printThe experts—the cakewalk crowd; the people whose utter ignorance of geopolitical realities had them insisting our soldiers would be greeted with blooms and bonbons in Iraq; those fools who said an Iraqi democracy would rise from the torrid sands of Mesopotamia; those jokers who labeled as a liberal or a traitor anyone who exposed their invasion of Iraq for the immoral and illegal crime it was; the likes of Victor Davis Hanson, David Frum, Thomas Friedman, Christopher Hitchens, George Will, Tucker Carlson, and Andrew Sullivan (a few of whom seem to have conveniently recanted at the eleventh hour), Charles Krauthammer, William Kristol, Mark Steyn, Max Boot, John Podhoretz, and the list goes on—the philosopher-kings who’ve been right about almost nothing have finally found a prediction they can make with absolute (ponderous and pompous) certainly:
A is likely to increase violence in Iraq
B is likely to increase violence in Iraq
C is likely to increase violence in Iraq
Saddam’s execution is likely to increase violence in Iraq
Ad infinitum…
Violence in Iraq is rising and is going to continue to rise no matter what. As the idio-experts have discovered, violence in Iraq is a certain thing.
When basic premises and the theories that arise from them are negated by the evidence, then switching to reliance on empirical evidence can deflect the obvious need to reexamine the basic premises, thereby buying precious time to erect a new artifice into which both the evidence and the sacred preconceived notions might mesh.
–John Danforth–
The second I heard that we went into Iraq, my thought was: “What are we doing?” [indeed] That said, my immediate focus after that was the safety of our soldiers (other American’s children). I, quite frankly, was afraid to say anything that might hurt them.
I’m still upset and confused.
That said, I have wondered for quite some time why my fellow conservatives would agree with anything someone like Christopher Hitchens has to say. To me, his agreement with the “War on Terror” has been a motivation for me to reconsider my presuppositions.
It was then Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney in 1991 who, when asked why we didn’t go in and take out Saddam at the end of the 100 hour war, said: “Once you take Baghdad, what are you going to do with it?” (my paraphrase) Apparently, neither he, nor anyone in the current administration learned anything from the decision not to attack Baghdad at the end of “Desert Storm.” It’s sad that it appears that more troops to provide more security in Baghdad is where we are headed. I find it interesting that when it comes to war, admitting a mistake is too hard because it would apparently dishonor those who have given the ultimate sacrifice and we would “look bad.” So, more troops and more death is called for because “now that we’re in it, we have to win it”– at all costs– regardless of why we started it.