Iraq: Why I still believe in the war Posted by: McQ
on Wednesday, May 24, 2006
This is by Lyn Chu who holds a J.D from the University of Chicago Law School, is admitted to the New York Bar, and is a very successful literary agent. Not exactly where you'd expect something like this to originate. Found on Bruce Kessler's "Democracy Project".
It's quite long so I'm going to put hide it in an excerpt, but it is quite an interesting list:
Why I Continue to Believe in the War in Iraq (first draft)
Because to depose a murderous despot is a good thing.
Because the UN resolved to do something a dozen times and didn’t.
Because we are the only nation in the world with the decency and strength to do it.
Because other nations, ruing their past glory, are envious.
Because I believe in nationbuilding.
Because the left has always insisted on this.
Because I harbor no animus toward Muslim peoples.
Because we must seed the world with democracy, for it is right.
Because Mesopotamia, the cradle of civilization, deserves no less.
Because we destroyed mountains of conventional WMD and averted the sure redevelopment of worse.
Because we halted the UN’s corrupt partnership with tyranny, in the sham of Oil for Food
Under which the Iraqi people suffered while Saddam and his new business partners sipped oil.
Because containment is impossible in a globalized world.
Because dictators are easier to topple than covert networks.
Because war is best conducted there than on the streets of New York.
Because in truth the world respects us for it, however they moan.
Because received opinion will change on a dime.
Because Iraqis are an educated people fully capable of democracy.
As is all of humanity.
Because we did so with a minimum of human loss.
Because the war and rebuilding can be self-financing with oil.
Because one out of three in the axis of evil is 33.3% better than zero.
Because it makes the left crazy to see the U.S. succeed nobly against a tyrant.
For they love tyranny when it suits them.
Because Saddam financing bin Laden to harry us was only a matter of time.
Because we needed to finish what we started in 1991.
Because half-measures can be worse than none.
Because America is as brave and competent as it is reasonable to expect of clumsy imperfect humans.
Because sanctions were crumbling.
Because if Saddam had the bomb in 1981, he would soon have it again.
Because in 1948 the UN created Israel, to world acclaim, whose existence is just and must continue to be defended.
For the evil of antisemitism still lurks in the world, in radical Islam and elsewhere.
Because the new kind of war will be sporadic, desultory, and covert.
And will bore us, but complacency is dangerous.
Because to them their jihad has only just begun, and crush it we must.
For Osama Bin Laden is not Deng Xiao-Ping.
Because our nation is strong enough to shrug off the malice and subversion and sophistries its heedless factions devise.
Who style themselves heroes and whistleblowers.
For their vanity and venality betrays them.
Because this war’s lessons will assist in transformation, which must continue.
For the emasculated CIA and bloated DOD must be reformed.
Because the idea that the world has outgrown war is a fantasy.
Because if we cannot do Iraq then we can never do Rwanda or Darfur.
Because we need to pick our fights.
And there is nothing immoral about making a list ordered by need and self-interest.
For all politics are a balance of factors moral and practical.
Because, when the world is ever really in trouble, fashionable anti-Americanism will fall away.
For all know that America is not the source of evil in the world.
Because people just like to exaggerate.
And nowhere is the human condition more on display than in a democracy.
Because all of these considerations are matters for our elected representatives to manage.
Because partisans lie and lose their souls and trick the rest for only a moment.
Because failed states harbor criminal gangs.
Because propping up dictators no longer brings “stability.”
Because we can no longer countenance killing fields.
Because we must learn how to replace chaos with democracy. For democracy is not only stable, it is just.
Because we won in Afghanistan, whose economy is starting to boom.
Because the carping elite are hypocrites about all of this, but love to second-guess and criticize.
Because they will do so regardless.
Because the pundits all have other agendas.
Because Iraq must continue to “balance” Iran in that region. Because we can use a middle east base.
Because avoiding the responsibilities of empire has invoked our enemy and laid the seeds for failed states.
Because civilization is always effortful.
Because we will not and need not suffer a draft to fight the mother of all wars, the very jihad of our enemy’s dreams. Because this demand shows the critics’ bad faith.
Because their perverse, fervent, secret wish is for another Vietnam.
Because small war is a new art, one we need to master.
Because does not a stitch in time save nine?
Because the same will be required of us again, and we must study its statecraft.
Because the UN will save no one.
Because diplomacy is sometimes the path to a solution, but just as often isn’t.
Because wordsmiths overestimate words.
Because politics is always war by other means.
Because we must expect only carping and ingratitude and have infinite patience.
Because it is the right thing to do and the sophists’ words will vanish with the wind.
Well, I still believe in the war, but I don’t believe a good number of things on that list.
Fair enough. I had thought that a good many people on the left would have agreed on many of these points. Perhaps they do, but the agreement is buried under the "it’s all about the oil" complaints.
I’m not particularly impressed. There are much better arguments to be found regarding continued support of the Iraq war. This just comes off as a collection of old soundbites. I’m almost tempted to do a line by line rebuttal, but it hardly seems worth the effort.
How simple to diss it as a collection of old soundbites. Correct soundbites, my friend, not the least of which was this one:
Because the carping elite are hypocrites about all of this, but love to second-guess and criticize.
Bitch and moan, bitch and moan, bitch and moan. Then make snap judgments, all in preparation of more bitching and moaning. Given the newness of this 24/7 news cycle, and the willingness of the Democrats to shout "Civil War" since the conflict began, this administration has done one hell of a job transforming our military and handling this war at the same time. All while being savagely undercut by some in the CIA and the State Department.
I think you’ve done been had McQ - this list has got to be some kind of joke. How else to explain the number of lies, half-truths, cliches, and distortions?
Take this one for example:
Because the war and rebuilding can be self-financing with oil.
Ha ha ha ha ha ha.
As the authoress herself says:
Because lies however big, are only temporary.
Amen to that sister.
But this one I agree with:
Because dictators are easier to topple than covert networks
I think you’ve done been had McQ - this list has got to be some kind of joke. How else to explain the number of lies, half-truths, cliches, and distortions?
I believe, in your case, the precise term is reactionary. I notice you do not disclaim the authoress’s notion that the war is pragmatic because it will be paid for by oil revenues. You had the chance. I understand that given your intellectual akwardness, you can’t.
As Fleetwood Mac said, don’t stop beliveing in tomorrow.
Your punditry - if it can be called that - is fast transforming itself into farce.
At least MK would ’fess to at least this one: Because dictators are easier to topple than covert networks
Yes. That is why George Bush decided to attack Iraq, which had nothing to do with 9/11. Saddam was cornered. We had him hemmed in for little cost. Our military was so damm effective during the "no fly" zone period of time. We had Saddam hemmed in precisely because the military was so effective.
OTOH, McQ and his ilk like to badmouth the military’s effort at enforcing the no fly zone. The decision to invade Iraq is premised on the notion that the US military could not effectively contain Saddam. History, of course, shows that we did contain him. The military did a great job. Bush ignored this history.
Here is what the authoress McQ quoted had to say about our efforts at containing Saddam:
Because containment is impossible in a globalized world.
Contrary to this notion, our military was kicking Saddam’s a** in the 90’s. The traitor that McQ quotes says otherwise. I disagree. We had Saddam hemmed in. Why? Because we have a great military.
A message to Ms. Chu: Quit badmouthing our military. McQ: Quit quoting people who criticize our efforts in the 90’s to contain Saddam for your partisan purposes.
I believe, in your case, the precise term is reactionary. I notice you do not disclaim the authoress’s notion that the war is pragmatic because it will be paid for by oil revenues. You had the chance. I understand that given your intellectual akwardness, you can’t.
Grow up MK. I didn’t claim or "disclaim" anything.
I put the list up for commentary and reaction. And you, as usual, went over the top and tried to make it personal.
You represent very well the problems of the left and I appreciate you dropping by here regularly to reinforce the lesson.