[Dean's World] Dave Price: Sullying The War Debate

[notify at powerblogs.com]

Posted by Dave Price:
Sullying The War Debate
http://www.deanesmay.com/posts/1177603908.shtml


   In the comments to his post, Ali noted [1]this piece from Andrew
   Sullivan criticizing Rudyâs speech, which I think is worth addressing
   since Sullyâs post contains much of the antiwar argument prevalent out
   there now, and is exemplary of the flaws in that argument.
   If Giuliani means we are surrendering to the Shiite majority in Iraq,
   or the Maliki government, then wasn't that the point of the entire
   war?
   Well, we have already "surrendered" to Maliki's democratically elected
   government, in that we recognize them as the sovereign heads of Iraq
   and would leave if they asked us to. Andrew's not making a lot of
   sense here.
   If he means surrendering to al Qaeda, whose presence in Iraq was
   minimal before we invaded, then he must explain why Barack Obama's
   proposal for an "over-the-horizon" force that would still target al
   Qaeda is meaningless or insufficient? 
   Today's Qaedists are often yesterday's Baathists and the two had a de
   facto nonaggression pact, so the idea the number of terrorists in Iraq
   was minimal before we arrived is ridiculous: they owned the whole
   country! The âover the horizonâ force would probably be able to
   âstrikeâ Al Qaeda pretty handily, but thatâs another version of the
   FOBbing strategy that everyone agrees doesnât work because it allows
   AQ to set up whole areas under its fief as soon as coalition/Iraqi
   forces leave. We need to hold those areas and keep the Qaedists out,
   not just âstrikeâ them now and then; the âoccasional strikeâ paradigm
   is what led to 9/11, because it allows them a haven where they can
   plan attacks. Clear, hold, and build is much more difficult than
   occasional bombing, but vastly more effective.
   When you probe Giuliani's logic, it means that we should start
   invading every country that could or does harbor al Qaeda
   Well, we can either fight AQ or let them blow us up without fighting
   back. Remember, this war is Al Qaeda's choice, not ours. Peace
   requires two willing parties, war needs only one. As Rudy says, the
   war on terrorism ends when they stop trying to kill us.
   - and that we should stay in Iraq indefinitely
   Not indefinitely, just until the elected government can handle things
   on its own.
   since our presence there manages to generate more terrorists than we
   can kill. 
   Well, this line of argument is somewhat disturbing, because logically
   it implies we shouldnât do things that might âgenerate terrorists.â
   Islamic extremists also donât like democracy, womenâs rights, free
   speech, freedom of assembly, free press â and, oh yes, theyâre none
   too fond of homosexual rights, either. Why stop at abandoning Iraq? Is
   Andrew going to volunteer to be crushed underneath a stone wall to
   demonstrate Americaâs willingness to avoid offending extremist Islam?
   Clearly this is absurd moral cowardice. Liberalizing Iraq is a noble
   mission and the fact extremists donât like it certainly doesnât make
   it less so.
   Islamic terrorists are always going to have some excuse to kill
   innocents, whether we're trying to create liberal democracy in Iraq or
   not. But we definitely bear responsibility for generating several
   hundred thousand Iraqi security forces to fight against terrorists. I
   think we came out ahead there.
   In fact, there's strong evidence that we are effectively training the
   next generation of al Qaeda in Iraq by honing their skills against a
   superior enemy.
   OK, but then by that same logic we are also effectively training our
   own forces, Iraqi and Coalition, honing their skills against an
   inferior enemy that not only gets its posterior kicked daily but also
   has less capacity for institutional learning and memory. Again, we
   come out way ahead.
   Sully then goes on with the usual hysteria about "torture," loss of
   civil rights, and the oft-reported imminent death of the Constitution,
   none of which are reasonable assertions. I think this more than
   anything demonstrates the degree to which antiwar angst has come to
   define reality for some people, to the point that no rational or
   liberal principles really matter to them any more. It is a strange and
   self-contradictory ideology indeed that can label any harsh
   interrogation as unacceptable âtortureâ while advocating surrendering
   Iraq to enemies who are training children to saw journalistsâ heads
   off and drilling holes in people with electric tools, or complain of
   âdissentersâ being âsilencedâ by the American state while opposing a
   war against a regime that dealt with dissent by means of acid, nerve
   gas, rape rooms, mutilation, and mass graves.

References

   1. http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/04/the_jack_bauer_.html