Response to a critic on 'Fairness in Iraq'

The comments on “Fairness in Iraq” have been quite positive; with (at this time) two negative ones. The first was a rant, the second deserves a response. Search for: ”Your analysis of the situation ignores precedent” in the commentary on “Fairness in Iraq” to read someone with a substantial objection.

He claims that in the first Gulf War “nearly the entire world” contributed to military operations.

In Gulf War I 34 nations contributed 24% of the troops compared to 76% for the United States.

That compares relatively favorably to 31 nations with the US contributing 84% of the troops this time as far as I’m concerned. Especially since there was some doubt about whom the Syrians (for example) might wind up shooting at the first time.

In the Korean War, there were 15 non-Korean partners and the US contributed 90% of the combat forces.

With all do respect, I think I have my context quite accurate. Thank you.

Yes, the US did enter Vietnam without a full and frank discussion and we paid a bitter price for that. But you can not plausibly claim this is true for Iraq. No military action by the United States since World War II has involved anywhere near the debate we held on going into Iraq this time. In point of fact, we discussed Iraq far more thoroughly than we discussed our actual entry into either World War I or World War II.

I have no patience with someone who does not acknowledge that overthrowing Saddam was a moral action.

“… for me and many others in uniform, justification for the war in Iraq will come down to a dusty sandal on a forgotten levee in central Iraq. We were not in time for that little girl, but the children who survived the Ba'athist genocide will have the chance to grow up and live freely because our country had to resolve to say "enough." The United States and Britain have done a great thing by removing Saddam Hussein, which history will judge as another courageous step in our national history of opposing tyranny and genocide.”
Lt. Col. Craig Trebilcock

People who wish to argue it wasn’t in the strategic interest of the United States can make reasonable points. But here, I argue that it is people who make those points that do not have a sufficiently wide perspective.

My perspective considers the concept of dhimmitude and the ark of Islamic civilization from its peak at the gates of Vienna through the Armenian Genocide before continuing to Hamas and 9/11. It considers the thoughts of Bernard Lewis and Victor Davis Hanson.

In a practical strategic sense, the war on Terror had to go through the streets of Baghdad to have any hope of our civilization prevailing. I understand why President Bush has to pretend that this isn’t a clash of civilizations, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t one.

The “War on Terror” isn’t a misnamed law enforcement exercise. It is a misnomer for World War IV. (I highly recommend that article in Commentary.)

I am not, and have never been, a fan of ‘nation building’. I’m still not. Nevertheless I’m sitting here supporting one of the most aggressive and radical experiences in nation building ever.

Why?

Because if we can make this work we can avoid the behavior we used to pacify the Philippines. That would be a very good thing. The alternative is to fight Islamic fascism with the same ruthlessness we used on the Native Americans and the Philippine resistance.

The US population isn’t ready to be that ruthless (and I’m really not either). Another 9/11, a Beslan or two, or (heaven forbid) a smoking city and we will be.

In a post 9/11 world, the invasion of Iraq is an example of the US playing nice. If that doesn’t work, Pax Americana will start looking an awful lot more like Pax Romana than even I am comfortable with.

Peace

Through Victory.