The most infuriating aspect of the debate over our Iraq debacle was the deliberate confusion of ends and means.
The ends were agreed to. Iraq should not be a threat. Its leaders should not commit mass murder.
It was the means – the invasion and occupation – which opponents always objected to.
But even before the bombs started falling, neo-conservatives were deliberately confusing the two. Even now, three years on, I sometimes read crap about “you don't support the troops” when I'm just disagreeing with the policy.
I can write that now, and you'll read it, because the vast majority of Americans now know our tactics in Iraq were a mistake.
So how is it we're already doing it again? This time it's Israel with its head in the noose. Lebanon has been invaded, bombed, and is in the process of being occupied. Yet anyone who dares note “that's another fine mess you've gotten us into” risks being called an anti-Semite, or worse.
There were other means available, and
unlike Americans, Israelis debated them. Then they made an
historically bad choice, because their leaders were new, the whole
generation of leadership was new, strength had always worked (in the
imagination), and the enemy wasn't really human beings, but animals
who only “respected” strength.
When you have the benefits of civilization, by which I mean the cars, the air conditioning, and the flush toilets – while your opponent is living in squalor, you won't win by copying them. You have to accept the standards of civilization, despite its inherent weaknesses. Otherwise you lose, always. It's moral authority that makes the difference between civilization and savagery.
The proper course, always, was and is the course of maximum peace. Demand justice, and make certain you're subject to it as well. This brings you the support you need to demand justice of the other side, to make the case, to cut off their air supply (the money and people follow real injustice), and to then enforce the law.
Hasn't this generation even seen The Ox-bow
Incident?
Recent Comments