James Frank Solís

27 December 2006

12:09 PM

I’m now certain I understand why the left believe we are losing in Iraq, and why they can never be convinced otherwise. The left believe that we are losing in Iraq because we shouldn’t be there in the first place and they are unwilling—or just incapable (I haven’t decided which)—to distinguish two issues: (1) whether we should have invaded in the first place and (2) whether we are winning. It is possible that the answer to both questions can be 'Yes' without getting involved in contradiction. It may be that we shouldn’t have invaded, but also that we are winning.

But the left are those who believe in certain twisted formalisms. If, for example, a suspect in a criminal investigation wasn’t ‘mirandized’ then, even if a jury should find him guilty he may be acquitted on that single technicality. You see, according to the left if on their view you 'shouldn’t' have won, then you did not win. If we shouldn’t have invaded Iraq then we can’t be winning. It’s just a matter of reasoning backward from that predetermined conclusion. (Kind of like the Duke Lacrosse team rape case.)

This suspicion was confirmed just today by a caller to Rush Limbaugh’s show. Mark Belling, substituting for Rush Limbaugh, asks if the coming execution of Saddam Hussein isn’t demonstration that we are winning, or have won, in Iraq. Our objective was regime change in Iraq; we wanted to remove the Hussein regime from power, and we have done. Therefore we have won.

A caller, in response, argued exactly as I outlined above. At first, I was irritated at his reasoning. But then it occurred to me that that is precisely how the left reasons, especially in courtrooms (oh, yeah, and tax policy) and we shouldn’t be surprised.

Of course, the caller also redefined our goals, insisting—in addition to the fact that we shouldn’t be in Iraq—that there is less stability in Iraq now than before the invasion, and more violence. As if anyone stated prior to the invasion that our goals were stability and absence of violence in Iraq. Right.

It was about regime change. The present regime will soon execute the leader of the former regime. Regime change—regardless the deficiencies of the new regime—has been accomplished.

That mission has been accomplished.

As long as I'm on the subject of specious reasoning, I might also mention the caller who suggested that our government is also in a hurry to see Saddam executed so that we can successfully cover up (or continue to cover up) the fact that the U. S. provided the chemicals which were used to gas the Kurds. On this man's view, it is somehow the responsibility of the the U. S. that the Kurds were gassed.

I had been out of the Army for just a few months when it was reported (March 1988) that the Kurds (participants in a 40-year insurgency against Iraqi rule) had been gassed. At that time Iraq and the U. S. were allies (not friends). It just doesn't seem to me that selling someone a weapon is tantamount to endorsing the use of that weapon to commit murder.

I own weapons. I haven't used any of them to murder anyone. If I did, those who sold me those weapons wouldn't have to cover up that fact. Well, not yet anyway.

Labels: War in Iraq, War on Terror

0 comments:

About Me

Blog Archive