Saturday, January 03, 2004

TIME TO FIGHT THE REAL ENEMY: Everybody knows that the Washington Times is a well-known bastion of rabid right-wing ideology. Just take a look at their editorial page. Yet nothing measures up to Tim Blair. In the British Daily Telegraph, he writes about the left being in a state of lunacy because the left opposed the war. To avoid being accused of mischaracterizing him, allow me to quote Mr. Blair:

nd on the insane left, we found . . . well, every single leftist who opposed the war in Iraq. What were these people thinking? Let's keep nice old Saddam in power until he is able to hand over Iraq to sweet Uday and darling Qusay, bless their raping, bloodlusting little hearts? Let's behave like our brains have been stolen by the CIA?
Yes, oppose the war, you're a freakin' lunatic! Straw man, right? Certainly. But Blair and many others on his side of the political side of the spectrum miss a point. We opposed the war in Iraq for a reason. A lot of us (not all) didn't agree with the war because they disagreed with Bush. Here's a thought--we were in favor of "shock and awe," but just not in Iraq.

Since September 11th, the left was called out of touch. We live in another cold war, but this one's just getting warmed up. The enemy wants to destroy Western civilization, or hell, any kind of civilized manner of living. The new threat is that of "Radical Islam" and the War on Terror should be renamed to the War on Islamofascism. No time to build democracy, the prime argument of neo-cons, but let's eliminate the threat. Not to ensure national security but to ensure we continue to live in this liberal democracy of ours. Sure, the commentators made their point through abusive language, narrow-minded and mostly anti-Muslim vitriol, but they had a point of sorts. And to be honest, I agreed with the small points they were making.

Let's evaluate the situation in the Middle East real quick. The only obstacle between the nuke and the Muslim fanatics who want to obtain them is a man named Pervez Musharraf; Saudi Arabia's rulers both aid the enemy and are on our side to prevent al-Qaeda's control of the country; al-Qaeda's most substantive moral and financial support comes from Yemen, etc. I could go on but you get the point. Many countries I would list as problematic, yet Iraq is not on the list. Yes, Saddam Hussein was a terrible man, a mass murdered in fact. Despite Christopher Hitchens' arguing to the opposite, Saddam Hussein wasn't supporting Osama bin Laden (or the other way around for that matter). Saddam Hussein was never seen as a hero to the fundamentalist Islamists. What Islamist that you know of would trust a man who employs a Christian as a member of his cabinet? Saddam was crazy; not an Islamist. Let's focus our resources on the real threat instead of giving Laurie Mylroie and her friends (read: the neo-cons who pushed for the war) legitimacy. Would it've prevented the dead in Bali? Most likely not, but it's worth a try. One thing I know: it's certainly better than American soldiers doing nation-building.


Post a Comment

<< Home