Dealing With Mass Murderers
In Washington's fevered hallucination, process — purely mechanical process stripped of abstract principle — replaces substance so insidiously that even the overwhelming majority of administration policy critics accepts the conventional debate. Arguments over Iraq, however, should not be about whether the surge has worked, about what might happen if US troops leave precipitously, about the myriad enticing possibilities of carving it up in order to bring peace, or about any such details. No, the real argument should be, and has always been, that it was wrong to attack Iraq. Period.
Getting this straight is important, first, because it's part of our moral Weltanschauung, but it's also critical in practical terms because the problem tends to replicate pretty much automatically given the size and nature of our military establishment. Arguing over Iraq is not just about the wasted lives and folly in Iraq, but includes, most immediately for example, the catastrophic additional waste entailed in a potential attack against Iran. When critics of Cheney-Bush policies fail to see this they — by default — greenlight the next instance of criminal aggression.
In a weaker sense, even absent reference to principle, a failure to confront the Cheney-Bush gang over Iraq invites trouble. The Democratic leadership in Congress, in particular, should understand, but repeatedly demonstrates that it does not, that by rolling over on Iraq — perhaps congratulating themselves that they're politically clever, roping the Republicans to a failure — they dramatically increase the odds of war with Iran. Conversely, the Democrats also do not understand that like any common bully the Cheney-Bush White House tends to back down when challenged. It's not unreasonable to see such an enabling partnership placing heavy, almost co-equal, responsibility on the Democrats if a wider war develops.
At what point, one must ask oneself, does it become wrong to take a so-called pragmatic approach and support a hemi-demi-semi pro-war position, if that might mean getting the Republicans out of the White House? What's the price, in blood and corrupted values? The answer should be obvious.
Posted by George Kenney on September 8, 2007 7:59 PM 
« A Peeper's Paradise | Main | Remembering 9/11 »
Comments
The prevalent Democratic position on Iraq is equivalent to criticizing a serial killer on his technique, or suggesting that he should cease murdering folks earlier than he planned.
Nothing short of apprehending the killer and placing him behind bars will work, just as nothing short of impeachment of Bush and Cheney has any potential whatever of ending the war and their assault on the Constitution.
By their failure to stop this war, the Democrats are sentencing hundreds more Americans and thousands more Iraqis to die and showing the American people their own blatant disregard for the Constitution and their oath of office.
I suppose they think they cannot lose in '08 and that a Democrat, any Democrat, in the White House will make everything hunky-dory in America again. I doubt the public will buy that line after the performance of the Democratic "leadership" in Congress.
Posted by: Charles Dunaway | September 12, 2007 10:08 AM