IRAQ: THE LEFT’S CRITICISMS - I
IRAQ: THE LEFT’S CRITICISMS - I
by
Ken Eliasberg
From 9/11 onward, even before our movement into Afghanistan, let alone Iraq, the radical left has constantly sounded the alarm about the dangers of a misadventure in the Middle East (one can’t help but wonder, is there any war that they are prepared to fight—except, of course, their unrelenting war against George Bush). No sooner did it become apparent that a strike against the Taliban, where Al Quaeda had been given refuge, was imminent, than they sounded the clarion call of defeat. First, we were warned that we could not win in Afghanistan because of the fierce nature of the Afghani warrior (which, to be fair, is indeed fierce—by 9th century standards). Here they summoned up recollections of the indignities that Great Britain had suffered in their Afghani excursion in 1849 and the even more embarrassing plight of the Russians in 1989. As is so typical of the left, they failed to mention the British sequel when a General Pollack led a British army to quickly avenge their earlier humiliation. Also, they neglected to point out that the Mujahadeen were successful in eventually—after 10 long years, thanks to Jimmy Carter, that sorry excuse for a President—throwing the Russians out because of 2 very fundamental things: (1) the U.S. was providing arms and assistance, and (2) the U.S.S.R. was in the process of economically imploding (thanks to Ronald Reagan) and could no longer pursue the folly of hegemony.
As soon as the hollow nature of these warnings was revealed, the left fell back on that old reliable from Vietnam—QUAGMIRE—warning us of many casualties. Of course, as is so typical, they were wrong again. The war, if we can dignify it with such a serious label, lasted all of 5 weeks. And, while matters are hardly concluded in that far off land, things seem be proceeding quite nicely (let me say here, and I will say it often again, I have no grand illusions about the prospects of Democracy in an Arab land; for most of my life I have labored under the impression that Arab and democracy was an oxymoron. However, things have gone very well in Afghanistan, and there is a real prospect that my previous thinking may turn out to be somewhat cynical. I certainly hope so).
In any event, you begin to get the picture “whatever the left could do to throw a wet blanket over any Middle Eastern venture that George Bush might propose, they would do and did (all the while, offering no alternative, of course, because here, as everywhere else, the left has no alternative to offer).
In this column and those to follow, I want to analyze and evaluate
every criticism that the left has put forward and demonstrate—conclusively, in my opinion—that such criticism is not merely meaningless, but disingenuous, at best, and subversive at worst. So let’s leave Afghanistan, since even the left doesn’t bother to go there any more, and turn our attention to their criticisms of our efforts in Iraq.
First, you had the criticisms relating to the inappropriate—indeed, dishonest—nature of this venture. You remember, (1) Bush did this for oil,
(2) Bush did this to provide work for his buddies at Halliburton, (3) Bush did this to complete his father’s incomplete mission in this area, (4) Bush did this because those big, bad neocons harbored dreams (delusions?) of American hegemony, i.e. America as imperialist, and (5) Bush had no business doing this at all because there was no “connection” between 9/11 (i.e. Al Quaeda) and Iraq. In addition, Bush was condemned for (6) rushing unilaterally into war, and (7) failing to either secure a really adequate blessing from the U.N. or the approval, let alone, the cooperation of our key “allies,” i.e. France, Germany, Russia, and China—you get the picture—the whole “Bush lied, men died” bromide that the left seems to enjoy tossing around.
There were lots of other criticisms offered up, but those were directed more at what we were doing and how we were doing it, as opposed to why we were doing it at all. And I intend to deal with all of those as well, but for present purposes—the next 2 or 3 columns—I just want to deal with those left-wing attacks directed to our motives and the propriety of the venture.
1.Oil.—The pursuit of oil as a basis for Bush’s launching this allegedly ill-conceved venture is as good a place to start an evaluation of these criticisms as any. Why? Because it serves several purposes. First, it demonstrates how little gas the left has left in its tank, and second, it covers the reasons why Bush was so unsuccessful in securing the cooperation of several of the other major powers. Now what reasons does the left offer for concluding that Bush went to war for oil? HE IS AN OIL MAN, DUMMY!!
That’s all the left offers by way of explanation. I recall having dinner with a lefty who promptly advised me that oil was our principal, if not only, reason for going to war. And he looked at me as if to say, what’s wrong with you—everyone knows that. This was an educated man, and, while I make it a habit to never dine with lefties (their thought process gives me indigestion), this was one of those rare occasions required of me by my wife. In any event, he offered no proof, no facts, no nothing. But you see, that is the advantage of being a lefty—you don’t have to offer facts, logic, or common sense. Because of the purety of your motives and intentions—forget about your thought process—you just have to voice an opinion, no matter how preposterous or demonstrably false (I see that all the time in left-wing letters to the editor in this newspaper, whose comments typically range from the inane to the insane). The left-winger cannot support his position, and, once proven wrong—which, typically, is a simple thing to do—will end up calling you a right winger, a bigot, or offer up some other ad hominem attack.
Here, my Dr. acquaintance just assumed that everyone knows that George Bush, in addition to being an evil dummy, is, worse yet, an oil man, that most odious of creatures. So let’s look at the oil situation. We have been in Iraq for almost 3 years—how much more oil have we taken out than we were taking out before? Any? No. How is the price of oil?—at an all-time high, at times approaching $70.00 a barrel. Shouldn’t oil prices go down if we are getting more oil? But, you say, the oil companies are doing incredibly well. That they are. Now link that in some fashion to our invasion of Iraq. Don’t bother, you can’t. The demand for oil is at an all-time high because China and India, countries with populations exceeding one billion, are industrializing at an incredible rate and, as a consequence, are making huge demands on our oil supply. So, I submit that this is simply a matter of free enterprise—you know, the reason why so many people want to come to the U.S.—CAPITALISM (the system that the left is working very hard to bring down). The law of supply and demand is at work here, nothing more sinister than that. However, if you disagree, prove it!! Don’t offer up some sinister allegation for which you haven’t got a shred of proof, other than that George Bush is an oil man.
This brings me to why our major allies—the French, Germans, Russians, and Chinese—failed to join us on this Iraqi adventure. Each one of them had “sweetheart contracts” with Saddam for oil. If you have been following the U.N. food-for-oil scandal then you know exactly what I am talking about. In short, we didn’t go to war for oil; our “friends” refused to go to war because of their illicit trafficking in oil. This is not just some right-wing rambling; this is a fact. For really interesting reading, take a look at anything put out by Claudia Rosett, who first exposed this multi-billion dollar scam (most of her stuff has been published on the Wall St. Journal’s website—opinionjournal.com). One reader, the local nutty professor, has, in a communiqué to me, raised the possibility of some other reason that our “allies” may have had for refusing to cooperate—SUCH AS?? Your guess is as good as mine. It is clear to me that our allies abandoned us for oil money, and, in doing, so indicated just how little we can rely on them to assist us in putting the world on a more stable footing (and the last 60 years have provided abundant proof of how little we can afford to look to the U.N.—again, despite the wishful thinking of the “nutty professor” - to accomplish this task). IN SHORT, LEFTIES, HOW ABOUT SOME PROOF INSTEAD OF EMPTY ACCUSATIONS WHICH SERVE NO PURPOSE OTHER THAN TO DEMORALIZE OUR TROOPS?? To be continued -