Posted on 06/03/2004 7:53:10 AM PDT by quidnunc
It’s the crude sado-masochistic elements that bother me. Not in the photos, but in the ensuing ballyhoo. To witness an entire culture — media and political — toss all other business aside for a non-stop ritual self-flagellation session is a remarkable privilege. I use the term “self-flagellation” because, though many Democrats and pundits fancy themselves in the sado-dominant role and clearly enjoy flaying Bush, Rumsfeld and co, it is in the objective sense an act of masocho-submission, at least for America. Take, for example, Senator Edward M Kennedy:
On March 19 2004, President Bush asked, ‘Who would prefer that Saddam’s torture chambers still be open?’ Shamefully, we now learn that Saddam’s torture chambers reopened under new management: U.S. management.
Sad to say, Senator Kennedy, along with Senator Clinton, is the only US elected official other than the President that the rest of the world has heard of. That’s what I mean by self-flagellation: when the most famous name in US politics slanders his country and its military, around the planet, it’s America that’s diminished. For all the bloviating, for all the Vietnam nostalgia, for all the quagmired speechifying, what does the Senator actually want for Iraq?
I know what I’d like: Iraq, circa 2010, is a functioning confederal state, not a perfect democracy, but a respectable one — not New Hampshire, not Norway, but not Zimbabwe, either. Think Singapore or Belize. It has a growing economy, an enlightened education system, a free press, and an expanding middle-class. Its representative at Arab League meetings votes with the King of Morocco more often than with Crown Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia. Its presence as a free society in the heart of the region changes the dynamic, encouraging reform in some of its neighbors (Jordan) and shriveling the dictatorships in others (Syria).
-snip-
(Excerpt) Read more at steynonline.com ...
A nauseating display all in all. We never would have won WWII if these 5th column media types and apologists had been around then.
SELF-FLAGELLATION
It’s the crude sado-masochistic elements that bother me. Not in the photos, but in the ensuing ballyhoo. To witness an entire culture – media and political – toss all other business aside for a non-stop ritual self-flagellation session is a remarkable privilege. I use the term “self-flagellation” because, though many Democrats and pundits fancy themselves in the sado-dominant role and clearly enjoy flaying Bush, Rumsfeld and co, it is in the objective sense an act of masocho-submission, at least for America. Take, for example, Senator Edward M Kennedy:
On March 19 2004, President Bush asked, ‘Who would prefer that Saddam’s torture chambers still be open?’ Shamefully, we now learn that Saddam’s torture chambers reopened under new management: U.S. management.
Sad to say, Senator Kennedy, along with Senator Clinton, is the only US elected official other than the President that the rest of the world has heard of. That’s what I mean by self-flagellation: when the most famous name in US politics slanders his country and its military, around the planet, it’s America that’s diminished. For all the bloviating, for all the Vietnam nostalgia, for all the quagmired speechifying, what does the Senator actually want for Iraq?
I know what I’d like: Iraq, circa 2010, is a functioning confederal state, not a perfect democracy, but a respectable one – not New Hampshire, not Norway, but not Zimbabwe, either. Think Singapore or Belize. It has a growing economy, an enlightened education system, a free press, and an expanding middle-class. Its representative at Arab League meetings votes with the King of Morocco more often than with Crown Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia. Its presence as a free society in the heart of the region changes the dynamic, encouraging reform in some of its neighbors (Jordan) and shriveling the dictatorships in others (Syria).
Here’s my fall-back position: A functioning confederal state proves impossible in Iraq, because Fallujah and Najaf cannot be subdued except by measures we’re unwilling to take. In that case, preserve the ten-year old free state in Kurdistan by giving it independence and letting it flourish as the Slovenia of Iraq. Western and southern Iraq become Shiastan, and we turn a blind eye to some old Shia score-settling and content ourselves with whatever more or less benign Musharraf figure the mullahs can come up with.
What do the Democrats want? Beats me. I’m not one of those right-wingers who think the left are actively treasonous, but on this issue they are – to put it at its mildest – highly non-curious. I attended a ton of Democratic rallies during primary season, and, when it came to question time, the striking feature was not the small number of virulently anti-war types but the much larger number of Democrats who had nothing to say. Pretty boy John Edwards had a stump-speech of masterful condescension designed to hit every Democratic button, including the spare ones in your top left-hand pocket, and yet felt no need to say a word on Iraq, except for a pledge to stop Halliburton war profiteering.
I think it’s reasonable to suggest that Democrats and the media just want Iraq to go away so we can get back to talking about all those Clinton-era feminised micro-politics – the things Dems really get passionate about; “bike path politics” I called it a while back, after Howard Dean revealed that he’d quit the Episcopal Church because of a dispute over one. Dems would much rather be talking about mommy politics - Federally-regulated bicycling helmets, mandatory wheelchair access to bike paths, Federal bike-path networks across the northern border so cycling seniors can get fast-track access to Canadian drugs quicker, etc - than all this daddy politics about re-making the Middle East and de-nuking Iran and North Korea. If it takes tarring him as the kinky madam of the Abu Ghraid bondage dungeon to make Daddy Rumsfeld go away, so be it.
The intelligent discussion on Iraq takes place in-house on the right – neocons vs realists, etc. But the wider debate in America is between those who take the Spiderman view of international relations – “with great power comes great responsibility” – and those who think the most powerful nation in human history can simply climb in the Suburban and go to the mall for its entire period of dominance. That’s what the great Democratic all-purpose cure-all boils down to: “We need to hand power back to the UN. Or the EU. Or the Arab League. Or the Deputy Fisheries Minister of the Turks and Caicos Islands.” Or as Thomas Friedman, the hilariously tortured foreign-policy grandee of The New York Times, put it:
Mr. Bush needs to invite to Camp David the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council, the heads of both NATO and the U.N., and the leaders of Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Syria. There, he needs to eat crow, apologize for his mistakes and make clear that he is turning a new page.
At which point Tony Blair would say, “Have a nice cup of tea, luv, and lie down in a darkened room for ten minutes. You’ll soon feel better.”
Why would it be in America’s interest to inflate the prestige of Boy Assad? This lame-o multilateral outsourcing is the geopolitical equivalent of sub-contracting to “undocumented” immigrants. Here, we don’t mind giving you the money, just take care of it, we don’t want to know the details, we want to go back to the beach.
It’s not an option. To modify Osama, there’s a strong horse and a weak horse, and America is both of them.
National Review, May 24th 2004
Steyn nails it again! :)
Ping to #3 for the full article.
Read the New York Times coverage of WW II, for instance. It did not then engage in agressively and deliberately undercutting the war effort. Likewise, look at the Republicans both in Congress and in campaigning against Roosevelt. In neither instances did the Republicans attack the American war effort the way that today's Democrats are attacking our war efforts here.
Congressman Billybob
I like his point about the new government in Iraq. If the new government falls, there will still be viable Kurd and Shia entities. Assuming, as I do, that we maintain some military presence in the region, we can deal with any attempt by resurgent Sunni Saddamites to "reunite" Iraq by force. With most of the oil fields located in the (traditonal) Kurd and Shia areas, the Sunnis will have to make nice or starve. Of course, Mr. Steyn "misunderestimates" the impact a separate Kurd "state" would have on the Turks (or vice versa).
read later
Thanks, Rob.
Ping to the Steyn list, and to your list.
I love a strong ending.
The Excerptor strikes again! Does anyone know dark motives lie deep in his twisted heart?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.