IRAQ: THE LEFT’S CRITICISMS II
IRAQ: THE LEFT’S CRITICISMS—II
by
Ken Eliasberg
Last week we looked at the left’s assertions regarding oil as the basis for our Iraqi excursion, and, at least to my satisfaction, found them lacking in any probative value. Let’s take a look at a few of the other arguments that the left has offered up as a basis for challenging this venture.
- Halliburton.- No sooner had Halliburton, Dick Cheney’s
former company, been selected to participate in the effort to assist our
troops in the Iraqi rehabilitation effort—i.e. that period immediately subsequent to the collapse of Saddam’s troops - than the left was up in arms about the impropriety of such a selection. At the outset it should be noted that (1) Halliburton is one of the few companies that is capable of the sort of effort required in Iraq; (2) that several other companies were chosen as well; (3) that Halliburton had previously participated in similar Efforts in Vietnam and, perhaps of greater relevance, in Bosnia and Kosovo; and (4) here, as always, the allegation of impropriety was not accompanied by any hard facts which would tend to establish the existence of an impropriety.
I mention Bosnia and Kosovo because at the time that Halliburton was selected to participate in the reconstruction of those areas, Bill Clinton was president and Dick Cheney was Halliburton’s CEO. You didn’t hear any cries from the left at that time. What happened, different war or different president? You figure it out.
Halliburton is an excellent company, almost uniquely qualified to participate in the mission at hand. But if there has been an impropriety—either in their selection or in the manner in which they have discharged their responsibilities under their contract with the government, then they should be dealt with appropriately, as should any government official who may have been involved in either their selection or performance. I say IF because here, as almost everywhere else, the left is just blowing smoke in the public’s ear. If there is a wrongdoing, prove it or shut up! Because, one thing I have come to like about Republicans is they are not reluctant to punish wrongdoing even if it’s of one of their own—unlike Democrats who will circle the wagons around any scoundrel in order to keep him around (e.g. Bill Clinton)
- A Neocon Hegemony Plot.- You will recall, I’m certain, that no
sooner had the Iraqui invasion begun than the left was alleging that it was all part of a neocon plot—you know, Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, etc.—to further the cause of American imperialism. Two things are worthy of note: (1) Again, absolutely no evidence, let alone proof, with respect to this assertion was ever offered up, and (2) in my humble opinion (based on many years of involvement in politics on both sides of the aisle) this is far and away the best foreign policy staff that has been assembled in my lifetime—and when I say best, I mean most qualified. Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Wolfowitz, etc. are not only very gifted, but they are also not reluctant to take the necessary action which their experience indicates is appropriate. In short, these are people, who, unlike their immediate predecessors, not only talk the talk, they walk the walk. Intellect is wonderful; courage is no less important, and very few people in the know found Bill Clinton to be particularly courageous (except, of course, in either his bold marital misadventures or extra legal fund raising efforts). Indeed, the military suffered substantially during his reign.
To the best of my knowledge, we do not intend to remain in Iraq as a force of occupation; our only intent was to be a force of liberation, and that we have been. If the left can prove that Bush is an imperialist, DO IT!! (or, again, shut up). As an interesting aside, I attended a lecture at the Claremont Graduate School given by Niall Ferguson, a gifted Harvard history professor (and, I suspect, a liberal), and he feels that the idea of an American empire is not only not inappropriate, but, probably a good idea. However, I’m quite certain that this is not in the offing - at this point in time it’s just not our thing, and, in any event, in my opinion, it wouldn’t work out very well in an
Arab country where the prospects for modernity are somewhere between slim and none.
- Complete Father’s Venture.- Another trial balloon floated by the
Left as the reason behind going in to Iraq was that Bush 43 wanted to do what his father was unable to do—take out Saddam Hussein. Again, no evidence of such an intent was furnished, but let’s take a look at it anyway. Bush 41 did not take out Saddam for 2 reasons: (1) his U.N. mandate did not permit such an underaking—he was instructed to remove Saddam from Kuwait and not to topple him from power, and (2) the reason he was not to topple Saddam from power was that the prevailing geopolitical thinking of the time was that to do so would create a vacuum in the region—a vacuum that Iran might fill (which, interestingly enough, has turned out to be the situation we are now facing).
My beef with Bush 41 was that, after encouraging Iraq’s populace to rise up and throw the rascal out, he failed to provide support when they did just that. That is, he allowed the Kurds and Shiites to be slaughtered when they acted on his suggestion, and that I find inexcusable. Also, it might explain why, despite a fairly warm welcome in Iraq, some Iraquis are cautious in placing their trust in us—they are afraid that we might do just what the Defeatocrats are suggesting—CUT AND RUN!
The interesting problem now is what to do about Iran. If we leave it to the left, they’ll suggest that we turn it over to the U.N. for 12 more years and 17 more resolutions, by which time Israel could be a sand pile.
4. We Rushed to War. Another left-wing allegation was that we rushed to war, a suggestion that we acted impetuously and thus wrong headedly. First of all, it’s hard for me to see a “rush” in acting after 12 years and the violation of 17 resolutions. However, that aside, if you look at the time line, starting with Bush’s first hint of a problem with Iraq and the date of the actual invasion, you find something considerably less than a “rush” to either judgment or action. Moreover, what we were actually doing is something that the U.N. should have done years ago; we were merely putting a spinal column into the U.N.’s various admonitions to Saddam (we were not yet aware of our allies betrayal via the food-for-oil scandal). There was no rush to action; here like everywhere else, there’s no beef in the left’s unfounded accusation.
- Unilateral Action: Hardly!- Finally (for today) the left argued that
our coalition was threadbare (over 50 countries, but what’s a country here or there). And, again, as I previously pointed out, our “allies” refused to join us because of their illicit oil involvements, and not because of their reluctance to go to war (having shown no such reluctance on any number of previous occasions). More to follow - -