Wednesday, August 10, 2005

Why war in Iraq is right for America

Ben Shapiro wrote in Townhall It is now clear that the war in Iraq is unpopular. Just last month, 53 percent of Americans felt that sending troops to Iraq was not a mistake. This week, 54 percent of Americans believed that it was, according to USA Today. Two months ago, only 39 percent of Americans believed that war in Iraq had made us less safe from terrorism. This week, 57 percent stated that war had made us less safe.

This is the result of the MSM's distortion of what is happening in Iraq, including its refusal to print any thing good that is going on, or from acknowledging the heroic acts of our military, in its relenting pressure to hurt the Bush Administration.
President Bush has garnered the lion's share of criticism for the situation in Iraq. A full 61 percent of those polled by Newsweek think Bush is handling the war in Iraq badly; 50 percent state that America is losing ground in its efforts to establish democracy in Iraq. Another poll by AP-Ipsos demonstrates marked doubts about President Bush's honesty, with 48 percent of Americans agreeing that President Bush is honest, and 50 percent disagreeing. Charges of high-handedness are also sticking: 56 percent of those polled say that President Bush is "arrogant." What has happened in recent weeks to persuade the American public that the Iraq war is a disaster and President Bush is President Nixon? Certainly the media's increased coverage of Iraq has something to do with rising concerns about Iraq. Rumors of the mainstream media's death have been greatly exaggerated. But something deeper is at work here. Americans are impatient isolationists at heart. We don't want to be the world's policemen. Gaining Iraqis their freedom, as good as it sounds, isn't enough of a justification for war. China is a dictatorship. North Korea is a dictatorship. Saudi Arabia, Libya, Syria, Pakistan and Egypt are all dictatorships. We can't overthrow all of those regimes simply to free their citizens. We have to focus on those regimes that endanger American security.
And was Saddam a pussycat? He had started two wars with his neighbors, and used chemical weapons on his own people. He was able to get his weapons of mass destruction over the border into Syria before the Americans came in, so no WMD were discovered, but that does not mean they were not there, and that all of the American, British, French, and Russian intelligency agencies were wrong.
World War II wasn't about liberating Europe, but about protecting America.
Then what was the purpose of the Lend-Lease plan or all of the money we poured into rebuilding Japan and Europe, including Germany.
Vietnam, meanwhile, is a controversial war precisely because the direct threat to America posed by the Viet Cong is questionable.
The problem with Vietnam is the military was not allowed to fight it to win.
And so we begin to wonder: Was it worth it in Iraq? Without proof of weapons of mass destruction, can we be sure that Saddam Hussein endangered our security? After all, Iraq didn't attack us -- Al Qaeda did.
And they lost their base in Afganistan as a result, and at the same time Afganistan was freed from the Taliban.
The impatient isolationist mindset has served us well in the past. America is strategically located: a huge chunk of productive land, completely separated from Europe and Asia, bordered by a pacifistic Canada in the north and a weak Mexico in the south.
And two borders that we are not willing to secure.
Because of geography and culture, America became a world power; America gained a world empire by sitting still and allowing the mechanisms of capitalism to flourish. During the first half of the 20th century, isolationism was a boon for America: We entered wars late, we suffered comparatively few losses and we were victorious. During World War I, America suffered about 320,000 casualties; the Soviet Union suffered well over nine million. During World War II, America suffered just over one million casualties; the Soviet Union suffered over 20 million.
Neither war started in the US
But now, America faces a crossroads. Since the death of the Soviet Union, we are unquestionably the world's only superpower, the world's remaining empire. Acquiring an empire requires a different mindset than maintaining and expanding one. Empires either decline or they grow. If America is to survive and flourish, Americans must realize that empire isn't a choice: It's a duty.
The rest of this article deals with trying to say America seeks an empire. I think that idea is so foolish I just leave it to the reader to check oout this story if that is the garbage they want to read about

No comments: