Back in August of aught-two,
Matthew Rothschild - editor of The
Progressive - wrote an article in which he recommended not invading
Iraq, based on the following points:
- This invasion would be unconstitutional.
- It would be against international law.
- It would violate the Christian doctrine of
'just war.'
- It would further damage U.S. relations with
its allies, relations that are already frayed by Bush's mindless
unilateralism.
- It would wreak havoc in the Muslim world,
where there's plenty of havoc already.
- It could shake the U.S. economy, which is
trembling right now.
- And most importantly, it could result in the
deaths of thousands, perhaps tens of thousands, of innocent people.
He ends his list by stating:
"Worst case: It could end with the United States dropping a nuclear
bomb on Baghdad."
Little has changed regarding
the Left's arguments over the past seven months, so I will address these
points-is.
- This invasion would be unconstitutional. I'm
glad Mr. Rothschild started with this point, because it will be well for
me to get the one with which I agree out of the way early. Yes, it will
be unconstitutional, assuming nothing changes in Congress between now
and when the first shots are fired. Washington, D.C. would about cease
to exist if the Constitution were regarded anywhere above a vintage copy
of National Geographic Magazine. The Progressive had had
the whole time since its inception to chime in on the
unconstitutionality of a host of programs, agencies, and actions, and it
is suspicious that they should only appear on the issue now. The
magazine's mission - founded in 1909 - is to be a catalyst for
"social justice." Mr. Rothschild, social justice itself is
unconstitutional...how about that?
- It would be against international law. Are we
following the Constitution or 'international law?" What is this
law, anyway? Where does its congress meet? Who are its elected
officials? Where in our Constitution is an assent to international law?
- It would violate the Christian doctrine of
'just war.' Christian doctrines come from the Bible. 'Just war' theory,
despite its noble origins, is a teaching of man - not scripture. One
would be hard-pressed to come up with a single example of a 'just' war
[according to men] in all the wars ordered by the Almighty Himself. In a
world where all history is ordered by God, there are only two states:
war and peace. All this haggling over just or not just warfare is only
so much trying to console ourselves of our own supposed righteousness.
Can history turn out any other way besides the way God intended? Think
about that?
- It would further damage U.S. relations with
its allies, relations that are already frayed by Bush's mindless
unilateralism. Baloney. Victory will make all the pink-underwear-clad
nations of the world line up behind us saying, "we were always with
you."
- It would wreak havoc in the Muslim world,
where there's plenty of havoc already. The one thing the Middle East has
needed for the last 60-odd years is someone to come back in and restore
order. The previous comments regarding God's sovereignty over history
notwithstanding, the British were daft for letting go of the Mandate. In
this world, there are obviously two kinds of people: those who can
govern themselves in peace, and those who can't. The only determining
factor consistent with the facts is religion. The Christian world builds
streets, factories, churches, and schools...they invent things that
improve people's lives...they sacrifice some of their gain to support
the less fortunate. The pagan world can't wait to blow itself and
everyone else to pieces. They are a bunch of naughty children who need
spanked and sent to bed hungry. In the morning, we'll talk about
restoring privileges.
- It could shake the U.S. economy, which is
trembling right now. Tell that to people who work in the defense
industry. The guy who gets laid off thinks the economy stinks, while his
neighbor thinks things are just fine. There are always winners and
losers in economics, whether at war or peace. The U.S. Economy will do
very nicely, thank you.
- And most importantly, it could result in the
deaths of thousands, perhaps tens of thousands, of innocent people.
Being an American, Mr. Rothschild should understand what federal
representation means. Even though Iraq does not have a 'federal'
government in the sense that we do, Saddam Hussein 'federally'
represents his people to the world. Therefore, if Saddam is our enemy,
by federal extension, so are the Iraqi people. An Iraqi who makes the
effort to revolt or escape the country will escape being federally
represented by Saddam, but anyone who stays and complies with el
presidente' [...whatever they call him there,] - women, old folks, and
children included - are fair targets for destruction. This is why taking
down the twin towers, regardless of the pentagon strike, was an act of
war, even though the target was civilian. See any number of Chapters in
the Old Testament for examples of merciless total war bearing God's
blessing.
And if the war resulted in
"the United States dropping a nuclear bomb on Baghdad," why is
that bad? Why is it okay to drop a thousand bombs to kill a million people,
but evil to drop one that gets the job done quicker and cheaper? Seems the
idea of fighting a war is to win it, and if that is the goal, then why
shouldn't we put our best equipment into the fray? Why do all manner of
panties get bunched when the A-word is spoken? If it was me, I'd have
dropped a big one on Baghdad already. We treated Japan to a couple of them,
and we haven't heard a militaristic squeak from them since - the Bomb
having significantly changed their culture.
In fact, our refusal to use our
arsenal to enforce peace in the days after World War II may be responsible
for more deaths than we think we saved by not using it...
