Your Humble Blogger read Late Night Thoughts of a Defeatist at the recommendation of Atrios, and now recommends it to Gentle Readers all. The highlight, for me, was the point that if the invasion of Iraq is a battle in the War on Terror, it’s Stalingrad.
I think I’ll have one more post on this mess, and then take some time off of Iraq for a while. I hope.
Redintegro Iraq,
-Vardibidian.
I read “Late Night Thoughts of a Defeatist” several days ago, and it’s a very thoughtful and, I think, perceptive analysis of the challenges of speaking out against — what shall we call it? The war in Iraq? The occupation of Iraq? The conduct of the occupation of Iraq? The conduct of the putative rebuilding of Iraq? The imperial acquisition of Iraq?
Whatever the truth of the arguments that speaking against whatever it is that’s happening in Iraq puts the American troops there in more danger, I think it must now be claimed that the danger added by such words of peace is _trivial_ compared to the danger added by the words of Our Only President when he countenanced the illegal Israeli settlements on the West Bank, in violation of international law and multiple UN resolutions. How could any Iraqi take seriously this Administration’s statements of good faith about its intentions in Iraq after that?
I thought myself pretty much past surprise with respect to the actions of Our Only President’s Administration, but I was shocked when I saw that he was choosing the present moment to cosy up to Ariel Sharon and endorse permanent Israeli occupation of parts, at least, of the West Bank. Surely Our Only President’s Handlers understand, if the Commander-in-Chief himself does not, how much these words have set back the prospect of peace in Iraq, Palestine, and Israel? How much it will increase the tension in Iraq and the danger to our soldiers there? Arrogant, callous, reckless, foolish, lawless, contemptuous of American soldiers and citizens of the the Middle East region alike, contemptible.
I found “Late Night Thoughts of a Defeatist” fascinating reading. I’m glad to see Jim Henley’s thoughtful exploration of the issues involved. At the same time, I hate to see such respect given to the invidious and moronic argument that we are aiding the enemy by speaking our minds.
Spain held an election recently. Al Qaeda saw an opportunity to affect the election by killing and maiming hundreds of people. The election not only provided Al Qaeda with an incentive to attack, but also drastically increased worldwide coverage of the attack. Clearly by holding an election, Spain was helping Al Qaeda and was morally responsible for the deaths of its citizens. That’s the same argument as the one being used against dissenters in the US.
The logic that would stifle dissent for fear that it will encourage our enemies would also remove free speech, free elections, balanced branches of government, civilian control over the military, and more. That logic would turn this country into a repressive and totalitarian state, in the name of preserving freedom. It’s Orwellian in the strictest sense.