Kerrey: Centrality of the War in Iraq

By way of Bill Bennett's radio program this morning came notice of former Democratic Senator and Presidential candidate now New School President's, Bob Kerrey, commentary on liberals and supporting the War. It is must reading.

It is entitled "The Left's Iraq Muddle". He begins with a concise restatement of the justifications for deposing Saddam and he does so by invoking the tried and true American foreign policy that believes democracies can be imposed by military.

Here is the key part:

American liberals need to face these truths: The demand for self-government was and remains strong in Iraq despite all our mistakes and the violent efforts of al Qaeda, Sunni insurgents and Shiite militias to disrupt it. Al Qaeda in particular has targeted for abduction and murder those who are essential to a functioning democracy: school teachers, aid workers, private contractors working to rebuild Iraq's infrastructure, police officers and anyone who cooperates with the Iraqi government. Much of Iraq's middle class has fled the country in fear.

With these facts on the scales, what does your conscience tell you to do? If the answer is nothing, that it is not our responsibility or that this is all about oil, then no wonder today we Democrats are not trusted with the reins of power. American lawmakers who are watching public opinion tell them to move away from Iraq as quickly as possible should remember this: Concessions will not work with either al Qaeda or other foreign fighters who will not rest until they have killed or driven into exile the last remaining Iraqi who favors democracy.

The key question for Congress is whether or not Iraq has become the primary battleground against the same radical Islamists who declared war on the U.S. in the 1990s and who have carried out a series of terrorist operations including 9/11. The answer is emphatically "yes."

This does not mean that Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11; he was not. Nor does it mean that the war to overthrow him was justified--though I believe it was. It only means that a unilateral withdrawal from Iraq would hand Osama bin Laden a substantial psychological victory.

Do read the rest.

Character of America

Joe Knippenberg points out Will McClay's recent speech on how bad times have, in the past, always called out the best in America. And in particular, he sees our current struggle against Islamic extremism as our generation's challenge.

Here is the concluding paragraph:

The lesson for Americans is clear. There may be today, just as George Kennan famously observed 60 years ago of the Cold War, a certain providential quality to the challenges that have been placed before us at this time. Certainly the challenges presented by Islamist terrorism are ones that confront us (and even more profoundly confront Europe) in the very places where we are confused and irresolute, and force us to see that we have fallen into ways of thinking and living that we cannot and should not sustain. They represent a mortal threat—but they are also an opportunity. By forcing us to defend ourselves, they force us to take to heart the question of what kind of civilization we are willing, and able, to defend. Not merely as an academic question, but a question of life and death.

Read the rest here. Do note that McClay's speech is one of several given at the Bradley Symposium dedicated to "Who Are We Today? American Character and Identity in the 21st Century." Be sure to check out them all.

Bush Undoing What Good He has Done?

Has Bush reversed the pro-democratic and pro-western reform he brought about in north Africa? So says this AEI scholar, Jeffrey Azarva, in his assessment of the work that Bush has done over his two terms. This would be a great misfortune. It would seem to indicate doubt in the central Bush doctrine of the universality of the love of freedom. Further, it indicate a return to realism, the western policy that has allowed the fever swamps in the Middle East to fester its radical anti-westernism in the first place. Not good at all.

Here is the beginning of Azarva's piece:

On November 6, 2003, President George W. Bush proclaimed, "Sixty years of Western nations excusing and accommodating the lack of freedom in the Middle East did nothing to make us safe--because in the long run, stability cannot be purchased at the expense of liberty." This strategic shift, coupled with the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, put regional governments on notice. The following spring, Tunisia's president, Zine El Abidine Bin Ali, and Egypt's president, Hosni Mubarak--stalwart allies in the U.S.-led war on terrorism and two of North Africa's most pro-American rulers--were among the first Arab leaders to visit Washington and discuss reform. But with this "Arab spring" has come the inadvertent rise of Islamist movements throughout the region. Now, as U.S. policymakers ratchet down pressure, Egypt and Tunisia see a green light to backtrack on reform.

(ht: Michael Rubin on the Corner)