|
The intellectual irrelevance of the anti-war right, part 23
Continuing its slide into intellectual irrelevance and worse, the anti-war right now makes arguments identical to those of the brainless anti-war left. Writing in the February 24th issue of The American Conservative, Arnaud de Borchgrave approvingly cites the view of European counter-terrorist specialists who tell him that war is not needed to take care of Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction. “He is back in his box, they argue, and subjected to the daily humiliation of UN inspectors officially authorized to run roughshod over Iraq’s sovereignty.” Borchgrave ignores the cardinal fact that the only reason the inspectors are in Iraq is that President Bush’s credible threat of the imminent use of force last fall—the very use of force that the anti-war right passionatelyopposes—prodded the Security Council to institute a new and much tougher inspections regime. Though he is a long-time expert in military matters, de Borchgrave also ignores the obvious fact that American force levels in the Mideast region cannot be sustained indefinitely, and that as they are stepped down, Hussein will inevitably kick out the inspectors and we will be in a worse position than where we started, with Hussein developing his WMDs and with America and its allies demoralized and scattered. Meanwhile, what does de Borchgrave, this great defense specialist, say ought to be the real focus of our war on terror? Just guess. You got it. “A solution to the bloody Israeli-Palestinian deadlock,” he says, “is a much higher priority than regime change in Iraq.”
How seriously can you take a movement—and a magazine—that makes such arguments? Email entry |