The War Non-Debate

Friday, June 13, 2008

Editor's Note: The good news is that I have some measure of Internet access. The bad news is that to use it, I had to fire up my wife's Windows machine and use Internet Explorer. I feel like I'm stretching my neck just to log on to my throw-away email account, let alone my blogging account or main email. So it'll just be a brief emailed post today, and if you've left a comment or tried to email me recently, I'll reply as soon as I can.

Elan Journo of the Ayn Rand Institute has just written a piece that in the wake of yesterday's Supreme Court decision concerning the captured foreign combatants being held at Guantanamo should make you really mad. He discusses the lack of debate about the current war during this election cycle, which would be bad enough in any time of war, but which the results of the policies of the past six years makes unforgivable.

Journo aptly summarizes the Bush "war" policy as, "not to target the greatest threat, but instead to minister to those in greatest need. ... to show compassion to oppressed Iraqis and Afghans, to raise them out of poverty, to give them elections," and then he lays out the inevitable results of that policy:

Six-plus years into a "war on terror," Washington has done nothing to counter the spearhead of the global jihadist movement, the Islamic Republic of Iran. The United States has allowed it to grow stronger. Iran races to acquire nuclear weapons; it taunts and threatens our naval vessels; it arms and trains insurgents in Iraq in attacking Americans; it backs jihadists across the region--all with impunity.

What about Iraq? Four thousand-plus U.S. troops died so that hostile Iraqis could elect a new gang of anti-Americans to sit in Baghdad's parliament. Iraq's government is still dominated by Islamist groups, which still operate death squads, and it is still deep, deep in Iran's pocket.

Across the Middle East, Washington campaigned for elections in the strongholds of various Islamist groups--such as Hamas and Hezbollah--that it should have worked to destroy. Many people, true to their ideological beliefs, voted to give these groups more political power. Naturally, the jihadists feel encouraged. According to a new study, the Iranian-backed Hamas has amassed at least 80 tons of explosives in Gaza since 2007, and it has also got its hands on anti-tank weapons. So expect another Islamist war emanating from the terrorist proto-state of "Hamas-stan," which Bush's policy helped create. [bold added]
As for the Supreme Court decision, I am not familiar enough with it to comment on whether it was correct, considering the rationale used by the Bush administration for holding and trying the war prisoners by military tribunals. But something in one or both of the branches of government involved is clearly horribly wrong.

Our government hasn't the will to fight a real war, it won't let our soldiers kill the enemy, and now, apparently, it won't even take prisoners!

-- CAV


: Corrected formatting of post.


Myrhaf said...

I don't know if you're able to do comments at the moment, but I must say that this ruling continues the disastrous trend of confusing war as criminal justice. The implication is that our soldiers and marines should read the enemy its miranda rights before attacking. To the enemy this nonsense is just more evidence that we are not serious about fighting them.

Gus Van Horn said...

That's right.

What's worse is that in addition, the massive intellectual confusion of our times will help this ruling make it look like America faces the following false alternative: Either appeasement with some respect for liberty OR fighting the war without.

Come to think of it, McCain vs Obama very closely personifies this.