I don’t think I’ve run into this one before. The author, one Paul Mulshine, is a contributor to the Star Ledger, which in my youth in New Jersey we used to call “The Newark Star Ledger.” Perhaps they still do. Anyway, Mr. Mulshine gives us this bit of deep thinking, in two forgettable graphs:
One thing I’ve noticed about the rather naive types called “neo” conservatives is that they all believe the war in Iraq was somehow intended to reduce the influence of Islamic fundamentalists in that country.
Perhaps it was. But the result of removing a secular fascist from power was the rise of the sort of Islamic fundamentalists who prevail in that part of the world.
To which one can only say “sheesh.” I don’t know anyone who thought we invaded Iraq to reduce the influence of Islamic fundamentalism. Mostly the rationale had to do with Weapons of Mass Destruction, terrorism, and so forth. Nor, for that matter, do I know any serious student of such matters who believes that Saddam Hussein’s tyranny was “fascist.” His Baathist party was explicitly socialist, and his personal hero was Stalin.
We’re in a phase where the babbling classes can’t deal with the world as it is, and they simply blame the “neocons” for anything they don’t like.
One more thing. If you read the whole article, you’ll find that Mr. Mulshine repeatedly mocks democracy. I guess tyranny’s the best solution in the world-seen-from-Newark.
I have no idea why people keep defending the Iraq invasion. It was easily the biggest disaster (maybe bigger) since Vietnam. There are so many negative consequences of it, that we could go on about it all day:
1) Christians are being slaughtered who had previously been protected by a staunchly secular leader
2) we took our eye off the real danger (Iran) and now they can build nuclear bombs and continue to spread their poison
3) women have taken a beating in the post-Sadaam era and are constantly harassed in public
4) there really is no democracy. Maliki lost the election but bullied the opposition and stayed in power
5) most importantly, thousands of our citizens dead, tens of thousands more disabled
6) of course it wrecked the federal budget, even forcing Bush to agree to huge amounts of non-defense spending in order to keep the Iraq War going
Iraq was in a perfect strategic location to keep the sunni and shiite fundamentalists at bay, and we removed him. It’s just mind-boggling. It also, coincidentally, led to the Islamist rise in Turkey, something unthinkable just a few years ago. The negative effects from the Iraq invasion are virtually limitless. The only good thing that came out of it is that Kurdistan is temporarily in good shape. But another mistake, we should have let them declare independence. I really hope that doesn’t come back to haunt the Kurds but I’m afraid history is not on their side.
An amazing list you have there. Which alternate universe are you from?
For example — that “staunchly secular” leader (Saddam) added Muslim phrases to his flag and had a Koran written entirely in his own blood. His support for womens rights included rape rooms and mass graves.
But, hell, I guess you think the world would have been better with a nuclear-armed Syria, Iraq, *AND* Iran.
And some can’t phantom what the world could have been but for the strategic actions of a few nations post WWII.
Yeah, Doug — Saddam was practically our ally. All Middle Eastern terrorism is religious in nature. Iraq played no role whatsoever in sheltering terrorists nor in undertaking to commit terrorism.
We should have left him there so his son Uday could inherit the presidency like Hafez Assad’s son did in Syria.
“If you read the whole article, you’ll find that Mr. Mulshine repeatedly mocks democracy.”
I’m not really a fan of democracy, either. Give me a representative republic any day.
(But, yeah, the left has been quite open in their admiration for dictatorships lately.)
We invaded Iraq as a strategic response to 9-11.
Iraq played no role in 9-11, but the big lesson from 9-11 was don’t let this happen again.
How does Iraq fit into this lesson? If Iraq is allowed to regenerate it’s ability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, we could get hit hit with something far worse than airliners. It was in our strategic interest to stop that from happening and to do so long before Iraq was able to attack.
The second strategic goal was to change Iraq into a model for wider change in the Islamic World. To defeat Islamic terrorism we must change Islam. Islam in its present form can not co-exist with Freedom unless it has no choice. Changing Iraq to a nation where Islam and Freedom are forced to live together is a first step in changing Islam. This is something that will take decades.
The neocons foresaw swift military victory in Iraq, followed by triumphant free-market reconstruction of Iraq society. The reality was harshly different from the neocons ideology-driven expectations:
Given the disaster of free-market reconstruction in Iraq, one has to wonder whether present plans to abolish the EPA are likely to work any better than Iraq reconstruction? Certainly Japan has learned (the hard way) from the TEPCO/Fukushima reactor disasters, the limited ability of market forces to restrain corporate dereliction of duty.
Those brands of conservatism that cannot learn these sobering lessons from recent history, cannot be trusted with the responsibilities of national security or governance.
———————————-
Hard Lessons: The Iraq Reconstruction Experience
US Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction
URL: http://www.sigir.mil/publications/hardLessons.html
See? Anybody can be a bigot like Mr. Science.
The neo-commies foresaw swift victory in gun control, followed by triumphant “under the radar” application of government-run firearms smuggling in order to “prove” that American gun stores were supplying a “river of guns” to Mexican drug cartels. The reality was harshly different from the neocommies’ ideology-driven expectations:
‘Gunwalker’ Scandal and the Case for Impeaching Holder
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/%e2%80%98gunwalker%e2%80%99-scandal-and-the-case-for-impeaching-holder/
Besides Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry’s murder, “Mexican officials estimate 150 of their people have been shot by Fast and Furious guns.” This indicates at least 150 incidents of murder or attempted murder.
While Holder didn’t pull any triggers, the Department of Justice was involved in Gunwalker from the beginning. The Washington Post notes: “The ATF became part of the Justice Department after Sept. 11, 2001….”
From the recent congressional report on Fast and Furious:
“In the fall of 2009, the Department of Justice (DOJ) developed a risky new strategy to combat gun trafficking along the Southwest Border.…The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) implemented that strategy using a reckless investigative technique that street agents call “gunwalking.” ATF’s Phoenix Field Division began allowing suspects to walk away with illegally purchased guns.
This shift in strategy was known and authorized at the highest levels of the Justice Department. Through both the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Arizona and “Main Justice,” headquarters in Washington, D.C., the Department closely monitored and supervised the activities of the ATF.”
Given the disaster of big-government advocates in D.C., one has to wonder whether present plans to abolish the Second Amendment are likely to work any better than places like Mexico, which has draconian gun control and some of the highest homicide rates in the world? Certainly Australia and the United Kingdom have learned (the hard way) from their gun bans, the limited ability of big-government forces to restrain criminal’s dereliction of the social contract. Both countries have seen explosions of violent crime, and especially rape of women, since their gun bans.
Four Hundred Years of Gun Control: Why Isn’t It Working?
http://www.amazon.com/Four-Hundred-Years-Gun-Control/dp/0981738222/ref=ntt_at_ep_dpt_1
Those brands of big-governmentalism that cannot learn these sobering lessons from recent history, cannot be trusted with the responsibilities of national security or governance.
Lol … Howard, my post linked to a in-depth analysis, written by non-partisan professionals at the Office of the Special Inspector General, and hosted on a US military site … your post linked to an ideology-first for-profit gossip column,
Folks can judge for themselves which post is shooting live ammo.
As one who feeds at the public trough, you should know that people consider you a questionable source, since your agenda is to promote more government. When universities get rid of tenure, Americans may start believing that maybe professors are credible.
As for your derogation, only an echo chamber looking through a straw would try to ignore Fast and Furious as an “ideology-first for-profit gossip column”. Unless, of course, your own ideology was diametrically opposed to uncovering the biggest scandal since Iran Contra, so you could protect your Royal 0.
The fact is that Old Media has only begun to tentatively dip its toe into the F&F scandal. So you need to direct your LOL at them. But that would require intellectual honesty, wouldn’t it?
Y’know. For somebody who thinks PJM is a ideological gossip column, you spend an awful lot of time here. Just goes to show that your publicly-paid salary is way too much for the amount of real work you do.
Gee Howard …as the Founders put it:
For this reason, any brand of conservatism that seeks to silence the nation’s citizenry by the routine practice of ideology-driven vitriol, ad homimen abuse, and smears—practices that close the rational debate that is the lifeblood of American democracy—is not a brand of conservatism that serves America well. Neither can these peculiarly abusive brands of conservatism be expected to long endure … and our nation will be well rid of them when they are gone.
Good golly! I can’t imagine anybody getting in a tit for tat with the world renouned literary genius of all things…Howard Nemerov. Have you no shame?