Global War on Terror---Proud Sponsor

I know that in polite company it is no longer acceptable to support the war in Iraq. That is, of course, because candyass liberals in the news media have brainwashed many Americans. Americans who were already well disposed to such brainwashing because they have been convinced over the years that nothing bad should ever happen in the world. It's amazing the amount of emotional and real energy in the public's mind that is spent upon, say, the imaginary specter of man made global warming as opposed to the real threat of Jihadis.

My personal opinion is that we keep going in Iraq until it is as stable as the least stable country in the Middle East, i.e. Israel. Anything else is suicidal surrender. We know this sounds crazy to sensitive American liberals. But consider: the Battle of the Bulge took over 19,000 American lives. Did we give up? Of course not. Nowadays though, Americans are not willing to make the same kinds of sacrifices because they have no clear idea of what's at stake and that is a failure of education, parenting, and of course, the liberal media. We've had it so easy for so long we can't imagine that we actually need to fight for it. Of course, the Battle for Iraq has lasted quite a bit longer than the Battle of the Bulge. We have spent a lot of money and time. That is a different and, in our mind, better sacrifice than lives.

Were we justified in invading? Well 75% of us thought so at the outset and nothing has changed so I conclude that the drop in approval for the war is because it hasn't gone as well as it could, not because it wasn't justified. Those who say Bush lied are liars themselves and the absence of WMD is irrelevant.

Many conveniently forget the state of affairs prior to invasion. UN sanctions, in place since the early 1990s, were making life unpleasant for the average Iraqi but quite nice for Hussein and his cronies and their co-conspirators in the West i.e. Kofi Annan, the French, Hans von Sponeck, Ken Livingstone, George Galloway, etc through the oil-for-food program. Many of those who now oppose the war claimed millions of Iraqi children, at the least, had died due to the sanctions. The sanctions were kept in place by Bush I, Clinton & Bush II because of Hussein's refusal to comply with the terms of his defeat in Gulf War I--verification that Iraq possessed no WMD. Unanimity existed on this point---countries opposed to the sanctions still insisted that Iraq must transparently disarm in this area. Did Iraq have or were they trying to acquire/build WMD? All the evidence, then and now, points to yes. Hussein used chemical weapons in the past, evidence of chemical weapons manufacture and use was found in Iraq and despite the apparent discrediting of "Curveball" it is far from clear that Hussein was not developing nuclear weapons (he had certainly tried to do so at Osirak). Of course, we found no large stockpiles of WMD despite the hard left's insistence that Bush would fabricate evidence.

Let's summarize:

Since the end of Gulf War I, Iraq had refused to comply with the terms of it's defeat. Sanctions were in place to coerce Iraq's compliance. Sanctions were coming under attack due to their perceived cause of suffering among ordinary Iraqis and some countries and individuals were co-opted by Hussein to lobby against the sanctions.

From the New York Times (9/12/2000):

The Iraqi victims of these unjust and unrestricted sanctions amounted to more than a million children, women and elderly people during the past 10 years,'' Iraq's deputy prime minister, Tariq Aziz, told a summit meeting of world leaders last week. ''The United Nations cannot escape its moral responsibility for the consequences of sanctions.''

Needless to say, Tariq Aziz enjoyed agreement on this issue from the anti-war, anti-sanctions hard left wing of the Democrat party, Russia, China, Malaysia, and other notable bad actors. People, who today, complain that there are no sanctions. Renewed efforts by both Clinton & Bush II to ensure compliance and end sanctions were resisted and rejected by Iraq. Two options were available: 1. End sanctions with no preconditions (where was the Obamessiah when we needed him?) or 2. End sanctions and force compliance with military action. Neither one of these options sounded very appealing and they still don't.

And then September 11 happened. Orchestrated and financed by the Iraqi special forces at the direction of Saddam Hussein--this changed everything. Haha---just joking!! Of course, there is no evidence that Saddam Hussein or Iraqis had anything to do with September 11. But so what?

September 11 has its most direct cause in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This conflict takes place in the Middle East of which Iraq is a linch pin---due to its history as the center of a Muslim empire and Hussein's funding and support of Palestinian terrorism with oil money. Hussein has attacked Israel himself. Regardless of whether Hussein had any direct role in 9/11 he was directly involved in and funding the same millieu of middle eastern terrorists plotting violence against Israel and the west. This is an indisputable fact. I am well aware that 19 of 20 of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi nationals. Saudis, much like Bin Laden, are well situated and inclined to become the agents of Muslim terror: they are brought up in a culture of extreme Islamic belief (i.e. Wahabbi islam), they are more likely to be well off or wealthy, and, they live in a country, and hence have a passport of a country, that is a nominal ally of the West. In sum, they have the means and the motive to commit these acts more than the nationals of any other country in the middle east. So now we have a middle eastern terrorist network (or whatever you want to call it) that has shown its ability to strike on American soil. Iraq and Hussein are part of this ideology and agency: they have the means and the motive---just like those Saudi hijackers.

Now let's go back to our two options above. In light of all this, option 2 becomes a no-brainer and the actual fact of whether Hussein possessed WMD becomes a little irrelevant. We must not only verify whether or not Hussein possesses these weapons but we must make damn sure he doesn't use them or sell them since it beginning to seem like it is open season on the United States.

So now we prepare to go to war. And once a country mobilizes for war, there is little stopping war. We cannot seem to lose our nerve or we will become even more of a target. The fact that the "weasels" of France and Germany oppose our move to war only serves to harden our resolve to go to war--as they make us feel isolated in our struggle. They seem to say: "Well, we are sorry for your loss but there really is nothing you can do about it---tough titties."

The current talking points against the war (and more broadly against the President and the Republican party) is thus:

• There were no WMD and the president lied about it
• The president and his evil controller Cheney said the Iraqis would welcome us as liberators and they were mistaken or lied about that too
• They also claimed the war would be short and relatively bloodless and they lied (or were mistaken about that)
• The war has been "mismanaged" by Bush et al and his generals
• Iraq is in "chaos", "civil war", "widespread insurgency" and this is bad
• The entire Muslim and Arab world and a goodly proportion of the rest of the world is now at odds with the United States, more so than ever
• We have "wasted" American lives and money on this pointless boondoggle
• Then again, the boondoggle may not be so pointless as it has served to enrich those oilmen Bush and Cheney and their "cronies" at Halliburton and Exxon
• We should be investing in cars that run on good vibrations instead of on "unnecessary" wars
• War is bad for children and other living things

I'm sure there are other points but I don't have all day here.

• Let's be clear: Bush et al did not lie. At absolute worst, they may have been mistaken and they were joined in that by the Clinton administration and the entire Democratic leadership. And the actual absence or presence of WMD subsequent to invasion is of little importance as I showed previously.
• Many Iraqis did, and still do, welcome us a liberators. The major aim of the war: deposing an extremely hostile, repressive, bloody and dangerous regime succeeded.
• The initial and important phase of the war was short and relatively bloodless. Now that we are trying to bring stability to Iraq and this struggle is difficult bears little on the initial decision to go to war. If anything we are doing the absolute right thing in a bad scenario. Wars are unpredictable, regardless of 20/20 hindsight.
• Many of these talking points against the war, including the idea that the war was mismanaged (Bush forgot to hire a "war manager, dang it!) amount to a pacifist belief that all war is bad. This writer does not subscribe to that belief: pacifism is indefensible and amoral in the face of evil.
• We went to war and made people mad at us: the idea that this is important is beneath contempt.
• I certainly don't believe that money and lives have been wasted, we are and have been accomplishing important goals.
• The idea that Bush et all went to war at the behest of their corporate masters to enrich themselves and their "cronies" has no evidentiary and logical support and is ridiculous on its face. Bush would have to be an unbelievable monster and I personally know this not to be true.
  

The controversy comes down to one thing: the perception that we are not "winning". If we were perceived to be winning, Bush would be at 80% approval and we would be talking seriously of repealing the 25th amendment. I say perception, because I believe (despite the "chaos") that we are winning.

So buck up, America! We are winning and we are in the right, practically and morally.

But now we are threatened with an Obama presidency (a prospect I find unlikely for various reasons) that will treat with monstrous despots and tyrants as equals. I find this possibility frightening and absurd. Obama reminds me of me, when I was a callow youth enraptured by one world socialism. He wants to hold hands and sing "Peace Train" with murderous thugs in the name of peace. It'll be peace all right: the peace of the grave. Obama does not seem to hold much stock in the idea that the United States is a sovereign nation with a proud, magnificent history of promoting freedom, democracy and security within its own borders and around the world. Certainly we are not perfect but that is no reason to discard that history and "make love, not war" to all our enemies in the name of "change".

There are difficult times ahead, to be sure, but that is the nature of the continuing struggle to maintain our democracy, our safety, our liberty and our blessed way of life. Life and nature tend toward chaos without countervailing energy to stop it. At this point in history, the United States of America and its glorious armed forces provide that energy.

Let us thank and remember those who have given all in this and past struggles against the forces of evil and chaos!

And thank you, President Bush, for doing the right and moral thing!

Have a pleasant Memorial Day.