I'd forgotten...

...how totally loony the left has become; it marches step-by-step in byzantine mirror-image lock-step with the right in terms of fundamental idiocy and of warped understanding of the complexities of the world.

I'd forgotten. I rarely read its journals.

But I was just reminded of how totally useless it is by a self-satisfied and smug exposition from Arundhati Roy on the The New American Century. (Of course I should consider the source, The Nation; whenever I see its editor Katrina vanden Heuvel I know that I am in for the expected.)

Ms. Roy suggests:

So if we are against imperialism, shall we agree that we are against the US occupation and that we believe the United States must withdraw from Iraq and pay reparations to the Iraqi people for the damage that the war has inflicted?

However misguided as to purpose the Iraq war was at its inception, no matter how inept George W. Bush has been in conducting American security affairs generally, I think it totally undeniable that the Iraqi people are better off now than they were under that monster Saddam Hussein. For Roy to suggest that the USA owes anything by way of reparation is so strikingly unbalanced that I felt I had to post it here as an example of how the left has lost its way. I think that one can simultaneously hold the view -- and yes, holding simultaneous views is OK, Ms. Roy -- that GW Bush is a foolish President and that American foreign policy is mis-guided and also acknowledge that we may have stumbled into doing something good and beneficial.

Perhaps there is some law of history which says that sometimes good things can come out of foolish and impetuous actions and perhaps GW's Iraq Adventure will prove to be such an event. Let us all pray.

Comments

[Person of Choler]

It's not just GWB's project; Americans are generally committed to hobbling the terror war supporters in the Middle East. Congress passed resolutions authorizing the Afghan and Iraqui operations. The UK is similarly interested and committed as well as numerous other countries providing some level of support.

Public noises about "immanence" or "WMDs" come from liberal politicians and pundits who voted for or supported the military actions and now need to placate their supporters and customers on the pacifistic left flank. Also, pundits who predicted various catastrophes ("brutal Afghan winter", "Stalingrad at Baghdad", "quagmire" ....) will not admit that they were wrong and must continue to portray events in Afghanistan and Iraq evidence as failures.

Most big time commentators affect not to notice that Libya has suddenly "come clean" on its nuclear preparations and Musharraff stopped the development of "Islamic Bomb" technology that Dr. Abdul Khan was shopping throughout the world.

In short, good things have already come out of America's resolve to do some house cleaning in the Middle East and George Bush deserves much credit for his leadership.

[Adam Krom]

It's possible that Iraqis are "better off," though thousands and thousands (many more than 9/11) have probably been killed by the war, but this is a straw man argument. The real question would be how to best improve the lives of Iraqis, and this might not have necessitated a war and the following political chaos.

In explanation, while Saddam was no doubt brutal and dangerous, the breakdown of economics and civil society is proably the worst thing that can happen to a country. It isn't really clear to me that these systems have been restored to a much better state that under Saddam, and if they are better, how permanent this status is. Hopefully it will work out, with American and international support.

Also, was it necessary to oust Saddam to improve the economy and social structure, or were most of these hardships related to sanctions and other foreign policies? It is important to answer this in order to assess the before and after state of the Iraqis and also the possible policy alternatives we (America) had *before* the war. After all, things seem to be changing in Libya...