Liberals are Fun
William Raspberry is one of those left-leaning columnists for the Washington Post who needs to be kept away from subjects he clearly knows nothing about. The subject is why the big, bad, United States should not topple Saddam Hussein through military action. Mr. Raspberry was a metro reporter, and has dealt largely with issues of race. He's had some very thoughtful and useful things to say about race relations in the Washington, DC area, and one must respect that. But, when he leaves this reservation, he's out of his league.
Mr. Raspberry's June 3, 2002 column concerns why we should leave Saddam the hell alone. One of the more ludicrous statements is this:
"... a major U.S. attack on Iraq now (unless Saddam Hussein is stupid enough to do something provocative) would destroy the coalition, including Arab states..."
Let's see. The "coalition" (against terrorism) consists of the US, the UK, and the UK (oh, did I already mention them?). The Arabs are doing their level best to keep the anti-semitic, anti-US, anti-West venom coming down the pipeline full bore. Assistance consists of making soothing sounds in English, while the Arabic tripe (and it ain't even halal) for home consumption continues unabated. To worry about disrupting a "coalition" that only exists in the minds of the State Department's cookie-pushers would be laughable were it not so inimical to our true interests.
What Mr. Raspberry appears to not know but should, is that nothing succeeds with Arabs like strength and resolve, regardless of who the target is. One more carrier battle group stationed in the gulf of Arabia, and presto -- we don't need our enemy (sorry, our friend) the Saudi thugocracy to dictate the terms of our engagement.
As for "something provocative" by Saddam, one supposes we oughtn't worry our pretty little heads until he actually nukes Israel or, perhaps, with North Korean missiles, some burg in Europe. Iraq's unrelenting programme of WMD development (weapons of mass destruction; you know, nuclear, biological, chemical, that sort of stuff) must not make Mr. Raspberry's standard for "provocative". Saddam's WMD programme has been essentially unhindered for four years by even the sham of United Nations' "inspections" (oh, don't go in that door, there's nothing to see...). Perhaps we should wait until Iraq nukes Israel, and then convene a UN task force on why the Israelis actually deserved it.
Saddam's Iraq has attacked four of its neighbours in the past 20 years, gassed its resident Kurds, denied them freedoms (where are all those who bleed for the wretched Palestinians when the subject of a Kurdistan comes up?). But of course, those provocations were in some distant past...
Finally, Mr. Raspberry brings in the liberal shibboleth of Christians and Jews against Muslims (God's smackdown?). What he writes is:
"...demonstrate that our fight is against a specific class of terrorists and sponsors of terrorism, not Arabs and Muslims in general".
Dude, Iraq is a secular fascist dictatorship; it is "Muslim" only in the sense that most Iraqis would write that religion down on a form if asked. Warring against Saddam's Iraq will be warring against fascism; we don't have to "demonstrate" anything.
Who dares wins.
William Raspberry is one of those left-leaning columnists for the Washington Post who needs to be kept away from subjects he clearly knows nothing about. The subject is why the big, bad, United States should not topple Saddam Hussein through military action. Mr. Raspberry was a metro reporter, and has dealt largely with issues of race. He's had some very thoughtful and useful things to say about race relations in the Washington, DC area, and one must respect that. But, when he leaves this reservation, he's out of his league.
Mr. Raspberry's June 3, 2002 column concerns why we should leave Saddam the hell alone. One of the more ludicrous statements is this:
"... a major U.S. attack on Iraq now (unless Saddam Hussein is stupid enough to do something provocative) would destroy the coalition, including Arab states..."
Let's see. The "coalition" (against terrorism) consists of the US, the UK, and the UK (oh, did I already mention them?). The Arabs are doing their level best to keep the anti-semitic, anti-US, anti-West venom coming down the pipeline full bore. Assistance consists of making soothing sounds in English, while the Arabic tripe (and it ain't even halal) for home consumption continues unabated. To worry about disrupting a "coalition" that only exists in the minds of the State Department's cookie-pushers would be laughable were it not so inimical to our true interests.
What Mr. Raspberry appears to not know but should, is that nothing succeeds with Arabs like strength and resolve, regardless of who the target is. One more carrier battle group stationed in the gulf of Arabia, and presto -- we don't need our enemy (sorry, our friend) the Saudi thugocracy to dictate the terms of our engagement.
As for "something provocative" by Saddam, one supposes we oughtn't worry our pretty little heads until he actually nukes Israel or, perhaps, with North Korean missiles, some burg in Europe. Iraq's unrelenting programme of WMD development (weapons of mass destruction; you know, nuclear, biological, chemical, that sort of stuff) must not make Mr. Raspberry's standard for "provocative". Saddam's WMD programme has been essentially unhindered for four years by even the sham of United Nations' "inspections" (oh, don't go in that door, there's nothing to see...). Perhaps we should wait until Iraq nukes Israel, and then convene a UN task force on why the Israelis actually deserved it.
Saddam's Iraq has attacked four of its neighbours in the past 20 years, gassed its resident Kurds, denied them freedoms (where are all those who bleed for the wretched Palestinians when the subject of a Kurdistan comes up?). But of course, those provocations were in some distant past...
Finally, Mr. Raspberry brings in the liberal shibboleth of Christians and Jews against Muslims (God's smackdown?). What he writes is:
"...demonstrate that our fight is against a specific class of terrorists and sponsors of terrorism, not Arabs and Muslims in general".
Dude, Iraq is a secular fascist dictatorship; it is "Muslim" only in the sense that most Iraqis would write that religion down on a form if asked. Warring against Saddam's Iraq will be warring against fascism; we don't have to "demonstrate" anything.
Who dares wins.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home