Replies

A nicely written summary. My guess is that the "majority" view is in reality the one adopted most publicly and loudly by the people with the biggest microphones and repeated by other people who don't know any better.

Israel isn't the only economic success story in the region, Lebanon was at one time. Iraq aspires to be one in the future. There are, to be sure, different reasons why each has so inflamed the violent resentment of militant Islam but I do find it revealing that at least part of that resentment stems from the envy of the successful by the unsuccessful who have comforted themselves with the illusion that success is theft, (and conversely, that theft is success). That classic criticism of Western culture is shared by communists and anti-colonialists, who are the company in which the Islamists march. Chavez and Mugabe understand it perfectly well; so did Trotsky and bin Laden.

For these, Iraq cannot be allowed to succeed. For it to do so would be an affirmation of an activist American foreign policy that is anathema to leftists everywhere, including Congress. For Iraq to succeed would a rejection of militant Islam as the only route to a better life. For Iraq to prosper would be a terrible threat to the autocrats who populate the Middle East. These compose a dark alliance of those who either would tear Iraq apart or condone it, each for his or her own selfish reasons. Not a one of them, including those of them who are Iraqi, has the welfare of the Iraqi people foremost in mind.

There are, to be sure, different reasons why each has so inflamed the violent resentment of militant Islam but I do find it revealing that at least part of that resentment stems from the envy of the successful by the unsuccessful who have comforted themselves with the illusion that success is theft, (and conversely, that theft is success). That classic criticism of Western culture is shared by communists and anti-colonialists, who are the company in which the Islamists march. Chavez and Mugabe understand it perfectly well; so did Trotsky and bin Laden.

For these, Iraq cannot be allowed to succeed. For it to do so would be an affirmation of an activist American foreign policy that is anathema to leftists everywhere, including Congress. For Iraq to succeed would a rejection of militant Islam as the only route to a better life. For Iraq to prosper would be a terrible threat to the autocrats who populate the Middle East. These compose a dark alliance of those who either would tear Iraq apart or condone it, each for his or her own selfish reasons. Not a one of them, including those of them who are Iraqi, has the welfare of the Iraqi people foremost in mind.

This is very well stated. The anti-Western zealots--in the Middle East, in Europe, even here in America--do indeed resent any successful countries. Success must come at the expense of someone else; ergo, it is illegitimate. The best that can be hoped for is some sort of "ism"--whether the backward-looking Islamism that will subdue the Infidel, thereby bringing joy and triumphalism to the Muslim masses; or the (supposedly) forward-looking Marxism, with its promises of a delightful egalitarianism.

Your comments almost always impress me as well-considered and trenchant. Certainly, these were no exception.

My guess is the minority view would be the majority were it not for the msm/al-jazerra/dbm that is intent upon destroying GWB even at the cost of losing a war.

The war for the dems is just one more issue they get to demagogue none of which have any true meaning for them except in terms of political expedience.