|
Bush’s false victory over his false opponents
As a result of the “successful” Iraqi election, the Democrats are in profound disarray, even a collective crisis of soul, writes Noemie Emery at the Weekly Standard. The Democrats are suffering from a “trauma induced by the growing suspicion that President Bush has been right all along: right in the decision to go into Iraq; right in the decision to hang tough in Palestine; right in the belief that Muslims and Arabs may also want freedom; that elections there can be held, and succeed.” She quotes comedian Jon Steward: “Here’s the great fear that I have. What if Bush … has been right about this all along? I feel that my world view may not sustain itself, and I may, and again I don’t know if I can physically do this, implode.” Naturally, Emery and other neocons can’t contain their joy at seeing the left’s self-described implosion. But what does this mean? All it means is that the Democrats opposed Bush on specious grounds—e.g., that the Iraqis didn’t want something better than Hussein, and that the elections could not or should not be held because there was too much violence. So, when the elections were held and the Iraqis showed that they did want something better than Hussein, the Democrats (and their spiritual twins the Europeans) were left without an argument, proving Bush right, to the joy of the Republicans and the despair of the Democrats. The problem is that, since those Democratic arguments were false and irrelevant and used only for obstructionist purposes, the fact that they have now been disproved proves nothing about the rightness of Bush’s policy. By way of illustrating what I mean, unlike the Democrats, I supported the toppling of Hussein, and, though I opposed Bush’s emphasis on democratization instead of victory, I never doubted that the Iraqi election would take place when scheduled and that a new Iraqi government would then be formed. When I heard the left call for a postponement of the election, I knew that that was the usual obstructionism and that Bush had no choice but to move forward as scheduled. But the fact remains that the holding of an election leading to the formation of an Iraqi government is not and never has been the issue. The defeat of our terrorist and jihadist enemies is the issue. As long as they are not defeated, we will have to remain in Iraqi in order to prop up the new government, expending our wealth and our soldiers’ lives forever, none of which has anything to do with protecting our country from our jihadist enemies. But for the Bush supporters, the primary enemy is not the jihadists. The primary enemy is the American (and European) left, with their transparently vicious arguments. Now that those arguments have failed, the Bush people declare “victory,” even as the real enemy continues to slaughter hundreds of Iraqis at a shot and blow up our men on Iraqi roads. The insanity of the left has thus allowed the Bush people to avoid any critical and constructive thought about their own confused policy. To grasp the nature of this folie à deux shared by the left and the right, imagine that you had set out upon a really difficult task, say, the defeat of Nazi Germany. Obstructionists keep throwing false and ridiculous arguments in your path: “Your father’s a liar.” “Your shoes aren’t tied.” “Two plus two equals five.” As each of these arguments is dispensed with, you crow and say, “Our opponents have been proved wrong,” and you start to do a victory dance. Meanwhile, Nazi Germany is still undefeated. Having focused all your attention on refuting the ridiculous things being said by your irrational domestic critics, you have defined victory as proving that two plus two equals four. But proving that two plus two equals four is not victory. Defeating Nazi Germany is victory.
In the same way, Bush’s supporters have been focusing on the left’s bigoted and irrelevant objections: “Bush lied.” “It’s all for Israel.” “It’s all for oil.” “It’s all about Haliburton.” “It’s to prove Bush’s manhood.” “This is an illegal invasion of a sovereign country.” “We are more dangerous than the terrorists.” “Iraq is too violent to hold an election.” For Bush’s supporters, the holding of an election was everything and would signal “success.” For his enemies, the failure to hold an election was everything and would signal “failure.” Now the election has “succeeded,” proving Bush “right.” But Bush has not been proved right, because this entire debate has focused on secondary issues and has ignored the primary issue, which is how are we to defeat our enemies and make our country and its allies safe from jihadism. Email entry |