What's Fresh
- Yossi Klein Halevi on the Gaza Withdrawal
- Manhattan restaurant hosts nudist night
- What the iPod was meant for.
- U.S. Military Deaths in Iraq Top 1,500
- No Justice for BTK Victims
- More oppressed muslims getting uppity
- Telegraph | Opinion | The Arabs' Berlin Wall has c...
- the end of marriage?
- A Puzzlement
- Freedom is on the March
In the Freezer
March 1990October 2004
November 2004
December 2004
January 2005
February 2005
March 2005
April 2005
May 2005
June 2005
July 2005
August 2005
September 2005
October 2005
November 2005
December 2005
January 2006
February 2006
March 2006
April 2006
May 2006
June 2006
July 2006
August 2006
September 2006
October 2006
November 2006
December 2006
January 2007
March 2007
April 2007
May 2007
June 2007
July 2007
August 2007
October 2007
August 2008
September 2008
November 2008
August 2010
Other Tasty Places
Conservative Blogs- Captain's Quarters
- Cox & Forkum Editorial Cartoons
- Galley Slaves
- GayPatriot
- Hedgehog Report
- Hugh Hewitt
- James Lileks
- Little Green Footballs
- Neanderpundit
- NRO: The Corner
- NRO: Impromptus
- Polipundit
- Powerline
- Real Clear Politics
- Roger L. Simon
- Seraphic Secret
- Vodka Pundit
- Volokh
- The Western Word
- WSJ Opinion Journal: Best of the Web Today
Thursday, March 03, 2005
Guardian Unlimited | Guardian daily comment | The war's silver lining
Et tu Guardian?
Holy Mackerel! Even the Guardian... the British fishwrap that launched a reader campaign sending letters to Ohioans urging them to vote for John (Do You Know Who I Am) Kerry... is acknowledging the positive effects of the war in Iraq. Could American liberals be next? Was that a pig that just soared by my office window?
Excerpts:
Even so, it cannot be escaped: the US-led invasion of Iraq has changed the calculus in the region. The Lebanese protesters are surely emboldened by the knowledge that Syria is under heavy pressure, with US and France united in demanding its withdrawal. That pressure carries an extra sting if Damascus feels that the latest diplomatic signals - including Tony Blair's remark yesterday that Syria had had its "chance" but failed to take it and Condoleezza Rice's declaration that the country was "out of step with where the region is going" - translate crudely as "You're next".
---
This leaves opponents of the Iraq war in a tricky position, even if the PM is not about to rub our faces in the fact. Not only did we set our face against a military adventure which seems, even if indirectly, to have triggered a series of potentially welcome side effects; we also stood against the wider world-view that George Bush represented. What should we say now?
First, we ought to admit that the dark cloud of the Iraq war may have carried a silver lining. We can still argue that the war was wrong-headed, illegal, deceitful and too costly of human lives - and that its most important gain, the removal of Saddam, could have been achieved by other means. But we should be big enough to concede that it could yet have at least one good outcome.
Second, we have to say that the call for freedom throughout the Arab and Muslim world is a sound and just one - even if it is a Bush slogan and arguably code for the installation of malleable regimes. Put starkly, we cannot let ourselves fall into the trap of opposing democracy in the Middle East simply because Bush and Blair are calling for it. Sometimes your enemy's enemy is not your friend. - served up by Nomad @ 2:49 PM
Comments:
<< Home
So when can we gloat?
They're still totally wrong-headed, but it's nice to see a little progress. A little Fisking is in order.
What should we say now?How 'bout "everything we've ever printed is false, even the words 'and' and 'the'"?
potentially welcome side effectsNo. They're the inteded effects. Long before the WMD talk, the Bush administration was talking about changing regimes that sponsor terrorism. WMDs were an excuse and a poor one, and Bush has been rightly criticised (and by conservatives too) for using it. But the neocons have always been about establishing democracies.
We can still argue that the war was wrong-headedOK. I'm waiting for the argument.
illegalTo quote Bush. "Really? Let me call my lawyer."
deceitfulOnly if you believe that Bush intentionally lied about WMD, which nobody does. Everybody agrees now that the administration and the British believed that there were WMDs. That makes them wrong and ill-informed. Why keep calling them liars when they're not?
and too costly of human livesHuh? Just 4 posts ago I wrote about how, compared to any other conflict, there has been incredibly little bloodshed. Clearly the Guardian needs to visit the Coffeehouse.
removal of Saddam, could have been achieved by other meansNow they're just getting ridiculous. Before the war the anti-war crowd was saying that Saddam was contained and wasn't a threat. Now they're saying he could have been REMOVED without war? How? We're gonna sanction you to jail?! He had a very stable regime with lots of secret police. Would we have ousted him by offering him an apartment in Arafat's now unused Mukata compound?
Post a Comment
They're still totally wrong-headed, but it's nice to see a little progress. A little Fisking is in order.
What should we say now?How 'bout "everything we've ever printed is false, even the words 'and' and 'the'"?
potentially welcome side effectsNo. They're the inteded effects. Long before the WMD talk, the Bush administration was talking about changing regimes that sponsor terrorism. WMDs were an excuse and a poor one, and Bush has been rightly criticised (and by conservatives too) for using it. But the neocons have always been about establishing democracies.
We can still argue that the war was wrong-headedOK. I'm waiting for the argument.
illegalTo quote Bush. "Really? Let me call my lawyer."
deceitfulOnly if you believe that Bush intentionally lied about WMD, which nobody does. Everybody agrees now that the administration and the British believed that there were WMDs. That makes them wrong and ill-informed. Why keep calling them liars when they're not?
and too costly of human livesHuh? Just 4 posts ago I wrote about how, compared to any other conflict, there has been incredibly little bloodshed. Clearly the Guardian needs to visit the Coffeehouse.
removal of Saddam, could have been achieved by other meansNow they're just getting ridiculous. Before the war the anti-war crowd was saying that Saddam was contained and wasn't a threat. Now they're saying he could have been REMOVED without war? How? We're gonna sanction you to jail?! He had a very stable regime with lots of secret police. Would we have ousted him by offering him an apartment in Arafat's now unused Mukata compound?
<< Home
