Benj:

I think part of the fault comes from how too many people from the Left refused to challenge George W. Bush’s ownership of the war effort. Tony Blair tried, but he failed. The September 11 attacks were a direct attack against the urban proletariat by a neo-feudal offshoot of oriental despotism – hardly the folks that any Marxist or populist ought to feel sympathy towards. And yet, much of the Left simply wants America to lose, even against al-Qaeda.

I will easily grant that George W. Bush made horrible mistakes. One of the reasons why public support for the war effort tanked in early 2005 was because George W. Bush staked his political reputation upon privatizing Social Security, which gave the impression that he didn’t regard victory in Iraq as important. That hurt. Ambassador Bremer’s dictatorship over Iraq was a disaster. I am quite sure that I would have done a better job running Iraq than Ambassador Bremer, and I knew that at the time. I am also less than favorably impressed with a record of corruption involving military contractors.

Still, there is a difference between criticizing how a war is fought and desiring America’s defeat. A big difference. Ever since the Anthrax Attacks, polarization within the Beltway has been rancid, spreading in waves outward from Washington, DC. Hate blogs on both the Left and the Right have not helped, for while too much of the Left really has been defeatist, much of the Right has been more interested in falsely accusing opponents of treason than promoting a solid pro-war coalition. “United We Stand” has become a joke.

Yes, I did support the war in Iraq (and still do), but it was not without qualms. I utterly detested (and still do) the doctrine of “preemptive defense” which sounds much like a doctrine of “unprovoked attack”. Were there good reasons to overthrow Saddam Hussein? Yes! Were they good enough to support a war? Also yes. Would another strategy have been better? Quite possibly, but none was presented by those opposed to the war.

In 2002, the alternative to invading Iraq proposed by the opposition was essentially to sit on our asses and do nothing. Or, even worse, send our troops into Palestine as peacekeepers to got shot at and bombed by Hamas, presumably after we threatened to either cut off aid to Israel or threatened to bomb Tel Aviv.

Before the war, I quietly recommended liberating the Saudi Kingdom as a prelude to liberating Iraq, but my ideas were apparently not taken seriously in Washington. And yet, in retrospect, I am honestly unsure whether liberating the Saudi Kingdom first would have been the better course of action. I am quite sure I would have done a better job of running Iraq than Ambassador Bremer, and I knew that at the time. The Bush administration wasn’t too keen on hiring anybody from the opposition, though.

I knew before the war that we would have a difficult time winning the peace, with all the firebrand imams from Saudi Arabia and Iran preaching death against us. I warned about that before the war, and yet I still supported the war because I thought the price of doing nothing was higher than liberating Iraq. As it is, the war in Iraq has been far more successful than I feared it would be.

I think our main problem in America is the disintegration of our ideals of loyal opposition. Those who are opposed to administration policies have a moral responsibility to recommend alternative courses of action. And what did we get? The Department of Homeland Security (which I still think is a blunder). True, George W. Bush has lacked deftness in reaching out to political opponents who share a common goal. But our president could have been called on that, and he hasn’t been. As a rule, the Right isn’t interested in fighting using anything other than military means while the Left isn’t interested in fighting this war at all.

Is Senator Obama willing to reach out to those who still think that overthrowing Saddam Hussein was a good idea? Based upon Senator Obama’s past history, the answer is unequivocally no. He has backed himself into a corner he cannot get out of, and his opponents are backed into a corner they cannot escape either. I refuse to repent of a decision I still think was right. I flatly opposed going to war because of “weapons of mass destruction”; indeed, I specifically warned against basing our casus belli upon “weapons of mass destruction” when there were better reasons to fight. This also means that I am immune from “I told you so” accusations by anti-war activists on that issue.

A “dumb war”, eh? A “rash war”? I’ll let you in on something – supporting the liberation of Iraq doesn’t mean I am any more or less intelligent than anybody else. It means I disagree with Barack Obama and I have good reasons for my disagreements.

The fact is that the war in Afghanistan isn’t popular in Europe either, and the real concern in France in early 2003 wasn’t that we were going to war but that “America is too big”. In late September 2001, South African Communists didn’t give a damn about whether Americans got hurt in the September 11 attacks; all they cared about was a fear that America would “overreact”. Germany? Expecting Germany to fight against our enemies is ridiculous because our alliance with Germany is a one-way street and will continue to be a one-way street as long as there is an alliance. Spain? Spanish Socialists blamed Spain’s alliance with the United States for the 3-11 attacks in Madrid. After that calumny, any pretense of an alliance with Spain is a vicious joke. For altogether too many Europeans, Americans exist for the sole purpose of providing cannon fodder for their own purposes; if Americans bother to fight for American national security, they will naturally get upset. NATO exists to combat American isolationism; thinking that Europeans desire to protect America is sheer fantasy. Anybody who dares stand on our side is called a “poodle”.

So yes, George W. Bush has made severe blunders in his diplomacy. No vision of the world after the defeat of al-Qaeda and its fellow travelers has been enunciated on either the Left or the Right. Many people on the Left feel they have nothing to fight for in this war because there is no vision of a better tomorrow while many people on the Right feel they can have nothing to fight for when our borders are not secure and illegal immigrants can march down our streets at will.

Fighting the terrorists is not easy. It is becoming increasingly clear that victory against al-Qaeda may require Americans to fight nonviolently against our own government.