The anti-war crowd has some explaining to do

Jonah Goldberg

April 11, 2003

I want to rub it in the anti-war crowd's face so badly. I want to hear the protesters explain why it's a bad thing we released more than 100 children from an Iraqi gulag for underage political prisoners. I want them to talk about how they were fighting for the Iraqi people as the Iraqi people hug and kiss the American forces in Baghdad and greet the human shields with signs reading "Go Home You Wankers." I want them to explain why it wasn't worth it.

And they do have answers. The communist front group ANSWER is still organizing "Stop the War" rallies, which, practically speaking, is like trying to bail out the Titanic with a spoon 10 minutes before it goes under. They'll say stuff like it's still a war for oil, or that one tyranny is being replaced by another, or something else very silly. And that's fine -- if the anti-war movement really wants to attain permanent parody status.

During much of the lead-up to the war, I thought many people in the anti-war movement were silly and misguided. Once the war started and they kept playing their games, I thought they went from being wrong to being dangerous fools. Because once we were committed to war, the idea of stopping it without total victory was nuts.

Osama bin Laden attacked us precisely because he perceived Americans as weak in the wake of the first Gulf War, the first World Trade Center bombing, the so-called "Black Hawk Down" incident in Somalia, the Cole attack, etc. He concluded that we didn't have the intestinal fortitude to stand our ground.

If the peace-at-all-costs crowd had its way, we would have called off the fighting a week into the war, leaving Saddam Hussein in place -- making him a hero and putting a "kick me" sign on Uncle Sam's back.

But that debate is over. The war happened. Now, the protestors can move on or wallow in bitterness. The practical question is, what's next? The Bush administration says it wants what is best for the Iraqi people. The anti-war protestors say they want what is best for the Iraqi people. If the anti-war people are more serious than I generally give them credit for, they will stop whining about U.S. imperialism and start offering constructive support for making Iraq a democratic and prosperous country.

Instead of sending "human shields" to prop up a dictator who ordered the rapes of his enemies, they will send people to help with the reconstruction. Instead of whining about their lost civil liberties here at home whenever they get arrested for blocking traffic, they will offer support for the creation of real civil liberties in Iraq, where until very recently the meekest whisper against Saddam would result in an amputated tongue.

I was giving a speech at Williams College on the future of democracy in the Middle East on the day Saddam's statue was torn down in central Baghdad. I had the opportunity afterward to talk to a very bright anti-war student activist. He told me that the main reason he still couldn't support the war -- even though he conceded the brutality of Saddam Hussein and acknowledged the joy of the Iraqi people -- was that he simply didn't trust George W. Bush.

I suspect this is the case with many anti-war folks. It certainly seems to be, judging from the e-mail I get or from reading the drek one sees at the more rabid Web sites, like the hilariously deluded Democraticunderground.com.

And that's fine; distrust of politicians is one of the things that make America great. But dislike for a president shouldn't eclipse love of country or adherence to principle. The anti-warriors claim they aren't anti-American. I believe that's true of the vast majority of them, though some of them clearly think America is a force for evil in the world (and I think these people should be ashamed for being so asinine).

Regardless, all of them claimed they cared deeply about the fate of the Iraqi people. Well, 99.99 percent of the Iraqis will still be in Iraq when the war is over. Presumably, the anti-war crowd wants the Iraqi people to have the same rights and freedoms that we have here. If they do, they should be prepared to support the president when he works to make that happen, and they should feel free to criticize him when he doesn't.

But if the anti-war activists start from the position that Bush is wrong no matter what he does now simply because they disagreed with him back then, well, then these people aren't serious people at all. They're just the fools so many of us take them for.

Jonah Goldberg is editor of National Review Online , a TownHall.com member group.

It would be nice if these persistent whiner/complainer conservatives like me would get their collective heads out of their collective asses and admit they were very very wrong about this war and about GW Bush.

You're really not helping Indymedia's image, you know?

As if it needed any help looking goofy...

The real Bush Admirer = the real daveman. It's the same fascist nut. Anyone surprised?

Way to go, Bush Admirer. Whenever we conservatives have nothing intelligent to say, we can always resort to being condescending. Great job!

Show me proof of your accusations! Now!

Way to go. Whenever we conservatives have nothing intelligent to say, we can always resort to acting like we're on crack. Great job!

Please consider enlisting in the Zionist army. You two sound as though you have as much hate for those wicked Palestinians as I do. You'd make great killing machines.

Come on, didn't any of you actually read the article at the front of this post? Don't treat this site as a place for silly slander, you are only working to cheapen what is a great forum for people to speak intelligent, well informed thoughts on serious issues, whatever side of the spectrum you may be on. Be responsible please, thank you.

This article does raise a good question though. Despite right and wrong, can we all go do what is right and help to make Iraq the place we and the Iraqi citizens want it to be? I don't think we should be expecting an apology though. I happened to be in favor of this campaign from the beginning but, I don't think anyone that was opposed owes anyone a damn apology. You can think, and believe what you will, to the extent that you wish, that is America. At this point, it's a moral imperative that we combine ourselves, label all of us collectively what we really are-Americans. Let's do our best to help the people of Iraq and set a positive example for them.

All the finger pointing and assigning blame and demanding apologies is fundamentaly wrong, leave it be people. We should not be at eachothers throats for issues such as this because, what productive purpose does it serve and, what kind of example are wer setting for the newly freed Iraqis? Ourselves? and ultimately, our children?

IF we are not careful, nothing positive will come out of this in the US. And that is sad and unacceptable when their is such potential.

Bush Admirer huh?

I am a Bush admirer too. In the Presidential sense, and in the your skanky mother sense too.

"Way to go. Whenever we conservatives have nothing intelligent to say, we can always resort to being condescending. Great job!"

As long as this person keeps it up, he disrupts the thread. He disrupts the thread, fewer people read it. Fewer people read it, fewer people that can get reeled in by it. It's a good thing.

Read my article, please. I'm just dying to indoctrinate you and "reel" you in like a fish. Oh, wait a second. Only conservatives are that dumb.

So someone from the National Review posts on the IMC? Big

freaking deal, don't they have their own website.

Please, don't these neocon mo-mos have FoxTV and CNN already, why do we have to hear their extreme drivel here. That's like giving creedence so some Goebbels propaganda. The gentlemen above (JEFF) has a good heart, but he is naive in his resistance to see the commander in chief in a critical light. The US has no business in Iraq's reconstruction just as they had no business supporting Saddam when the Iraqi people rose up in late February of 1991.

Seems every site has these types. Just ignore them and go on. I'm familiar enough with the people here to know who is who. If Diogenes or Bush Admirer appears to say something that doesn't sound like them, then it's not them. Unless LA-IMC decides to block their IP, there's not a lot anyone can do.

that a child could figure it out. It is a war for oil. Other leaders in other areas have done the same and got away with it. The agenda is $$$$$$$$$. If there was no oil in Iraq, Saddam would still be sittin' pretty and if you argue that point, you are naive. There's no other way to say it.

Unfortunately you're correct. Ignore them and sometimes they go away. But there's always someone else waiting in the wings. Too bad, this used to be an informative forum without children playing on the line.

Free Palestine!

Why don't you go away? Since you dislike children, do society a favor and don't have any.

Yes. When mommy's away it appears this child is going to play. He's even doing it with our conversation. Just ignore.

Free Palestine!

Free Mumia!

Please take yourself out of the gene pool, you wicked towelhead.

Interesting post, thanks for your candor and for engaging in this debate. That said...

I am not resistent to seeing the Commander in Chief in a negative light. In fact, their is much that I would disagree with as far as Pres. Bushs' politics. For instance, the assumption by this administration(any many before it)that it is only ok for the US to have Nuclear Weapons which they now characterize as a WMD. Is the rest of the world supposed to take our claim on face value that we are responsible enough to have them? I believe this causes much of the world and many people in the US to see our Gov't and Bush in a very hypocritical light. I admit with no shame, that I am on of these. So, as I do support the Bush administration for the most part, I am also not afraid of being critical of President Bush, and his politics when I see fit to do so.

As for the other part of your response, it's hard for me to swallow that we have no part in the reconstruction of Iraq, or that we had no part in helping the Iraqi uprise in Feb 91'. I tend to feel that if we are going to unleash our military might, like many other countries are capable of, what sets us apart and demonstrates our spirit as America is our willingness to help the civilian population after the bombs and bullets are done flying. I don't see us as the wreck your neighberhood and leave type of people. We realize that the civilians of Iraq may not need our help in rebuilding but, as far as our morals go, we feel that if we messed it up, we owe it to them to help clean up. Can you see where I'm coming from?

Again, thanks for writing and sharing your thoughts.

I apologize, the last post was to be addressed to apache.

The difference between the past and the present national security:

In the past, the US worked to rid the world of WMD, proliferation, etc.

Today, the US is getting rid of "rogue states" that have WMD.

The pivotal point/change appears when one nation is good and another bad.

on reconstruction efforts of Iraq, well isn't that a mute point? Not only is the US expected to contribute, but we are bound by law.

Equally, if we did not help, the majority of the pro-war population in the US would arguably turn on the Administration: After all, most people believe this war is for freedom, hence the name "IRAQI FREEDOM INVASION" and not "NO WMD CAMPAIGN"

Of course, if US decides to change the rules of the game again, nothing is stopping the US. This is a benefit of Imperial rule. Of course, that will be suicide for the Bushites.



(ps. if you sincerely think the US is not an Imperial power, read about Panama, Philippines, and Cuba... See Roosevlt.)

THESE HOLLYWOOD LIBERALS AND POLITICAL LIBERALS SHOULD LEARN TO KEEP THEIR MOUTHS SHUT. THE MORE THEY SPOUT THE DUMMER THEY SOUND. THANK GOD WE HAVE A DECENT PRESIDENT.

Way to go, JERRY. Whenever we conservatives don't have a valid argument, we can always tell the other side to keep their mouths shut. Great job!