I THINK THIS IS RIGHT
It is certainly a human truth that we are prone to take things for granted (forgive the generality, but is it wrong?) Well, is it possible that those against the Iraq War, at least some of them, are falling prone to that sort of thing, with their regard for the war and its handling?
Such is the question I am moved to ask after reading this passage from a Victor Davis Hanson essay:Yes, the Middle East is “unstable,” but for the first time in memory, the usual killing, genocide, and terrorism are occurring in a scenario that offers some chance at something better. Long before we arrived in Iraq, the Assads were murdering thousands in Hama, the Husseins were gassing Kurds, and the Lebanese militias were murdering civilians. The violence is not what has changed, but rather the notion that the United States can do nothing about it; the U.S. has shown itself willing to risk much to support freedom in place of tyranny or theocracy in the region.
Instead of recalling any of this, Iraq is seen only in the hindsight of who did what wrong and when. All the great good we accomplished and the high ideals we embraced are drowned out by the present violent insurgency and the sensationalized effort to turn the mayhem into an American Antietam or Yalu River. Blame is never allotted to al Qaeda, the Sadr thugs, or the ex-Baathists, only to the United States, who should have, could have, or would have done better in stopping them, had its leadership read a particular article, fired a certain person, listened to an exceptional general, or studied a key position paper. That is not to say that the war and its handling are unimpeachable (for what war could be, ever?), but to suggest a step-back to see a bigger picture, one that sees America as trying to help the world often failing, to be sure, but still trying. Is that not quite a bit better than not trying at all?
10:31 AM |
Permanent Link
| Email This!
|