[Dean's World] Aziz P: the dilemma

[notify at powerblogs.com]

Posted by Aziz P:
the dilemma
http://www.deanesmay.com/posts/1194097309.shtml


   Suppose you were against the Iraq war, because you didn't think there
   was sufficient rationale, threat, or priority compared to the critical
   mission in Afghanistan.

   Suppose you were deeply distrustful of the Administration because if
   its frontloading (at the highest level) with officials from previous
   administrations that were incompetent, corrupt, or both.

   Suppose that you thought then and think now (and have been vindicated
   by events) that the WMD issue was the greatest red herring for war,
   and despite the best attempts of those who prove otherwise (easily
   dismissed if you happen to have access to Lexis Nexis), are solidly
   aware that the case for war was basically WMD centric from the start.

   However.

   Suppose that you believe that the foreign policy of the United States,
   especially in the Middle East, has been an unmitigated disaster of
   greed and naked self-interest, in its outcome.

   Suppose the reason that this is so, in your view, is because the US
   has always supported the forces against liberty - strongmen and
   tyrants.

   Suppose that you understand and accept that part of the reason for
   that was because of Cold War concerns, but since the Persian Gulf War
   have not felt that this excuse applies.

   Suppose that you believe that turning policy around requires a
   commitment on our part. Suppose you believe in fixing what you break.
   Suppose you believe that there is a tenuous case for strategic
   patience in Iraq, to quote Anthony Cordesman.

   However.

   Suppose that you see on the right, because of the poor execution of
   the Iraq War by the Administration, an emerging conviction that
   democracy is bad, because it empowers Islamists.

   Suppose you see on the right, an emerging concensus that we are at war
   with Islam as a faith.

   Suppose you see on the left, because of innate hostility towards the
   Republican Party stemming from 8 years of vicious abuse during the
   Clinton Adminisration leading to impeachment over a blowjob, a vicious
   smear campaign against Al Gore, the 2000 debacle where Gore was
   accused of "running to courts" to try and "steal the election", the
   run up to war in Iraq where anyone who dared suggest that this was the
   wrong war at eth wrong time was labeled a traitor and "objectively
   pro-terrorist", the vicious smear campaign against John Kerry, and of
   course the renewed drumbeat for war against Iran which thus far has
   followed precisely the same trajectory as the runup to war in Iraq, an
   implacable determination to oppose at all costs whatever the
   Administration wants on the sole principle (admittedly, a reasonable
   one based on the evidence thus far) that the Administration has its
   head up its ass and cant be trusted to do anything right, and to do
   anything right for the wrong reasons.

   Suppose you see in the left an emerging isolationism and total
   withdrawal being the only solution as the concensus conventional
   wisdom.

   Suppose you don't have anything to rebut such conventional wisdom
   apart from, "if we outlast Bush and then start in Iraq to try and make
   things right, in perhaps 15 years we will achieved something truly
   profound" (an argument whose persuasive limitations are, of course,
   immediately obvious).

   Then imagine the dilemma that you face.