August 27, 2005

The Racism of the Anti-War Movement

Jim Forsyth on the racism of the Anti-War movement:
Like most Texas reporters, I have made the pilgrimage to interview Cindy Sheehan and her anti war comrades parked in front of Crawford. One of the made-for-television signs held up behind Cindy during the news event I attended was particularly disturbing. “Iraq,” read the sign held aloft by two prosperous looking white women,“is Arabic for Vietnam.”

By holding this sign, I presume they would favor that the Iraq war end the same way the war in Vietnam ended. I also presume that this means they would not oppose the same fate for the people of Iraq that befell the people of Vietnam and Cambodia after the end of US involvement there, which was one of the more horrible in the sorry annals of twentieth century tyranny. But in 1975, we were told by the anti war crowd that, after all, they were only Asians, they probably couldn’t understand democracy anyway, and knew it wouldn’t work ‘for them.’ Its sad to see the same attitude repeated today, that its not worth the blood of white Americans like Casey Sheehan to win freedom and democracy for ‘those people,’ in this case, brown skinned Arab Muslims.

Even if you drink every last drop of the anti war Kool Aid, even if you are convinced that President Bush was ordered by the Chairman of Halliburton to start the Iraq war and that he intentionally lied to the American people about the existence of weapons of mass destruction, the simple fact is that today, there is demonstrably more freedom for the people of Iraq and for the people of Afghanistan, some 50 million brown skinned Muslims. Yes, there is dawdling over the drafting of an Iraqi constitution, but before April of 2003, metal shredders and rape rooms awaited any Iraqi who breathed the word ‘constitution.’ Yes, a brutal insurgency continues to threaten the Iraqi people, an insurgency which has killed some 25,000 Iraqi civilians since April of 2003. But Saddam Hussein, even by conservative estimates, butchered 1.5 million Iraqis during his 25 years in power (not counting the one million who died in the war he started with Iran). So Saddam and his goons killed an average of 60,000 people a year, while the insurgency has killed 25,000 in two and a half years. Despite the hand-wringing over the insurgency, the devil’s arithmetic would indicate that life for the average Iraq is actually safer today than it was under Saddam. But they’re brown skimmed Muslims, so not worthy of America’s notice, let alone America’s sacrifice.

President Bush is actually the greatest liberator of Muslims in history, considering that there weren’t 50 million people in the entire MIddle East when Saladin beat back the Crusader hordes. But to the anti war activists, providing freedom from slavery, democratic and economic opportunity to brown skinned people isn’t worth the sacrifice of white Americans. Good thing they weren’t around when Lincoln was drafting the Emancipation Proclamation.
Wow. Read it all.

The Democrats position on Iraq is essentially that Bush lied in order to justify the invasion of Iraq. Put simply, Bush told us that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction; however, none were found after the invasion. Does this mean that Bush lied? The Democrats believe so. And as a result, many Democrats feel that we should immediately withdrawal to rectify this wrong.

The Bush "lie" allegation is ridiculous. In order for Bush's statements on WMD's to have been lies, Bush would have had to know that Saddam, in fact, had no such WMD's and continued to make claims that he knew were false. Everyone - Republicans, Democrats, France, Germany, Russia, the U.N., etc. - believed that Saddam had WMD's and that Saddam was not complying with the U.N. inspection requirements. Were Clinton and Gore lying about Iraq? Did the Democrats, who lead the charge on the Iraqi Liberation Act in 1998, lie about the WMD's and the need for regime change? Why did Clinton risk our airmen to enforce U.N. resolutions if there were no WMD's and intelligence was readily available to reveal that there were none (as would be required in order for the "Bush Lie" theory is to work).

Did Bush make a mistake? Did the CIA do a really lousy job of gathering intelligence? Evidently, they did. Was Bush pre-disposed to see the intelligence in a certain way? Maybe, but most of the world believed Saddam had WMD’s and clearly, intelligence analysis is not an exact science. However, the idea that Bush knew there were no WMD's or that Saddam had little nuclear capability is nothing more than a conspiracy theory perpetuated by the Democrats to vilify Bush.

WMD's was only one of many factors that Bush cited in making his case for war. Of the many rationales he offered to support his case for war, was the liberation of the Iraqi people from a brutal dictator that raped, tortured and killed his own people. Our soldiers have found the torture rooms and the mass graves. This is a fact never refuted by the Democrats because they would have you believe that the single reason we went to war was WMD's.

No matter whether you believe the United States should or should not have invaded Iraq, it is irrelevant. We invaded Iraq over two years ago. The issue is not "should we have invaded Iraq?", but instead, "now that we have invaded Iraq, what comes next?"

We are currently in the process of assisting the Iraqis install a democratic form of government while attempting to destroy a brutal terrorist insurgency that has killed more Iraqis than Americans. Are American efforts succeeding? Only time will tell.

The Democrats, however, have grown increasingly hostile to our efforts in Iraq. While most Democrats continue to criticize the Administration's every move in Iraq and the increasing American casualties, a large number of Democrats now insist on our immediate withdrawal and are actively rooting for either the failure of the fledgling Iraqi democracy or the utter defeat of our military operations.

If the U.S. were to withdraw immediately, it is more likely than not that the fledgling democracy would be no match for the brutal Bathist and Al-Qaida insurgency. Upon gaining power, a brutal dictatorship would emerge whereby rape, torture and murder would, once again, become a fact of every day life for Iraqis. What would happen to the Iraqi citizens - especially, those now in government or those who assisted American forces? Do I really need to answer that question? Thousands would be tortured and killed.

If you advocate withdrawal, you must answer the question: “what will happen to the Iraqis?” Will withdrawal from Iraq result in a catastrophe similar to Vietnam and Cambodia after 1974? If so, aren’t we justified in staying to at least finish the job?

For all Democrats, who consider themselves feminists or at the very least sensitive to women's rights, it is important to remember that an Al-Qaida run country would be a nightmare for Iraqi women. As Al-Qaida adheres to the extreme Wahabbist form of Islam, Iraq would become no different than the Taliban-run Afghanistan. Women would have no rights, but would instead become the property of their fathers and husbands. Women would be forced to wear burqas. Women would be unable to attend school, practice any professions, travel outside of the country without their father or husband's permission, or drive cars. The "honor killings" that are so rampant among Islamic extremists would be tolerated. Is this a satisfactory result? Is the protection of Iraqi women not enough of a noble purpose for fighting this war?

The Democratic Party that I knew (and was previously a member of) was the party of human rights. It was the Democrats who were most vocal about torture and death dealt by cruel dictators in far away places. It was the Democrats who were most passionate about providing assistance to our fellow human beings. It was the Democrats who passed the Iraqi Liberation Act (thereby making regime change in Iraq an official U.S. governmental policy). The Democratic Party that I knew was not the party of isolationists that they would seem to be today.

The Democrats are not the isolationists that they would appear to be and have previously supported military interventions in other countries such as those in Bosnia and Liberia. Each such intervention was intended to protect the human rights of the civilians in these respective countries.

If, as a Democrat, you believe in the advancement of human rights, then why are you not applauding the Administration’s efforts in Iraq? Saddam Hussein was responsible for the sadistic torture and deaths of millions of people. Is the hatred of George Bush so intense that you cannot admit that even he could be capable of doing good?

Are the Democrats, who are involved in the anti-war movement, racists? I would not label them as such unless they do, in fact, actually believe that either (a) democracy will never work in Iraq or (b) the lives of Iraqis are not worthy of our protection.

Many of the anti-war activists are anti-Israel and largely anti-Semitic (International ANSWER, Code Pink, and the Crawford House to name a few). This, however, will be the subject of an upcoming post.

For others blogging about this subject: Environmental Republican, Ultima Thule; Notes of a Nervous Harpist; Wide Awake Cafe; Digital Irony; Cyber-Conservative; Gay Patriot;
| |

<< Home