Former US President Jimmy Carter added his penny's worth of comment to the chorus of Left wing criticism of the war in Iraq, calling the Second Gulf War "ill-advised and unjust and unnecessary."
"Ill-advised" and "unnecessary" are certainly debatable and defensible positions on the American effort in Iraq. I happen to completely disagree with former President Carter on both counts, but these positions can be respectably argued, preferably after the war's conclusion.
But unjust ?
A little truth in blogging here. El Jefe doesn't bother with all the hair-splitting of "just war" theory. St. Augustine and others have had plenty to say on this subject, all very erudite and well-considered. Whatever. Like the Romans of the Republican era, El Jefe considers a "just war" any war we happen to be in, no matter who starts it, no matter what it's about; and that the only moral conclusion to war is with our complete victory, and the enemy's destruction or submission, however long it takes and whatever it costs.
I'm fully aware others do not subscribe to this view, but how in the world can our liberation of Iraq be "unjust" even to President Carter ? What does he want ? "Bush lied and thousands died !" the liberals bleat. Would President Carter, Senator Kennedy and Ms. Sheehan be happy if we just pulled out the troops and leave anarchy behind ? Reward the suicide bombers and civilian-beheaders ? How many thousands, who have joined the new Iraqi Army, voted in elections, or supported the new government, will die then ?
The liberals clearly pine for the re-enactment of their finest hour, the American abandonment, at their behest, of South Vietnam. The bloodbath that followed that debacle was no concern of theirs. What would St. Augustine, or anybody privileged to be born in normal times before the world media or the existence of the modern internationalized, deracinated chattering classes, make of a craven, dirty crew who long for the defeat of their own country ?
Maybe we should just let Saddam out of his cell and make him dictator again, so he can go back to throwing people beneath wood-chip cutters.
"Ill-advised" and "unnecessary" are certainly debatable and defensible positions on the American effort in Iraq. I happen to completely disagree with former President Carter on both counts, but these positions can be respectably argued, preferably after the war's conclusion.
But unjust ?
A little truth in blogging here. El Jefe doesn't bother with all the hair-splitting of "just war" theory. St. Augustine and others have had plenty to say on this subject, all very erudite and well-considered. Whatever. Like the Romans of the Republican era, El Jefe considers a "just war" any war we happen to be in, no matter who starts it, no matter what it's about; and that the only moral conclusion to war is with our complete victory, and the enemy's destruction or submission, however long it takes and whatever it costs.
I'm fully aware others do not subscribe to this view, but how in the world can our liberation of Iraq be "unjust" even to President Carter ? What does he want ? "Bush lied and thousands died !" the liberals bleat. Would President Carter, Senator Kennedy and Ms. Sheehan be happy if we just pulled out the troops and leave anarchy behind ? Reward the suicide bombers and civilian-beheaders ? How many thousands, who have joined the new Iraqi Army, voted in elections, or supported the new government, will die then ?
The liberals clearly pine for the re-enactment of their finest hour, the American abandonment, at their behest, of South Vietnam. The bloodbath that followed that debacle was no concern of theirs. What would St. Augustine, or anybody privileged to be born in normal times before the world media or the existence of the modern internationalized, deracinated chattering classes, make of a craven, dirty crew who long for the defeat of their own country ?
Maybe we should just let Saddam out of his cell and make him dictator again, so he can go back to throwing people beneath wood-chip cutters.
No comments:
Post a Comment