|
|
Why Ask What For?
Posted by Stephen Green · 25 September 2002
"But... but... but what if other countries, countries somehow even worse than ours, use the Bush Doctrine as justification to preemptively invade their neighbors? Millions dead!" I'll put this nicely: Bullshit. What, right now, prevents any nation, other than the US, from doing exactly what they please? Serbia invaded Croatia and Bosnia. Palestinians blow up Jews. Libya thrusts into Chad (which could be a gay porn title). India and Pakistan wave nukes at each other, while encouraging one another's minorities to commit barbarous acts. Turkey invades Cypress. China and Vietnam have at it. North Korea lobs missiles over the South. Eritrea and Ethiopia go their separate ways, then go after each other's throats. Morocco annexes Western Sahara. Russia bombs Georgia. Iraq invades Kuwait. Iraq invades Iran. Damn near everybody invades Congo. And everybody kills the Jews, to paraphrase Tom Lehrer. We must be the only nation in the world to ever bother first asking for permission before defending our interests. Of the slaughters that have been prevented or stopped in the last 50 years, damn near all of them have been prevented or stopped by American force of arms. Remember when the Warsaw Pact invaded West Germany? Remember how North Korea annexed the rest of the peninsula? Have any horrible memories of China’s invasion of Taiwan, or how the Arabs ethnically cleansed the Israelis back in ’73? Me, either. Why? Because the United States either put her troops on the border, fought back, threatened to intervene, or helped arm the hell out of the good guys. Are we perfect? No. Hardly. Realpolitik often requires us to support some unsavory characters – but always, always with the intention of doing less harm than good, and with the goals of promoting trade and liberty. But every time we do so, we have had to bow and scrape and beg and plead to please be allowed to do the right thing. We beg permission to stop slaughters, from nations whose primary entertainment lies in slaughter. Right now, today, Saddam Hussein is killing his own people. He kills dissidents in jail cells. He kills government ministers during meetings. He kills Sunni children, by diverting aid meant for them into building his 17 palaces. He kills Shi'a children in an undeclared civil war. He kills Kurdish children with gas. He threatens to kill his neighbors with germs and nukes. He threatens to kill us. He did kill some of us, back in the first World Trade Center attack in 1993. His fingerprints can be found, faintly, around the 9/11 barbarity. His neighbors are too small, too weak, too cowardly, or too troubled to take care of him themselves. But one of them, Kuwait, has already asked us for our help. Another, Jordan, wouldn't mind at all. Turkey has doubts, but is willing to give us the benefit of them. Saddam's only neighbors against this war are Saudi Arabia -- the sugar daddy to terror; Iran -- terror's midwife; and Syria -- terror's psychopathically incompetent kid brother. I understand that today’s political rituals require us to go to the UN and make the proper noises about multilateralism. I support that. It’s fine. It’s no different, really, from small talk with your neighbor over the back fence – customary, but mostly meaningless. What I don’t understand are those pathetic creatures, here at home, who would give genuine veto power over our actions, to nations who gladly kill their own and each other for sport. If Germany would rather pay the Danegeld than fight, that’s OK. Their country, their rules. China would rather cajole us into selling out Taiwan than aid us in Central Asia? I’m sure we can stand firm in both places. Sudan has an opinion? Yawn. This nation is better than those. We aren’t perfect, but we never invaded Poland just to steal farms and murder Jews, either. We never called Indonesia the “Southern Resource Zone.” We try to do right; mostly we succeed. And in the case of Saddam, our goals aren’t just worthwhile, they’re goddamn noble. After a misstep by President Bush two weeks ago, National Security Advisor Condi Rice promised that an American occupation will mean Iraqi democracy. Imagine: a prosperous, multiethnic, multireligious democratic republic in the heart of the most politically and economically backwards region on earth. Now, imagine the mindset that prefers we sit on our hands, doing nothing, letting a dictator continue to threaten and murder – because France is unhappy with how much free oil she’ll get, and Russia is afraid her coffers won’t stay full. The United States is the greatest force – and, occasionally, I do sadly mean “force” – for good this world has ever seen. Why should we be constrained from trying to do good, when no one else is constrained from doing evil? I don’t like the language of the resolution the White House would like Congress to pass. We do not need to give this President – or any President – a blank check to wage war. But Congress needs to give its OK to some action, and the UN needs to sit down and shut up for a while. And it’s time for us to get to work. Comments
Well said. Posted by: peaceful mosque-free Cozumel at September 25, 2002 11:57 AMBravo! Posted by: BJW at September 25, 2002 12:15 PMActually, the U.N. needs to be dissolved. Completely. As soon as humanly possible. But I suppose that for them "to sit down and shut up" will have to work for now. We can only take on so many tasks at one time. Posted by: Demosthenes at September 25, 2002 12:29 PMMy continuing enjoyment of your thoughts (this particular posting 'Why Ask What For?' is a masterpiece!) is diminished only by the sadness that you aren't getting paid for this! While you're turning out gems like a South African diamond mine on overdrive, brain-dead columnists who litter the landscape like Berlin in '45 somehow still collect paychecks. Is there not one newspaper in Colorado that will publish the musings of the VodkaPundit??!! Have they no humanity?? Posted by: Steve Gardetto at September 25, 2002 12:29 PMYou have my vote for President. Whether you want it or not. Posted by: Carey Gage at September 25, 2002 12:33 PMStephen, Wonderful writing. It isn't all that complicated when you boil it down. Posted by: skinny Benny at September 25, 2002 01:04 PMThen go join the army and show 'em what you got, tought guy. Posted by: Phil at September 25, 2002 01:34 PMY'know, if someone wanted to be a smartass about it, they could turn the "they'll imitate you!" lie around on the eurocrats and ask them "what makes you think that everyone else would inevitably follow the US if they did this? Isn't that a bit, what's the word I'm looking for...prejudiced, to assume that the rest of the world is simply playing monkey-see, monkey-do? Just what reasoning are you using to come to this conclusion that the rest of the world does not have the capacity to think for themselves?" Boy would I like to see that response...:-) Posted by: bpsycho at September 25, 2002 02:27 PMGreat. Simply great! Posted by: Scott at September 25, 2002 02:28 PMThe bloviators in the UN will only shut up when we turn off their microphones, prepartory to evicting the whole lot of them. Stephen: great piece. Phil: shut the hell up. Go and grow sugarbeet. Or else if I ever hear you talking about farm policy I'm gonna come and slap you upside the head. It would, of course, be nice if jackasses like Phil wouldn't enter in a website that they do not write or edit. I'm more than a little offended that this little shit would pretend to have anything to do with my blog. Excellent writing Stephen--From the real Pejman Yousefzadeh Posted by: Pejman Yousefzadeh at September 25, 2002 06:27 PMPhil still believes the draft is in existence. The US army does not need cannon fodder. They do not accept just any schmoe that walks into the recruiting office any more. They turned me down when I offered to sign up, and they would probably turn Phil down, and likely most of the rest of the blog community as well. Not that this fact would make the slightest dent in Phil's "stuck in the 70s" fantasy. He would probably just say they only turned him down because they prefer to kidnap draftees in the middle of the night from their own homes, or something equally ludicrous. OK Green, foreign policy is obviously not your forte. Rather than follow in the footsteps of huffiness tread by Mr. Madeline Albright, be reasonable and rational. Don't get so emotional about it. Keep your cool. Pour thineself another drink. Remember that to some very few of us, you sound like a Khruschev-wannabe, who would rattle those rockets if he had them. point taken, vp. Posted by: skippy at September 25, 2002 11:17 PMalthough, on second read, a question: where can i find sources or cites for your assertion that saddam had something to do with the shek rahmen's attempt to blow up the wtc in 93? Posted by: skippy at September 25, 2002 11:25 PMDoes the name Laurie Mylroie ring any bells? She wrote the book on the subject and has heavily influenced the analysts at Heritage Foundation with her view. Posted by: Alina at September 25, 2002 11:41 PMMylroie wrote "Study of Revenge: Saddam Hussein's Unfinished War against America" Mylroie was on Jim Bohannon awhile back with one interesting tidbit...that Ramzi Yousef (plotted to bring down multiple airliners over the Pacific, and now serving life) had documents that were forged inside Kuwait while under Iraqi occupation. She claimed that Iraqi intelligence placed numerous false papers within Kuwaiti state files...enabling terrorists to later use official Kuwaiti documents (or apply for them) on the basis of fradulent info and documents. They created a "stash," if you will, that later could be used to look legitimate. If so, that is but one example of why the noose may be tightening on Monsieur Hussein. Posted by: Joe Baby at September 26, 2002 12:01 AMSteven, Well written. Bravo. skippy, Here. One of the chief figures in the WTC bombing was an Iraqi intelligence officer. Posted by: addison at September 26, 2002 12:20 AMAs Gen. George Patton said, "Wars are not won by dying for your country, Wars are won by killing the other bastard before he kills you." I think we,(USA) need to start following some of these well spoken words. Posted by: Dan at September 26, 2002 12:27 AMSadly, you will never work in the mainstream press here in Australia, but you are read and valued. ( Ask James Morrow about it. ) Keep up the Quality writing mate. Excellent piece! I've thought and said as much myself before, though you did so most eloquently. Maybe someday the world will listen. Posted by: Robin Goodfellow at September 26, 2002 05:23 AMApologies for the shameless plug. Wrote a similar piece from a different angle myself, about why we even care what the world thinks: http://www.amcgltd.com/archives/000853.html#000853 I could not have said it better myself. By now Western Europe would be part of the USSR if the Yanks hadn't stood up. Thank God for them. I know Phil's job as a comic-book reviewer is far too important for him to abandon just to stick up for principles he insists that others adopt. Posted by: David Perron at September 26, 2002 08:52 AMFantastic Stephen! Baby you're the best. Skippy, check the archives of NewsMax, as well as recent Chicago magazine interview with David Schippers for highly suspect connections to Oklahamo City (You too Stephen). Also check archives of Junkyard Blog. Posted by: Lloyd Albano at September 26, 2002 10:19 AMThis is very much how Graham Greene characterized the world in The Quiet American. The narrator of that book was a corrupt, amoral European. The hero was a brave, noble American committed to doing good. Then again, that story didn't end well ... Posted by: slacktivist at September 26, 2002 12:04 PMDavid, that bit about Phil was awesome! I almost had Coke shoot out of my nose. Posted by: scott h. at September 26, 2002 02:55 PMAll true, Scott. Sometimes reality provides us with better material than our imaginations ever could. Posted by: David Perron at September 30, 2002 02:37 AMI wonder what the reaction of the European "elites" would be if (1) no action was taken against Irag (2) Saddam announced at a later time that he did have nuclear weapons, and (3) his armies took over I suspect that the whining Euros would INSIST that the U.S. DO SOMETHING about it and then proceed to castigate America for not having forseen this and done something to forstall it. ---just one question. Is "nuanced" a french word for "retarded?" Posted by: T Cobb at September 30, 2002 11:44 PM |
MDS - Give Until It Hurts Terror War Scorecard Watching America 50 Things American Cancer Ablation Center Buy VodkaPundit Stuff
"...the Internet version of Playboy After Dark"
Ann Althouse
Across the Atlantic
American Realpolitik
Albion's Seedlings
Justene Adamec
The Argument Clinic
Todd A
Moe Freedman
Allah Is In the House
Body in Mind
Ben Domenech
Duck Season
Banana Counting Monkey
Ted Barlow
Eric Alterman
American Times
|
     |
