Andrew Sullivan addresses the issue of who's responsible for getting us to this point with regard to Iraq. Although he does pass around some blame, that's not entirely what he's talking about; while blasting the U.N., he praises Tony Blair. But he also notes (in a non-Pat Buchanany way) the influence of the neoconservatives:
When George W. Bush looked around him in the ashes of the World Trade Center for an analysis of what had gone wrong and a comprehensive strategy to put it right, the neoconservatives were the only credible advocates who had an actual plan.Exactly. That's the problem I have with the serious anti-war position (as distinguished from the anti-American Chomsky/Fisk anti-war position). They don't offer alternatives. For those who oppose war altogether, what do they suggest? I don't ask how they propose to handle Iraq; their answer to that is "containment." The question I have is how they propose to handle the Middle East.....
And this humble, instinctually modest president in foreign affairs, demanded a comprehensive strategy to grapple with the gravest attack on American soil in American history. The neocons had such an analysis. Their rivals - the multilateral purists - had nothing but piece-meal initiatives and they also had recent history against them.
It's not as if the U.S. is the only country on the planet. The French, the Germans, the E.U., had an opportunity to address the Middle East. Long before Bush took office. They were either unwilling or unable to solve any problems. Or both. So why should Bush listen to them now? What exactly demonstrates the wisdom of their approach? Indeed, what is their approach? Ignore the Middle East and hope it gets better on its own? Prop up dictatorships that seem more pro-Western than their populaces? Throw some foreign aid their way? We've tried those. Those didn't prevent 9/11. Why would they prevent the next 9/11? The neoconservative idea, the idea that liberating Iraq can lead to democracy, which can, in domino fashion, lead to liberalization throughout the Middle East, may be wrong. But at least it's an idea. It's something for Bush to try. The French, the anti-war people, offer nothing.
Comments (2)
Before the first Iraqi War the news media were telling us that the Iraqi army was invincible. They were making predictions that 10s of thousands of US and coalition soldiers would die trying to defeat the mighty Iraqi war machine. Of course, the media was wrong; our casualties were very low.
Before the current war, the news media went to the opposite extreme. They were predicting that the Iraqi army would surrender en mass as soon as the first shot was fired and that there would be zero US casualties. One again, the news media is wrong. However, now, based on their own absurdly low casualty numbers, they are predicting gloom and doom with each battle and each war death. They are acting like there must be something wrong with the US military if it can't just role over the Iraqi army as if it were comprised of six year olds with pea shooters.
Is it asking too much for the news media to report what is going on without resorting to negative comments about the US military in every article? Only a bunch of fools could believe that you could conquer a country ruled by a homicidal dictator without having to fight battles against their entrenched troops and taking a number of casualties in the process. Then again, I am being redundant.
Posted by Richard | March 25, 2003 10:10 AM
Posted on March 25, 2003 10:10
Hey, Jeanine Garofalo told us there wouldl be *half a million* casualties in this war (yes, you read that right, she said it in a TV interview). The thing is, casualties are very low, and civilian casualties are miniscule - even Saddam's minions aren't trying to claim many there. I know the elite media is desperately hoping for bad news, so as to not be proven idiots yet again, but there really isn't much there yet to complain about. The biggest issue appears to be that we really need more ground troops, and as Partha noted earlier we know who to thank for that shortcoming.
Posted by Gary Collard | March 26, 2003 2:44 PM
Posted on March 26, 2003 14:44