Last week, Roger Simon at Pajamas Media blogged that he supports the war against fascist Islam because he believes in liberal social causes:
Those of us concerned about human rights, about the separation of church and state, about gay rights and women’s rights, about democracy itself, have bigger fish to fry – the War on Terror. … I never cease to be amazed – and perhaps it is my own myopia – that my former colleagues on the Left can be blind to this situation. They act as if the threat is not real and is only a blip caused by a post 9/11 overreaction by George Bush, thus ignoring virtually all of Western history since the year 800, not to mention the overwhelming demographic changes of recent decades. … The very people most threatened by the ideology of Islamism and the institution of Sharia law – gays, women, freethinkers – are often the very people least likely to defend themselves against it. What we have on our Left is a culture of denial equal to, if not exceeding, the German Jews of the 1930s and one that has taken the canard about all politics being local to an almost ludicrous extreme. … (I)f we lose and fall under religious law, there not only will be no gay marriage, there will be no women’s rights, no freedom of the press, no basic human rights, not even – as in the case of Iran – any music.
When you get right down to it, people opposed to “the “War on Terror” all think their own freedoms aren’t threatened. I suppose it’s one thing for “those people over there” to be oppressed, but why would “liberals” care about such things? (And I wonder, would an open borders policy make it any easier for fascist Muslims to bring the war here once Iran is in control of Iraq and Kuwait?)
Opposition to the fight against fascist Islam is often driven by political cynicism: “Drumming up anti-war sentiment might get us back in the White House.” A person may be opposed because he has adopted a bumper sticker and sound bite approach to foreign policy: “Bush lied.” But the real story will be how self-absorption and naivete weakened us to the point that, when the enemy arrived on our doorstep and we finally found the will to fight, we no longer had the strength to defend ourselves.
(Hat tip: Gene Edward Veith at Cranach)
You should mention the fact that in Iraq, we have found chemical facilities (which CAN make WMDs), or how Saddam WAS funding, arming, and training terrorists, or how there WAS an Al-Qaeda presence in Iraq (19,000 dead Al-Qaeda fighters in just a few years is good proof.), or how 10,000 people were killed by Saddam Hussein…
Liberals say Iraq has nothing to do with Al-Qaeda or our fight against Terrorism. Well, taking out a mad man–Saddam– who was supplying terrorists is a GOOD IDEA. Liberating a nation and making it into a democracy which stands against all the values terrorists advocate IS A GOOD IDEA. Why? If you take out the major suppliers of teerrorism: Saddam, Taliban, and Iran’s government–You in effect render the enemy unable to fight. When you take out their influence: Iran government, Taliban, Al-Qadea leaders, and Saddam–you in effect destroy the very logic of the enemy, and within time the movement will die out…
Over all, Iran may have been a better target, but Iraq was ALSO a GOOD choice…
By: Albert on July 13, 2009
at 8:49 pm