commentary by Michael L. Bromley
copyright 2005

More entries: see Index

... of Politics

Sept 30/05: Iraq Envy

It's unsure exactly what those "300,000," "100,000" (these numbers from the Muslim American Society -- no vested interest, of course) or "tens of thousands," or however many counted by whoever had a particular interest in the sum of protesters who vented upon Washington DC last weekend, were protesting. It is clear whom they protest: the United States of America.

I'll let the elegant, if ever freaky, Christopher Hitchens figure that one for you. Of the protest sponsors, coalitions of the "the Old and the New Left" -- and we're talking old school Cold War Left -- merged with present day discontents, "Answer Coalition" and "United for Peace and Justice," he writes:

Anti-War, My Foot
The phony peaceniks who protested in Washington
.... To be against war and militarism, in the tradition of Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht, is one thing. But to have a record of consistent support for war and militarism, from the Red Army in Eastern Europe to the Serbian ethnic cleansers and the Taliban, is quite another. It is really a disgrace that the liberal press refers to such enemies of liberalism as "antiwar" when in reality they are straight-out pro-war, but on the other side. Was there a single placard saying, "No to Jihad"? Of course not.

Check it out for a good review of these freaks, especially former LBJ Attorney General, Ramsey Clark, who is the lead figure in all this. Clark has gone from representing the American people, if barely, as AG, to representing Slobodan Milosevic and other rogues. You must know this about Clark. As AG he prosecuted Dr. Spock for abetting draft dodging -- but only so as to publicize and advance the cause of draft dodging. In 1972, he pulled a Jane Fonda and conducted a private foreign policy visit with North Vietnam, and that during those crucial days leading up to the Paris Accords. (How many people died on both sides because Clark convinced the N.V. that further resistance to the Nixon bombings would work? John Kerry, anyone?)

Check out this list of his clients from Wikipedia.org: NORML, David Koresh, Charles Taylor, Elizaphan Ntakirutimana (Rwandian murderer), the PLO, and Saddam Hussein. Enough said: Clark is an infamous bastard. (If you're still not convinced, see "Ramsey Clark, the war criminal's best friend".)

Okay, so Hitchens is right. The anti-war movement is pro-terrorism. You can talk circles around this all you want, but it comes down to the same thing as in Vietnam when it comes to the hardcore protest movement: anti-US meant pro North Vietnam as does anti-US today mean pro-Al Queda. The innocent followers of the movement, of whom Hitchens says, "… well, they just tag along," I doubt neither their sincerity nor their intentions. They want the U.S. out of Iraq. Hell, we all do. The difference is, who wants us out -- winning, who doesn't care if we win, who thinks it's unwinnable, and who wants the U.S. to lose. Things become much more clear by that measure. Clark and his front organizations want the U.S. to lose.

Let's not go there. When we get locked into this debate we speak the wrong language. To limit the Iraq war to Iraq is to misrepresent it. Iraq is not about Iraq. In 1991, it wasn't about Iraq, or about Kuwait. It was about the international order. Today, it's even more about the rest of the world than before. It's about Isreal, it's about Palestine, it's about Iran and Pakistan and Russia and China. It's about Afghanistan and the Jhihad and Bin Laden and September 11. Try as you might, but there is no disconnect between Sept. 11 and Iraq. The one doesn't exist without that sad other one.

If you can make that logical connection, you can only admit the imperative of Iraq. We lose in Iraq, we lose Sept. 11.

We mustn't lose. We won't.
 

Here for previous entry
More entries: see index