When I hear the phrase, "pro-war factions" - I always wonder: who is it that is pro war? Who wishes to see young people maimed or killed? Who wants innocent civilians to get caught in cross-fire? Who desires the detested but inevitable war crimes that seem to occur, no matter how well one tries to avoid them? Who chooses for money to be spent on guns and bombs and armor and funerals instead of highways and schools and museums and medicine?
Who are these people?
Victor David Hanson tries to explain what "pro-war" really means - and, as always, he does it better than almost anyone else.
For those who now associate the crimes of a few with an entire war effort, do any think that women and children were not maimed and worse when Bill Clinton — with no Senate approval and no effort to go to the U.N. — bombed downtown Belgrade on the righteous logic that the risk of collateral damage (500-1000 charred Serbian civilians?) was worth taking to stop a genocide? Do we remember that NATO planes mistakenly hit passenger trains, buses, an embassy, a rest home, a hospital, and apartment buildings?
When we see pictures of horrific starvation in Somalia and hear the liberal mantra “do something,” do we recall the hundreds of Somalis we killed to extract our soldiers from that Black-Hawk Down nightmare? Does anyone really believe that Gen. Zinni’s “Operation Desert Fox” — we were told that we killed several hundred — chewed up only Republican Guard troops busy in WMD labs?
And if we were to go to Darfur, as so many liberals now envision, to stop another holocaust, could that evil be excised without some death of innocents? After all, to fight in Darfur is not to prance in and declare victory, but to send these same now-demonized Marines into a disease-infested sinkhole, where “civilians” kill and there is no real way to distinguish friend from foe.
In truth, the good that the United States has achieved in successful wars usually has far overshadowed the horrific means used to achieve it. That is why formerly fascist German and Italian newspapers on the cheap can roast the United States today. And why upscale South Koreans are not, like their northern counterparts, eating grass; why there are not now Banzai marches in Tokyo; why there are Kosovars and Bosnians still left on the planet; why the odious Daniel Ortega is freely running for office; why Gen. Noriega is not clubbing his opponents on the streets of Panama City; and yes, why the Eastern Europeans wish to join the E.U. instead of being forced into the Warsaw Pact, and why the Russians use oil profits, not missiles, to get their way. In contrast, does anyone believe that Vietnam, or Haiti, or present-day Somalia is better off for our past failures?
So by all means investigate Haditha. Try and convict any who broke the rules of war, and sullied the honor of the U.S. Marine Corps.
But please spare us the scripted outrage that is simply cheap cover for wanting Iraq to end as Vietnam, as there appear ten stories on Haditha for every one about either an American victory over terrorists or help for Iraqi civilians. Any true moralist who cares for the Iraqi people should pray that this war doesn’t devolve into helicopters on the embassy roof — followed by the old predictable liberal silence when the real killing begins.
Is there a 'war is a necessary option' faction?
Posted by: Steve | Saturday, June 10, 2006 at 10:00 AM