IRAQ WAR JUSTIFICATION

I wish someone in the Bush Administration would come out as eloquently as Christopher Hitchens does as to the moral and practical justification of the war in Iraq.

It would take me, on my most eloquent C-SPAN day, at the very least five minutes to say that Abdul Rahman Yasin, who mixed the chemicals for the World Trade Center attack in 1993, subsequently sought and found refuge in Baghdad; that Dr. Mahdi Obeidi, Saddam's senior physicist, was able to lead American soldiers to nuclear centrifuge parts and a blueprint for a complete centrifuge (the crown jewel of nuclear physics) buried on the orders of Qusay Hussein; that Saddam's agents were in Damascus as late as February 2003, negotiating to purchase missiles off the shelf from North Korea; or that Rolf Ekeus, the great Swedish socialist who founded the inspection process in Iraq after 1991, has told me for the record that he was offered a $2 million bribe in a face-to-face meeting with Tariq Aziz. And these eye-catching examples would by no means exhaust my repertoire, or empty my quiver. Yes, it must be admitted that Bush and Blair made a hash of a good case, largely because they preferred to scare people rather than enlighten them or reason with them. Still, the only real strategy of deception has come from those who believe, or pretend, that Saddam Hussein was no problem.

As Glenn Reynolds would say, read the whole thing.

THE POLITICS OF THE ANTI-WAR MOVEMENT

If you go to the RealClearPolitics website, you will find links to a pair of commentaries by two very different kinds of conservatives who share a vision of the impact of the anti-war movement on the Democratic Party.

Pat Buchanan and David Frum have it exactly right. Buchanan says;

The reason Democrats must worry most today is that the antiwar movement taking shape is virulently anti-Bush; it is lodged, by and large, inside their party; it is passionate and intolerant; it has given new life to the Howard Deaniacs who went missing after the Iowa caucuses; and it will turn on any leader who does not voice its convictions.

Cindy Sheehan has sympathizers in Middle America, but to the Left she is "Mother Sheehan."
Consider Hillary's predicament. Today, she is taking the same cautious position on Iraq that Richard Nixon took in the fall of 1968 on Vietnam. She is saying she supports the war and the troops, but the war has been mismanaged and America needs new leadership.

No risk there. Hillary's problem is she is three years away from 2008, the antiwar movement increasingly looks on her as a collaborator in "Bush's War," and Democrats like Feingold are going to give these antiwar militants the rhetoric and stances they demand. Hillary's most rabid followers will depart if she does not leave Bush's side -- to lead them.

This surging antiwar movement will not permit moderates to get away with a stay-the-course, we-support-the-troops position. They will demand a timetable for withdrawal and rally to the candidate who offers one, just as antiwar Democrats rallied to Gene McCarthy, Bobby Kennedy and George McGovern in 1968.

The Democrats' dilemma is hellish. If this war ends successfully, Republicans get the credit. If it ends badly, Bush will be gone, but antiwar Democrats will be blamed for having cut and run, for losing the war and for the disastrous consequences in the Persian Gulf and Arab world.

Frum says;

But make no mistake: Americans are unhappy about the war in Iraq because they fear they are losing--not because they think the war wrong or immoral. Americans do not blame “American imperialism” for the problems of the Middle East. They know that Islamic terrorism threatens their country and favor strong measures to crush terrorism.

The so-called peace movement that has been drawing so much attention with its media stunts at the Bush ranch this summer thinks very differently. It opposed the Afghan war and now opposes the Iraq war because it opposes any and all American wars, successful or unsuccessful. It denies the reality of terrorism--or else thinks terrorism an unfortunate but understandable response to American aggression.

Here for example is Cindy Sheehan’s explanation of the war in Iraq. Sheehan of course is the summer’s media sensation, the mother of a Marine killed in Iraq who kept a vigil at President Bush’s Crawford ranch until the end of last week:

“Am I emotional? Yes, my first born was murdered. Am I angry? Yes, he was killed for lies and for a PNAC Neo-Con agenda to benefit Israel. My son joined the army to protect America, not Israel. Am I stupid? No, I know full well that my son, my family, this nation and this world were betrayed by George Bush who was influenced by the neo-con PNAC agendas after 9/11. We were told that we were attacked on 9/11 because the terrorists hate our freedoms and democracy … not for the real reason, because the Arab Muslims who attacked us hate our middle-eastern foreign policy.”

[PNAC is the acronym for the "Project for the New American Century"--a three person think tank in Washington DC that fills a large place in the imaginations of America's left-wing.]

Those words come from an email Sheehan sent on March 15 to the producers of the ABC News program, “Nightline.” Sheehan has since claimed that these words were inserted into her letter by a supporter, but this claim has been exposed as false by the journalist Christopher Hitchens in the online magazine Slate. But Sheehan’s excuse is if anything even more revealing than the truth. It is indeed the case that the antiwar movement is heavily populated by people who regard the whole 9/11 war as a Jewish plot.

The more Americans see of the antiwar movement, the more appalled they will be.

Just this past week on WBZ I received one anti-war call who said the insurgents were "freedom fighters" and another who said 9/11 was an Israeli operation. These people are at the core of the anti-war movement. They will demand that their candidate (whoever that might be) win the Democratic nomination in 2008. When he (or she) does not, they will withhold their support in November, and the hawkish Republican will win, just like 1968.

TUESDAY MORNING'S SHOW

Here are some of the things I am considering for discussion on tonight's show from Midnight to 5 AM on WBZ-Boston:

Is the almost monolithic support by African-Americans of the Democratic party showing some signs of weakening? Here is an article about the issue.

Here is a long piece on the issue of scientific inquiry into the origins of homosexuality. If we can ever reach some kind of scientific consensus on this question it will have a significant impact on the policy discussion regarding gays (i.e., marriage, military service, etc.).

The controversy over "Intelligent Design" theory, and whether or not it should have equal standing in public schools alongside Evolution, gets some more ink in the New York Times.

Should Congress be more aggressive in battling high oil and gas prices? This piece, in the Washington Times, argues that more can be done, including raising fuel-efficiency standards and releasing some of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

Finally, from the National Review, here is a pessimistic piece by John Cullinan and an optimistic piece by James Robbins about Iraq.

TONIGHT'S SHOW

Here are some of the topics I am looking at for tonight's show on WBZ-Boston from Midnight to 5 AM:

Erratic closing times are making driving in Boston late at night more difficult than it has to be.

Should Mitt Romney run for re-election as Governor of Massachusetts? A new poll shows some discouraging numbers for him. I think he will decline to run in order to make a serious effort for the GOP Presidential nomination.

The MSM is finally starting to pay more attention to the security risks being run at our porous southern border.

It's getting more inconvenient than ever to return bottles and cans in Massachusetts. So more people are just not doing it.

Evolution or intelligent design? The critics of evolution are on the offensive.

The military is being re-shaped by our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Joe Klein argues that the President should call Americans to service. I've been making the same argument since the day after 9/11...in vain.

I will also, no doubt, spend some time on the issue of staying the course in Iraq, and the criticisms being directed at the President by Cindy Sheehan, who lost her son in Iraq, but sounds mostly like the rest of the Bush-haters. Mark Steyn says the disintegration of her marriage is a metaphor for the divisions within the Democratic Party on this issue.

Also regarding Iraq, I highly recommend you read this piece by war-supporter Eliot Cohen, who is sending a son into the fight. I agree with many of his criticisms of the President and his administration.

WBZ THIS WEEK

I will be on WBZ-Boston this week filling-in for Steve Leveille. I will be on Monday, 8/22, Tuesday, 8/23 and Wednesday, 8/24 from Midnight to 5 AM. WBZ can be found at 1030 on the AM dial. I will post a link to some of the articles I am considering as source material for tonight's show a little later on.

BATTLEFIELD REPORTING

If you haven't read any of the battlefield reporting of Michael Yon, you should. His blog consistently provides some of the best, on-the-spot reporting of the day-to-day lives of American soldiers in Iraq that I have ever seen. Consider this example (ISF stands for Iraqi Security Forces, IED for Improvised Explosive Device, AK is short for AK-47, a Soviet-era automatic rifle that is commonly used in Iraq):

The Yarmuk traffic circle is fantastically dangerous. On the first mission I ran in Mosul, we lost two soldiers and an interpreter, all killed by a car bomb. Others were horribly burned, scarred for life. Many of our wounded and killed soldiers got it right here, or in the immediate vicinity. The ISF takes serious losses in this part of town. But it's not entirely one-sided-- the Deuce Four has killed well over 150 terrorists in this neighborhood in the past 10 months. But almost none of those made the news, and those that did had a few key details missing. Like the time when some ISF were driving and got blasted by an IED, causing numerous casualties and preventing them from recovering the vehicle. The terrorists came out and did their rifle-pumping-in-the-air thing, shooting AKs, dancing around like monkeys. Videos went ‘round the world, making it appear the terrorists were running Mosul, which was pretty much what was being reported at the time. But that wasn't the whole story. In the Yarmuk neighborhood, only terrorists openly carry AK-47s. The lawyers call this Hostile Intent. The soldiers call this Dead Man Walking. Deuce Four is an overwhelmingly aggressive and effective unit, and they believe the best defense is a dead enemy. They are constantly thinking up innovative, unique, and effective ways to kill or capture the enemy; proactive not reactive. They planned an operation with snipers, making it appear that an ISF vehicle had been attacked, complete with explosives and flash-bang grenades to simulate the IED. The simulated casualty evacuation of sand dummies completed the ruse. The Deuce Four soldiers left quickly with the "casualties," "abandoning" the burning truck in the traffic circle. The enemy took the bait. Terrorists came out and started with the AK-rifle-monkey-pump, shooting into the truck, their own video crews capturing the moment of glory. That's when the American snipers opened fire and killed everybody with a weapon. Until now, only insiders knew about the AK-monkey-pumpers smack-down.

I've often wondered why our guys don't just blast these people when they gather around a burning U.S. vehicle to celebrate their victory. I guess, at least in Mosul, someone with the power to do something about it thought the same thing.

A DISCOURAGING DAY

Yesterday was a discouraging day for those of us who believe in the mission in Iraq. Steven Vincent, a freelance journalist who also seemed to believe in the righteousness of the cause (while oftentimes being critical of the manners and methods being used), was murdered in Basra.

He ran a blog called In the Red Zone. Take a few minutes to read his last post, then check out his last commentary piece on the National Review website. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out the potential suspects in his murder. In fact, the major difficulty is not identifying suspects but trying to figure which group of thugs, thieves or fanatics got to him first.

The murder is discouraging because Basra, and the entire southern area, is not the most difficult part of the country for U.S. and pro-government Iraqi forces fighting the insurgents. Vincent's descriptions of the area seem to indicate a boiling pot of corruption, fanaticism, Iranian meddling and local incompetence.

Combined with the news from the northwest, as U.S. forces take significant casualties fighting insurgents who are being aided by people in Syria, including one story that seems to indicate our Marines were betrayed by ostensibly pro-government Iraqis, it creates a very discouraging picture.

I keep coming back to something Thomas Friedman wrote a couple of years ago in the New York Times. He said that what we needed to figure out about Iraq was simply whether or not Iraq is the way it is because of Saddam Hussein, or Saddam Hussein was the way he was because of Iraq. In other words, is Iraq a dysfunctional, barbarous place because Saddam, his sons and his cronies brutalized them, or was he a brutal tyrant because that is the only way to keep the country together in some semblance of order?

Yesterday's events give more ammunition to those who believe the latter. A very discouraging day, indeed.