Wednesday, August 17, 2005
The verboten subject
After considering this, Wretchard considers its relevance:
None of these revelations matter because virtually no Western politician can ever use force again to prevent a regime, even one openly dedicated to terrorism, from acquiring weapons of mass destruction. The subject is verboten because the Left has declared it so. Unless something radically changes, it is only logical to prepare for the consequences of this head-in-the-sand policy, a possible catastrophe beside which September 11 will diminish into insignificance. Perhaps this event is already inevitable and those future victims beyond saving. But even so, it is important to begin the work of opening our eyes now, so that we might avoid the blindness which took the world of the 1930s and the 1990s over a cliff. Some mental disease in Western culture has allowed it to stand idly by while evil grew to monstrous proportions around and within it; an infirmity dignified with the name of pacifism. Perhaps it has already killed some of us reading this post; and the least we can do, if our final moments come, is to realize why we died.
Soft leftists will argue, of course, that this state of affairs prevails because George Bush "lied" about the reasons for invading Iraq. But for that political catastrophe, they say, the military option would remain for Iran (why they believe it would be easier to deal with Iran without having removed Saddam escapes me, but you do hear this all the time from opponents of the Bush administration).
But the Left, both outside the United States and within, dedicated itself to undermining the legitimacy of the Iraq front -- which is but an extension of the Gulf War of 1991 -- even before the invasion phase of March 2003. If the Left had agreed that the West faces a mortal threat and had supported the Bush administration in the war notwithstanding its misgivings about strategy, then the fighting of the war would have been much easier. Instead, the European Left has exploited -- and continues to exploit -- anti-Americanism for domestic political purposes, and the American Left disgraces every American casualty by screaming that our soldiers have been deceived, again for partisan political advantage.
Meanwhile, the darkness spreads, and the Chancellor of Germany argues that we will persuade the Iranians to renounce nuclear weapons only by carefully explaining that we will do nothing if they refuse.
5 Comments:
By 
Gordon Smith, at
Wed Aug 17, 09:03:00 AM:
Iran has learned an important lesson from U.S. foreign policy in Iraq and in North Korea - The United States will invade nations that don't have nuclear weapons, so the sooner you've got one on the shelf, the safer you are.
I'd like to see the Bush administration begin disarming the U.S. nuclear stockpile. Then we would have a bit of a moral foundation to stand upon.
By TigerHawk, at
Wed Aug 17, 09:49:00 AM:
Screwy, there have been massive reductions in the U.S. nuclear stockpile, but that is neither here nor there. When, in the entire history of the human race, has one power's unilateral disarmament led its adversaries also to disarm?
By Papa Ray, at
Wed Aug 17, 10:40:00 AM:
All I want to know is where are all the missing nukes that the USSR used to have?
Can you reverse engineer a nuke?
Papa Ray
West Texas
USA
By 
, at
Wed Aug 17, 09:06:00 PM:
"But for that political catastrophe, they say, the military option would remain for Iran"
At least we would have been able to present a plausible threat to Iran's nuclear ambitions. We can't even do that now.
"Why they believe it would be easier to deal with Iran without having removed Saddam escapes me"
Seriously? With 150,000 troops bogged down in Iraq? With Iran's influence growing in Southern Iraq? Iran is the chief beneficiary of this war.
"If the Left had agreed that the West faces a mortal threat and had supported the Bush administration in the war notwithstanding its misgivings about strategy, then the fighting of the war would have been much easier."
Sorry, but this is just complete nonsense. Until recently all of the concerns raised by those of us on the left (and other people not on the left) have been completely ignored by the administration and haven't had any influence on the conduct of the war. For better or worse, conservative hawks own this war.
- Levi
By Cardinalpark, at
Wed Aug 17, 09:51:00 PM:
SH - it is utterly illogical to say that the US should disarm in the face of rogue development of nuclear weaponry. Senseless. To talk about moral foundations derived from disarmament is utopian pacifism to an extreme. "Moral foundations" are derived from a commitment to human liberty; not the plaintive abandonment of a willingness to defend and fight for it. Why don't you instead focus on the immorality of the prior Iraqi regime, or the current North Korean regime, or the current Iranian regime. Now those are EASY cases to make.
Disarm? Good grief.
