I agree with Mr Auster’s post entirely. I dont remember the American people ever voting in any democratic election for the U.N as our government. In many respects I hope America takes action against Iraq without U.N endorsement just to make the point that we are still a sovereign nation. The idea that we should have to go crawling to an organisation that has Syria on it’s security council and Libya on it’s “human rights” council to beg permission to defend our interests and allies is both absurd and obscene.

Still, it’s good to see that a clear majority of American’s are rallying behind Bush, and the latest Gallup poll does show an increase in the numbers supporting war even without U.N endorsement.

The extent to which the antiwar left will go to stand against any Republican victory in international affairs just shows that they are unaware of the fact that a defeat of American foreign policy might presage a diminution of American affluence, not just our influence. They might be ashamed of American power, but without military power, our economic position in the world could suffer as well. If we are the world’s police force, subject to the orders of others, they should remember that policemen are not very well paid.

Europe may seem cool to those who are shallow of mind, but we are the ones who drive SUVs instead of Minis. Our very profligacy is proof of our superiority. If we lose that, we become just another self-indulgent Switzerland.

If we fail to contain Iraq, Israel will fall. We might become irrelevant to the debate, as those “superior” Europeans will have been granted the power to decide, while we are merely the “muscle.” I say that we must take matters in our own hands, and do what is our self-interest, and coincidentally in their’s as well. The nations of Europe are depending upon our lack of sophistication to allow them to order us around, and expect us to follow their lead, and their orders. This is a game that they are trying to run at us, and those of the antiwar left have fallen into their trap.

We are the nation that saved their butts in the 1940s, and we must now decide whether we are merely their “muscle,” or are the truly superior nation that many of us believe that we are. The time to act is now. If we delay, we risk missing our opportunity to become the unquestioned leader of the world community of nations.

Shawn writes:
“In many respects I hope America takes action against Iraq without U.N endorsement just to make the point that we are still a sovereign nation”

I have read many reasons for war with Iraq, but Shawn’s reason: proving an intellectual point by means of slaughtering human life is the most amazing yet.

I recognize that Shawn has other reasons for wanting war, but to even mention the above as a valid reason for war, reduces the lives of all who shall suffer to a very low level of worth.

I’ve been thinking along the same lines as Mr. Auster, and it is one of the reasons I’m against the war.

Given the US government’s arguments calling for self defense, either the US government is incompetent for not acting when it knows self defense is required. Or it does not believe its own arguments, and has other reasons for wanting war.

Or in my case, I happen to think it is both incompetent and lying. The democrats are at least competent at lying us into war with some justifiable incident.

While questions of power should never be ignored, Mr. Gersh’s argument that we should go to war with Iraq specifically in order to increase our power seems wrongheaded to me, and, frankly, virtually a parody of the way the antiwar right views the so-called “War Party,” whom they accuse of seeking war not in order to protect ourselves from a harm but in order to create a global U.S. hegemony.

With all due respect to Mr. Gersh, I feel such an argument for going to war is both wrong in itself and tactically counterproductive.

When America went to war in 1941, the aim was to protect ourselves and others from aggressor nations, not to increase America’s power. America’s power did increase mightily as a result of the war, but that was not our reason for entering it.

I’d like to add a qualification to my article. While I criticize those who condition their support for Mr. Bush’s war policy on UN approval, Bush is in no small measure responsible for this situation, since he himself chose to seek UN approval. Even though he keeps adding the caveat that UN endorsement is not in the final analysis required, his placing of the UN front and center in this issue has naturally made many people, including some of his supporters, believe that UN approval is, indeed, essential.

It’s a classic “W.” situation—appealing to liberal principles to legitimize his (somewhat) conservative policies. The tactic may help him get what he wants in the short term, but in the long term he is only helping strengthen liberal ideology.

Auster is 100 percent correct, but preaching to the choir. Unfortunatly, those that should digest this message will,deliberately, never be exposed to it. Many of us recieved it with mother’s milk.

May I then suggest to Mr. Ferris that he copy the article and send it to everyone he knows who could benefit from it.

F. Salzer writes:
“I have read many reasons for war with Iraq, but Shawn’s reason: proving an intellectual point by means of slaughtering human life is the most amazing yet.”

I didn’t take Shawn’s comment that way. What I thought he meant was that given that the war is happening anyway for other reasons, it would be a side-benefit if it happened without UN approval because that would help to expose the basic illegitimacy of the UN. It would be stunningly immoral to go to war just to flaunt the UN, it is true; but just as there can be bad side-effects there can also be good ones.

Matt,

Thank you for your comment. I gladly grant Shawn the benefit of the doubt, and convict him of nothing greater than poor syntax and word choice.

Osama is evil, but his words are not necessarily false because of that. The following is from a recent Pat Buchanan editorial:

“Osama says we are “crusaders” who have vassalized Arab countries and corrupted Islamic peoples with our decadent culture, that our soldiers defile their holiest lands, that we persecute the Iraqis with savage sanctions, and help the Israelis rob Palestinians of their land and freedom. And they are willing to die to drive us out of their countries, their region and their world, as they died to drive the Russians out of Afghanistan.”

Is there no truth to these words? Is the US simply a force for good in the world—no questions asked? Will we have to endure more 9/11s before we take the plank out of our own eye?

“Is the US simply a force for good in the world—no questions asked?”

I don’t know of a single contributor or regular commentor at VFR who would endorse that view.

“I didn’t take Shawn’s comment that way. What I thought he meant was that given that the war is happening anyway for other reasons, it would be a side-benefit if it happened without UN approval because that would help to expose the basic illegitimacy of the UN. It would be stunningly immoral to go to war just to flaunt the UN, it is true; but just as there can be bad side-effects there can also be good ones.” — Matt

That is exactly what I meant. Not that we should go to war with Iraq (or more precisely finish the one that began over ten years ago) to prove a point about the U.N. but that as we are going to war anyway it is better that we do so without U.N blessing to prove that we are still are a sovereign nation not bound to the rule of the U.N.

“Is there no truth to these words?” — Socrates

Not that I can see.

On the first charge I do not see that we have “vassalized” any Muslim countries, with the possible exception of Afghanistan, and the fault of that lies squarely at bin Laden’s feet.

On the second, people choose to be “corrupted”, we do not force them to watch American TV or movies. Are Muslims so weak willed that they cannot resist the pitiful amount of American culture that exists in the Middle East? Are they forced to buy movie tickets or are they incapable of turning off the TV? Whatever happened to the notion of personal responsibility? This claim by Osama is typical of the current Muslim habit of denying personal responsibility and blamimg someone else for their problems, and an indication that the moral rot in the Arab world is their own doing and lies within themselves.

On the accusation that we defile their holy lands and “oppress” Iraq with sanctions bin Laden should look to Saddam Hussein for someone to blame for the necessity of our presence in the Gulf states and for the sanctions against Iraq.

On the last,we do not help the Israeli’s to rob the “palestinians” of their land because there is no such thing as a palestinian or palestinian land. The entire concept of a distinct palestinian people and land is a con job created by Arabs to justify their warmomgering against Israel.

As to them driving us out of anywhere, bin Laden simply does not understand America or Americans, and his underestimation of us and our willingness after 911 to secure our nation will be his undoing.

Is Buchanen now agreeing with Islamic terrorists as well as anti-American socialists? Can he get any further into the gutter?

No, I dont think America is perfect, but I give no credence to the self serving rantings of a Jew hating and Christian hating terrorist who’s own goal, let us remember, in his own words, is the creation of an Islamic transnational empire from which to launch Jihad against the rest of the world.

I am from Holland (AMSTERDAM) and would like to point out that we fully support Bush out here! Our government stands behind Mr Bush just as many other european countries. Do not stare blind at Germany(the country itself is in huge economical and social problems) and France.