- The Washington Times - Thursday, October 16, 2003

The problem with the anti-war elite — and by that I mean most of the Democratic presidential candidates and their assorted liberal “wise men” — is that political attacks on the president’s war on Islamic terrorism won’t always be enough. It’s just a matter of time before taking shots at the president (Howard Dean), nixing the White House’s $87 billion funding request to stabilize Iraq (John Edwards, John KerryandDennis Kucinich), and penning essays for the New York Review of Books titled “Iraq:WhatWent Wrong” (former Gen. Wesley Clark), will seem evasive at best, even obstructionist. Soon, the burning question Democrats must answer will be not what they think is wrong with President Bush’s policy, but what they, as members of the anti-war elite, would do in his place.

This is a tough question. It forces members of the anti-war elite to admit they would have left Saddam Hussein and his murderous regime in place — not exactly a sure-fire policy to make either Iraq or the world safe for democracy. And now that most of the Democratic presidential candidates have come out against the president’s $87 billion funding request to stabilize and democratize the terror-torn, debt-laden country, they are taking themselves and their party to a new extreme. Indeed, being anti-Bush and anti-war, Democrats now pack a double political whammy that, in effect, bolsters Ba’athists and vitiates victory. And it leaves the American left prone to increasingly weird contradictions.

Writing in the New York Review of Books, the ever-evolving anti-war candidate Wesley Clark excoriates the president at length over everything he thinks went wrong in Iraq — as if lecturing on ancient history, not unfinished business — only to throw out this startling bit: “All else being equal, the region and the Iraqi people are better off with Saddam gone.” So what is it, a reader may wonder, that fundamentally and philosophically “went wrong” here? In the same magazine issue, anti-war historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr. castigates the president for a foreign policy of “doctrinaire unilateralism and moralistic arrogance,” before pausing to observe that were the administration to have followed the historian’s own recommendations, Saddam Hussein “would probably still be in power in Baghdad.” (Probably?) Mr. Schlesinger adds: “This is an unsettling thought for opponents of the war.”

Why? Opponents of the war necessarily supported the continued reign of the Iraqi despot. The opposite of “regime change” is the status quo — or worse. Much more unsettling is the fact that for Messrs. Clark and Schlesinger, among other liberals who bewail the absence of what Mr. Clark calls “international legitimacy,” critical and moral faculties turn not on immutable standards of fair play and self-preservation, but on such fickle expediencies as “multi-national” consensus — or animus toward Mr. Bush.

This seems to be enough for some people. In a slurpy paean to Mr. Clark, Yale’s Harold Bloom declares in the Wall Street Journal that because Mr. Clark saved tens of thousands of Muslim lives in Bosnia and Kosovo, he’s the man for our times. (Given that George W. Bush saved that many Muslims and more by deposing Saddam Hussein, perhaps the Yale lit light should reconsider his endorsement.) Mr. Bloom also declares his anti-Saddam bona fides: “I trust it is clear that I am not deploring our deposing of Saddam Hussein, though its motivations remain obscure.”

Maybe the 2003 “Military Balance” report issued by the International Institute of Strategic Studies this week will clarify things. Among the findings of the London-based think tank is its assessment, noted by the Associated Press, that the war in Iraq “hurt al-Qaeda by denying it a potential source of weapons of mass destruction and discouraging states such as Syria and Iran from supporting it.” WMD threat and mass butchery aside, this is Objective A in the war on Islamic terrorism. And who, as the songwriter wrote — besides Messrs. Clark, Edwards, Dean, Kucinich and Schlesinger, et al — could ask for anything more?

Such scholarly confirmation of the logic on the ground should help solidify the recent rise in the president’s job approval ratings. American achievements in Iraq, as delineated by L. Paul Bremer, Iraq’s civilian administrator, won’t hurt either: 13,000 new reconstruction projects, 40,000 new police officers, 22 million vaccines, 4,900 Internet connections, 1,500 school renovations and more electricity generated than before the war — not to mention freedom from torture and freedom of speech. Small wonder, really, the Senate is going the president’s way on Iraqi aid; that Turkey has decided to send troops into Iraq after all; that Japan is finally kicking in some cash to the reconstruction effort. A new Gallup poll may provide the most significant development of all: 71 percent of Baghdad residents say they want U.S. troops to stay in Iraq for an extended period.

All of which may be bad news for Democratic presidential candidates, but it’s a big lift for everyone else.

Copyright © 2019 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

The Washington Times Comment Policy

The Washington Times welcomes your comments on Spot.im, our third-party provider. Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.


Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide