La guerre continue (Confessions of a Chickenhawk, Part xxx)

I have not been writing for some time about the Iraq War not because I have changed my mind – as readers of this blog know, I was a supporter from the outset for geopolitical/pro-democracy reasons – but because I am a chicken. Not a chickenhawk as some members of the quondam left have characterized me – but a plain, ordinary chicken that does not like to be attacked. So I have laid low. The situation was too sad.

I am ashamed of myself for my silence. I apologize especially for my absence to my friends Omar and Mohammed, whose personal investment in this war is far greater than mine for obvious reasons.

But I am back, inspired by a post today by Michael Barone who was himself inspired by a New York Times article by sometime war critics Michael O’Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack.

O’Hanlon and Pollack think that the surge may actually be succeeding. That they wrote this in the NYT unfortunately gives them credence (except perhaps to the paper’s publisher and to numerous of its writers like Frank Rich who have staked their reputations on failure.) I say unfortunately because the NYT should not have the power that it still does, something the Bushies essentially ceded to them even though the paper was in disrepute, its editor fired, etc. Bush and Co. never grasped the critical role of the media in asymmetrical war, a misapprehension that is stunning given that, when you think about it, victory almost entirely depends on perception.

But back to the Times and the mystery of why they published this article, which could start even some extreme troglodytes reconsidering their positions (a few, anyway). There are several possible explanations – perhaps they think a Democratic victory in ’08 is already a done deal (though I doubt they are that naive) or perhaps they were only looking for the illusory balance of opinion. But it is also possible that deep down they worry more than they let on about the preservation of the Enlightenment, because, make no mistake about it, that is what this battle is all about.

Now you would think the quondam left (yes, I’m in love with that adjective) would be more concerned about this than anyone, considering the unremitting misogyny and homophobia of our adversaries. But for reasons almost too depressing to detail here, they prefer to believe that reasoning with Islamism will yield a preferred result. I have written before, but it bears repeating, that this view depends on two essentially racist assumptions – one, that our adversaries are merely “wogs” and therefore ultimately cannot constitute a genuine threat or, two, that they do no really believe the preachments of their religion. It’s just a “strategy” of some sort to get a better bargaining position. (Hello, Daniel Pearl). They can’t be serious.

Of course they are and they have been since the Eighth Century. So I am back now, shedding my chicken feathers, temporarily at least. What we are doing does have a reason. We are on the right side.