just who are perpetrating those bombings, the torture, and the destruction of personal property? Not the US forces. What happened at Abu Ghraib was wrong, and the people responsible are being made to pay the price by their own government, but it JUST DOESN'T COMPARE TO HAVING YOUR HEAD SAWED OFF ON CAMERA. Nor does it compare with what happened in that prison when Saddam was in power. Yet this guy would have you believe that things were better for all Iraqis then.
We should remember that the war (which was entirely based on false or misleading information) was both illegal and immoral. That judgment does not change by maintaining a military presence of 140,000 soldiers on the ground for years to come. Each passing day of occupation simply perpetuates the crime.
At the same time we have to recognize that the disparate elements of Iraqi resistance, belittled in the media as the “insurgency”, are the legitimate expression of Iraqi self-determination.
Since the "insurgency" is driven largely if not mostly by foreign fighters and foreign financial support (Syria, Al Qaeda, Zarqawi), I'd say that this statement is false on its face.
Independence is not bestowed by a foreign nation; the very nature of that relationship suggests reliance on outside forces. True independence and sovereignty can only be realized when foreign armies are evacuated and indigenous elements assume the reigns of power.
So, I guess Germany and Japan aren't independent. I'm sure they're glad to know this now. Actually, our goal is exactly that of having indigenous elements assumign the reigns of power, and also responsibility for the security of their citizens. It's just that we're still in a war situation and our enemy isn't yet completely defeated.
There’s no indication that the conduct of the occupation will change anytime soon. If anything, conditions have only worsened over the past two years. The Bush administration hasn’t shown any willingness to loosen its grip on power either by internationalizing the occupation or by handing over real control to the newly elected Iraqi government. This suggests that the only hope for an acceptable solution to the suffering of the Iraqi people is a US defeat and the subsequent withdrawal of troops. Regrettably, we’re nowhere near that period yet.
If anything, the actions of the "insurgents" shows that they are becoming increasingly desperate as the indigenous government of Iraq takes shape. As for internationalizing the occupation, there are about forty other nations who would be interested to know that their contributions didn't actually happen. As for the last sentence in that excerpt, I'll address that shortly.
It’s not the insurgency that’s killing American soldiers. It’s the self-serving strategy to control 12% of the world’s remaining petroleum and to project American military power throughout the region. This is the plan that has put American servicemen into harm’s way. The insurgency is simply acting as any resistance movement would; trying to rid their country of foreign invaders when all the political channels have been foreclosed.
Americans would behave no differently if put in a similar situation and Iraqi troops were deployed in our towns and cities. Ultimately, the Bush administration bears the responsibility for the death of every American killed in Iraq just as if they had lined them up against a wall and shot them one by one. Their blood is on the administration’s hands, not those of the Iraqi insurgency.
Ah, here's the standard lefty refrain we all know and love. It's all America's fault, not the fault of those who actually detonate the bombs or cut off the heads. Note that here again he conveniently ignores the fact that much if not most of the insurgency is composed essentially of foreign invaders itself and thus doesn't qualify as a native resistance movement. Now here's the really good one:
We shouldn’t expect that, after a long period of internal struggle, the Iraqi leadership will embrace the values of democratic government. More likely, another Iraqi strongman, like Saddam, will take power. In fact, the rise of another dictator (or Ayatollah) is nearly certain given the catastrophic effects of the American-led war.
And a bit later:
Are Americans prepared to offer their support to the same brutal apparatus of state-terror that was employed by Saddam? (Rumsfeld’s unannounced visit to Baghdad last week was to make sure that the newly elected officials didn’t tamper with hiscounterinsurgency operatives, most of whom were formerly employed in Saddam’s secret police)
But, but, didn't he say that everything was better under Saddam? Isn't that view rather incompatible with the presence of a "brutal apparatus of state-terror?" Which one is it, Mike? Was it all flowers and sunshine or was it a terrible dictatorship? You can't have it both ways, even though the attempt to do so is a staple of far-left thought.
We should also ask ourselves what the long-range implications of an American victory in Iraq would be. Those who argue that we cannot leave Iraq in a state of chaos don’t realize that stabilizing the situation on the ground is tantamount to an American victory and a vindication for the policies of aggression. This would be a bigger disaster than the invasion itself.
That's right, an American victory, and thus a success of the Bush administration's policies, would be the biggest disaster imaginable. After all, it doesn't matter how many millions Saddam killed, it doesn't matter how terrible Iraq would become if we just pulled out and left it to the mercy of the fascists, it doesn't matter how many more Iraqis would die, it doesn't matter how many more terrorists would be trained at newly created training camps in terror-controlled Iraq, it doesn't matter how many more Europeans and Americans would die in attacks carried out by those terrorists, above all WE CANNOT ALLOW BUSH TO SUCCEED IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM! EVEN IF IT MEANS THE DESTRUCTION OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE DEATHS OF EVERYONE IN IT! Better to be dead than admit that, yet again, a Republican president did something to make the world a better place.
This man is beneath contempt. I can't believe I just wasted this much time on him....
No comments:
Post a Comment