Against Iran Conflict? Start Supporting Iraq
If one speaks to an anti-Iraq War activist (or inactivist complainer) and asks about conflict with Iran, the response is almost guaranteed to be anti-Iran Conflict as well. Yet, it has always amazed me that the so-called peace-loving leftists not only had no problem sentencing Iraqis to a dictatorship of torture, rape and oppression (nor have no problem with the same for Iranians), but that they somehow seemingly make a connection between the lack of US action of any type and a sudden outbreak of peace and harmony throughout the region. If an individual is of the position that American action on Iran is to be avoided, then that individual had better start supporting the government attempting to stand and hold together in Iraq.
So obsessed, it seems, with proving themselves right, they would sentence entire peoples to brutal dictatorships. So obsessed, it seems, with opposing their own president, they gain satisfaction with every bad news report from Iraq (essentially meaning nearly every dominant media assessment).
Driving to work today (and every day), the radio news opened with a one sentence report. "In Iraq, an American soldier was killed by an IED today." That was it. Just wanted to let you know that a man died. That Iraq is bad. No mention of his unit nor what they may have been doing. No mention of where the attack had taken place. No mention of where he was from or why he joined the military service he had chosen. No mention of anything other than Iraq = Dead. The media often claims that they cannot announce the name because it had not been released at the time.
Is there an off chance that tomorrow, for the first time, that same station will revisit the story and inform me of the man behind the sacrifice? Of course not.
That's Matt's job, not theirs.
Perhaps those who read, hear, see or make such reports to confirm their self-righteous correctness rather than mourn and/or respect the sacrifice made should consider the words of Victor Davis Hanson [Thanks, Bruce Kesler] from an interview with Hugh Hewitt Thursday (transcript courtesy Radio Blogger):
HH: Now Victor Davis Hanson, then, how significant are the days in which we are living? Because the alternative to doing that, and you make it sound remote, and I have to agree if it was a different president, I would think it was remote. The prospect of a nuclear Iran is really extraordinary.
VDH: I think it is, and more importantly, this is a man who says that he's the biggest supporter of Hamas, and yet from his rhetoric, you understand he's willing, probably, to send a missile into East Jerusalem as if 50 kilotons can tell the difference between East and West Jerusalem. I mean, that's how he treats his friends like the Palestinians. He says I'll help you by nuking the people right next to you. I mean, it's crazy. He listens to a voice in a well. He thinks people can't blink, and we don't know to what degree this is staged or real. So we don't have a lot of options. It's bad and worse. Oddly enough, the people who don't want to use military force under any circumstances in Iran should be the biggest supporters of what's going on in Iraq. Because with this recent presidential change, there's a good chance that we could end up with a government that would prove very destabilizing to the theocracy in Iran. But to say you can't use force in Iran, and yet you're not for what we're doing in Iraq, then you really don't have any options that are peaceful.
But their point is not that they disagree with the Iraq War or even conflict with Iran as much as it is that they disagree with the man who defeated their candidates twice. Do not forget that even when Afghanistan was invaded, the opposition was one founded on quagmire and the Russian experience, which we were doomed to repeat at the hands of the invincible Islamic warriors. They predicted massive casualties...as if they cared about any one of them.
And that says a lot about what is wrong today with the Land of Happy Meals and the K-Mart Shoppers who inhabit it. They would rather lose a war and ignore a tyrannical state sponsor of terrorism racing toward nuclear weapons than be wrong in public.
Is there a Harry Truman alive today?