[lit-ideas] Re: Victor Hanson in Iraq
- From: "Mike Geary" <atlas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 12:22:40 -0600
Brian:
>> I should have been clearer - I agree with Hitchens and his diagnosis that it
>> is both sinister and masochistic.<<
Yes, that's what I assumed. My comment was a John Kerry type joke, alas.
>>Commentators from Hans Blix to Kofi Annan to Bill Maher suggest that Iraq
>>would be better off today with Saddam Hussein in power. <<
"Better off" is the key term and open to question. Like Irene, I think Saddam
was a lesser evil to the civil war we have now and are likely to have for
several more years.
>> That is unthinkable to a conservative and even one who disagrees with the
>> war and the way it has been handled.<<
Like Omar, I'm surprised by that comment. Neither Conservatives nor Liberals
have clean hands when it comes to sucking up to mass murderers whenever it's in
our strategic interest. I have to assume that you don't consider James Baker a
conservative, which seems strange to me, unless maybe you mean
'neoconservative', in which case, I'd agree.
>>You misrepresent two facts here: that we started the "murder" in Iraq and
>>that there was ever a war against al Qaeda. Make no mistake, the U.S. did
>>not start the murder in Iraq - Saddam Hussein did. The American military
>>does not target civilians like Saddam and our terrorist enemies do but moral
>>idiots like Howard Zinn cannot see that.<<
When I said "we started the murder", I was speaking of the sectarian killings
since our invasion in 2003. An invasion ostensibly to free the Iraqis from
the brutal dictatorship of Saddam. But more people have died in the aftermath
of our disasterous invasion than Saddam ever dreamed of killing. The murder of
Sunnis by Shiites and Shiites by Sunnis and Kurds by both is the direct result
of our disrupture of the social order -- brutal as it was -- and we share in
the guilt as much as those who blow themselves up daily and kill by the
wayside. I agree that our military does not purposefully target civilians, but
that's little comfort to the families and loved ones of the 200 to 600 thousand
people who would still be alive had we not invaded their country.
>> In fact, we are probably the most humanitarian military of our strength the
>> world has ever seen and operate, by-in-large, under restrictive rules of
>> engagement that hamper our ability to crush the enemy. <<
I don't disagree with this. In fact, I go a step further, I think our military
establishment is much more concerned about human life than the civilian
controllers who seem far more concerned with political power. There are things
about the military that scare me, but overall I think America has been
incredibly blessed with leaders who have cherished civilian control over the
military. I don't know of any situation that has ever arisen in American
history where there was talk of military rebellion against the government (but
then, I'm no historian). The military doesn't scare me nearly so much as it's
political bosses do.
Mike Geary
Memphis
----- Original Message -----
From: Brian
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 7:38 AM
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Victor Hanson in Iraq
In this debate on what to do in Iraq the Left is preoccupied with this idea
that America is at fault and is creating terrorism instead of fighting against
it. Saddam Hussein was a brutal and ruthless dictator that suppressed free
speech, imprisoned and killed political dissidents, murdering and torturing
thousands. But, like James Baker, these are people who worship at the altar of
stability. As long as that dictator provides stability, we like that dictator,
no matter the cost.
Robert Kaplan writes about this in his book Imperial Grunts: The American
Military On The Ground where he talks about laboring under "the tyranny of one
casualty" where the boots on the ground want to be used as they were trained
and the politicians, and sometimes the military brass, fear political fallout
of bodies coming home.
As an extension of Andreas's thought that anyone who supports the war but
does not go to war is a liar and a coward, what does that make you and him and
all others who are strongly anti-war? Surely you are also liars and cowards
for not volunteering to be human shields.
~Brian
Birmingham, AL
On Dec 12, 2006, at 7:40 PM, Mike Geary wrote:
I'm not sure whether Brian agrees with Zinn or Hitchens. But it doesn't
matter. The Bushies so screwed up the war against Al Queda with their little
adventure in Iraq that nothing can save it. A decade or more of horrendous
civil war is all we have to look forward to now, a war that might well engulf
the whole of the Middle East -- as they world warned them before their illegal
invasion. I say the blood is on our hands as well as on all others who are
involved in the killing. I'm guilty by paying my taxes, but I don't have the
integrity of the brothers Berigan or Thoreau. It's not my loved ones being
killed. Feel terrible about it. Say so. Shrug it off. Go to work. Life of
a Liberal.
We started the murder in Iraq. I agree with Zinn that Bush should be tried
by an international court and I don't understand how anyone who believes in
human rights and international law could disagree.
Other related posts:
