|
True grit
Why we’re going to win. A few nights ago, during that high sandstorm, an embedded TV reporter stood over a soldier who was lying on his stomach, exposed to the wind and grit, holding his rifle and staring through goggles into nothing. The reporter said, “What do you think of being here in conditions like this?” The soldier said: “I love it, sir. I truly do. I wouldn’t want to be anywhere else right now.” Posted by Lawrence Auster at April 02, 2003 01:07 AM | Send Comments
“Why we’re going to win.” And what exactly are we winning? On the international level, the U.S. has ruined its credibility with other nations throughout the world. We have thrown away our moral high ground by going into an unjust war. By killing civilians, good intentions count for little, we have ruined our credibility with the Iraqi people. And even those good intentions are evaporating as we start to kill civilians even more indiscriminately. The Muslims despise the U.S. more now than ever before. We have made ourselves an even more desirable target for terrorists. And as a result will lose what liberties we have left when the American people beg the government for security from the terrorists this same government has foisted upon us. Economically, our country is being ruined. The U.S. army will own the ground it sits on, and nothing more. And the government we install shall only last as long as the U.S. occupies Iraq. What Is The Real Cost? of winning. http://reese.king-online.com/Reese_20030402/index.php
http://slate.msn.com/id/2080976/ Posted by: F. Salzer on April 2, 2003 10:55 AM“On the international level, the U.S. has ruined its credibility with other nations throughout the world. We have thrown away our moral high ground by going into an unjust war.” I expect it is too soon to pass that judgement. It is clear that our failure to take Baghdad in 1991 specifically encouraged Osama bin Laden in perpetrating his attacks: he has said as much explicitly. Whether or not ending a regime that feeds its own people feet first into industrial plastic shredders (feet first to give them maximum time to experience the process) is a just cause, awaits the verdict of history. And finally, the clarification of who is friend (e.g. Britian, Australia) and who is not (France, Germany, the U.N.) seems like it might be a good thing in the long run. F. Salzer wrote: “On the international level, the U.S. has ruined its credibility with other nations throughout the world. We have thrown away our moral high ground by going into an unjust war.” I don’t see it quite this way. I think it’s quite right that we’ve ruined our “credibility” with other nations throughout the word, but then I don’t think it ought to have been our aim to have “credibility” in the eyes of most of those regimes in the first place. We’ve never had moral credibility in the eyes of, say, China or the USSR/Russia, for the simple reason that we do not share common moral principles with them. They see the world through communist glasses and view America even in its most pristine and pure form as evil and corrupt. It is similar with most other non-Christian nations around the world, particularly the Islamic ones. To have moral “credibility” with them essentially means for us to throw up our hands and surrender to their own moral code. So I don’t fret that Russia, China, and the Mideast (just for example) don’t see eye to eye with us. The French and Germans, on the other hand, are a bit of a different case. However, it’s becoming increasingly clear that the French, at least, are no longer really a Western nation at all, and that in any case they have their own selfish hegemonic axe to grind. The Germans I don’t know about. They’re a bit of a mystery to me at this point. It may be as simple as them having economic interests in Iraq, but I tend to doubt it. There’s something else at work there. Maybe it’s just as the anti-war crowd claims and they’re simply opposed to the war on moral grounds, which is certainly possible. In any case, we have at most one noisy voice with any real credibility in the Christian West (two if you want to count French Canada, which I don’t) opposed to the war. That they, the Germans, don’t find our moral stance “credible” should be of some concern. However, that the rest don’t is neither here nor there to me. The devil doesn’t find Christ’s moral stance credible either, so that in itself isn’t reason enough to make me want to abandon ship. “By killing civilians, good intentions count for little, we have ruined our credibility with the Iraqi people. And even those good intentions are evaporating as we start to kill civilians even more indiscriminately.” We will see. First of all, it is not accurate to say we are killing civilians indiscriminately. We are killing civilians that Saddam Hussein’s goons are putting between us and himself. It’s a tragedy that the civilians are caught in this situation, but then it’s always a tragedy when a kidnapper holds his hostage between himself and the police with a gun to her head. In such cases, it is the kidnapper who is responsible for the death if death occurs, not the police, even though we demand that the police take all necessary prudential steps to ensure the hostage’s safety. But in no case do we simply say “oh well, he’s holding the hostage in front of him,” and walk away. The case is no different here. As for ruining our credibility with the Iraqi people, that remains to be seen. The Iraqi people know darned good and well who’s endangering them, and they know it isn’t us. They know who has terrorized them for the last twenty years and that that wasn’t us. That’s not to say that they’re happy about seeing their friends and neighbors killed, but put yourself in their shoes for a minute. If you were in the clutches of a shredder-wielding mass murderer, would you hold it against anyone who came to try to free you? Maybe you would, I don’t know, but I wouldn’t. “The Muslims despise the U.S. more now than ever before.” This is inevitable. We differ. There are intractible differences between us. The world is not and cannot be the secular utopian wonderland of John Lennon’s “Imagine.” Whether these differences boiled up again in war now or later, the fact is that they were bound to boil up again. In fact, this will always be the case until the end of the world when Christ comes finally again to settle matters once and for all. Posted by: Bubba on April 2, 2003 5:28 PMIs this the Bubba of yesteryear—who was, as I remember, on the paleolibertarian, antiwar right? Posted by: Lawrence Auster on April 2, 2003 5:39 PMBubba writes: It seems to me that the mythology surrounding Naziism is partly to blame here. Even though Naziism is a modern phenomenon — part of the cluster of ideologies that sprang from classical liberalism — the mythology is that extreme leftism forms part of a spectrum of which naziism is the right extreme. No possibilities other than these exist, and as penance Germany has to remain as leftward as possible. American libertarians are liberals who attempt to counter this perception with their cute little diamond diagram. To my way of thinking this merely demonstrates that a libertarian is minimally capable of considering more than one thing at a time, but is unwilling to concede the contemptible stupidity and destructiveness of his basic utopianism. (If you don’t know what the heck I am talking about look here: http://www.lp.org/quiz/ and press the “score it” button — no need to actually answer the questions.) This seems to be a uniquely American phenomenon as far as I can tell, though, so it isn’t a real option for the Germans. Another aspect of the current clash of civilizations is that it represents a repudiation of the end of history. When the Berlin Wall fell Jesus Jones sang “right here, right now, there is no other place I’d rather be… right here right now, watching the world wake up from history…” It is simply unacceptable to liberal triumphalism that the Tranzi dream does not reflect a possible reality, let alone current reality. The lefties react with “see no evil” and the neocons will employ whatever means necessary to push the NWO utopia from paper and imagination into reality. In both cases though the fundamental response arises from denial: a denial rooted in the belief that the end of history is both possible and, if not right here right now, then certainly imminent. The age of the free and equal superman is just around the corner, if only the oppressor untermenschen would stop holding us all back. “The age of the free and equal superman is just around the corner, if only the oppressor untermenschen would stop holding us all back.”—Matt A quotable quote. It also reminds me of this favorite line of mine from a Dylan song, which does not make the same point as Matt’s exactly, but doesn’t seem entirely unrelated either: “Freedom, just around the corner from you. Bob Dylan, “Jokerman,” 1983. Reply to Bubba, The U.S. is not a Christian nation. Because it is not a nation, it is a federation of sovereign States, and because it is pagan. The U.S.’ worships at the alter of the culture of death, not life. Russia did indeed spread its errors, as we were told it would, and the western countries, including the U.S., were on the receiving end. The U.S. has only vestiges of western Catholic culture left, not unlike the Muslim countries where once the Faith flowered most brightly. The Muslim countries have their own and different moral problems from the U.S. , and to place the corrupt U.S. above them morally is questionable at best. There is one sovereign country on this earth that it matters beyond all else to be in good graces with, the Vatican, because it is the fountain head of all Good. And the Vatican in common with the Bishops throughout the world has made its wishes and stance on the war with Iraq very clear. Its view on the war is not infallible, only prudential, but to sluff off such consistent thought is most unwise. The credibility the U.S. had was the fight against terrorism after 9/11, that too was sacrificed at the alter of hegemony and oil in Afghanistan and more recently in Iraq. Further, the U.S. can only be said to have not been killing civilians indiscriminately, if it can be proved that the U.S. embargo discriminated in its intention to kill so many innocents. Since it was mostly the little ones who paid the price that Albright said it was worth they pay. So we don’t need to see, we already have seen the U.S. in action, and we have seen the price it puts on Iraqi children. What we have yet to see, except for glimpses, http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2479.htm , is the value the U.S. will put on the innocent not yet killed by the U.S. government’s tender embrace. And then we also have the U.S. putting on the table the use of tactical nuclear weapons in Iraq, There may be intractable differences between the U.S. and the Muslims, but they are not the same as the intractable differences I have with them. Nor is the U.S. in Iraq because it is Muslim, but because of neocon hegemony, (Pox Americana), oil and to prop up the dollar versus the euro. Liberating Iraq is just an excuse, as were the previous discredited arguments on terrorism, UN sanctions, and weapons of mass destruction. When ever the U.S. government uses the word ‘war’ in any context, there is always one certainty, the first casualty and price to be paid will be liberty. And so what is the price of this foolish war that I and my wife and children shall pay here at home? Liberty. And for those who support this war? You must ask yourself, “what is the price of my soul”? Posted by: F. Salzer on April 2, 2003 11:14 PM“Its view on the war is not infallible, only prudential, but to sluff off such consistent thought is most unwise.” Once the Vatican explains in clear terms how it is unjust to use force to end the practice of feeding human beings alive into industrial plastic shredders it will be easier to take it seriously on this specific prudential matter. Rod Dreher (himself an orthodox Roman Catholic) explains the incongruity of the Vatican’s current priorities quite well: http://www.opinionjournal.com/taste/?id=110003166 In any case, F. Salzer overstate’s what the Vatican has said. The Vatican has explicitly said that the proper authority to determine the justness of the current war, and the person upon whom responsibility lies, is (consistent with just war theory) George W. Bush. All that the Vatican can do is articulate criteria. It is typical of neo-Catholics to undermine the Faith by placing MORE authority in the hands of the Vatican than it actually itself claims to hold, thereby creating expectations that not even the most pious and wise of Popes — let alone an average Pope — can possibly live up to. I would not want the Vatican to come out and expressly bless this war. Sometimes silence is the best way to maintain credibility — and to prevent or at least not aggravate the inevitable backlash against those Iraqi Catholics who have been complicit with the regime and have convinced the Vatican to take its current stance. Tariq Aziz at Assisi is more shameful to faithful Catholics than a renaissance Pope’s orgy. It is always possible, of course, that what is really going on is utterly unknown at present; but we can only honestly assess what we actually know. LA wrote: “Is this the Bubba of yesteryear—who was, as I remember, on the paleolibertarian, antiwar right?” Hehe. This is the same Bubba and he is still what I think most people would call a paleo, but he was for all that never any more anti-war than any other average American. Where I part company with my paleo pals is over this proposition that somehow our own government, which still remains (albeit somewhat shakily) in the hands of the people, is a bigger threat to our liberties than our foreign enemies are—or even our foreign friends, for that matter. I cannot subscribe to that particular proposition, no matter how vociferously I disagree with current political trends. F. Salzer wrote: “The U.S. has only vestiges of western Catholic culture left…” Admittedly. I never meant to imply any differently. However, the fact remains that our law to some extent remains rooted in Christian principle, even while much corruption has, as you, say, crept in. “…to place the corrupt U.S. above them [Muslim nations] morally is questionable at best.” I would strongly disagree with this. As troubled as we are at the top, the hearts and minds of the American people themselves haven’t completely broken with the Truth yet. This generation coming up right now, for example, is a very far cry from the carefree hedonists of the ‘60’s through the ‘90’s. Anti-abortion sentiment is widespread among young people today, and they are reaffirming in large numbers—quite at odds with the preferences of their libertine teachers and parents—the need for chastity, restraint and virtue. Don’t give up on us just yet. I was reading somewhere (maybe here? I can’t remember) where someone said that this whole situation reminded him of Michael Corleone at the end of The Godfather II, when he decides that the time is right to settle all of the family’s accounts at once. I think that’s a brilliant observation, and that’s exactly the sense I have of us right now—which, of course, must be why I think it’s brilliant :) It is time to settle all our accounts. It is time to sort our friends from our enemies abroad, and time to slam the door shut on the subversives who have bedeviled us for decades at home and reform our laws. I think I’m not alone in feeling this. I sense it among the American people at large: even people I have long considered liberal, “freethinking” types have been saying some pretty darned conservative things lately, even on the social front. The winds of change are truly blowing, methinks, and they are taking with them the dead dust of these last horrific decades. May I live long enough to see it happen if I’m right and may I not live long if I’m wrong. “The credibility the U.S. had was the fight against terrorism after 9/11, that too was sacrificed at the alter of hegemony and oil in Afghanistan and more recently in Iraq.” There are no facts that I know of to support this assertion. It’s only an assertion. What are you going to do when this war is over and the Iraqi oil fields are left in the hands of the Iraqi people to use as they see fit? (Of course, what am I going to do if they aren’t? Then I’ll be on your side on this issue. Nevertheless, I’m convinced they will be.) “Further, the U.S. can only be said to have not been killing civilians indiscriminately, if it can be proved that the U.S. embargo discriminated in its intention to kill so many innocents.” I wasn’t thinking about the embargo. I thought you were talking about the current combat. I won’t argue with you about the embargo. “And then we also have the U.S. putting on the table the use of tactical nuclear weapons in Iraq,” Whoa, now. Hold on here. There is a reason the US is putting those on the table, and that reason is called deterrence. The only way to meet criminal force is with equal or greater force. Would that it weren’t that way, but it is. Ask any police officer how frightened determined, hardened criminals are of wagging fingers and scolding. Whether we would actually use them or not (I believe we would not, at least in any widespread, severely destructive way), a credible threat of their use has to be made or Saddam will simply lob everything he has at both our troops and his own citizens because he knows there will be no retribution. “Liberating Iraq is just an excuse, as were the previous discredited arguments on terrorism, UN sanctions, and weapons of mass destruction.” That remains to be seen. You seem to feel that our government is in the hands of absolute, unmitigated devils, who plot and scheme night and day to destroy our liberties and take over the world. While I’m seriously troubled by much that goes on in Washington, I don’t have quite that extreme a view of our leaders. They are often shortsighted, misguided, and sometimes downright dumb, but I don’t think they’re malevolent. I don’t think they’re trying to deliberately undermine what’s left of the Republic. At worst, they just don’t “get it” and act according to less-than-perfect principles as a consequence. While I agree with much of the paleocon analysis of what’s wrong with America, the fact is that we have to deal with situations using America and her government the way it is at the moment the situation arises and not the way we’d like it to be. In this particular case, I believe Saddam is every bit the threat he has been claimed to be, and that hence he has to be dealt with using the tools and the people at hand. P.S. That “Pox Americana” crack was truly funny. Is that yours? :) Posted by: Bubba on April 3, 2003 5:42 AM“It is time to settle all our accounts. It is time to sort our friends from our enemies abroad, and time to slam the door shut on the subversives who have bedeviled us for decades at home and reform our laws. I think I’m not alone in feeling this. I sense it among the American people at large: even people I have long considered liberal, ‘freethinking’ types have been saying some pretty darned conservative things lately, even on the social front. The winds of change are truly blowing, methinks, and they are taking with them the dead dust of these last horrific decades.” — Bubba Nice, Bubba. I like it. Posted by: Unadorned on April 3, 2003 9:30 AM |