Geoff, for what it's worth, the Krauthammer article is a clever blend of truths used to create a slight deception. The truth is that many radicals are attracted to the "peace movement" but that sets up straw men who he can attack in order to make his unsupported primary points.
Those unsupported arguments are, first, "Afghanistan, a war that is not only just by every possible measure but also remarkably successful."
I believe the war in Afghanistan was justified and it was successful. We sent a message to the governments of the world that we would not sit idly by while they supported, protected and encouraged militant groups that attack America or American interests. Whether we can stay and prop up a friendly Afghan government, however, and be "successful" is a much more difficult question. It appears that the longer we stay the harder it will get. "Know when to leave" might be the lesson when it comes to attempting to remake societies, and blithely saying that "by every possible measure [we are] remarkably successful," implying that current anti-war protestors are wrong simply, reaches too far.
The second unsupported argument is found in his statement that "[t]he only choices are to succeed in establishing a self-sufficient, democratic Iraq or to call an abject retreat that not only gives Iraq over to the tender mercies of people who specialize in blowing up innocents but also makes it a base of operations for worldwide jihad."
That's the real point he's trying to drive home with this glib assertion in the middle of an essay that denigrates the opposition, and the accuracy of that statement is highly questionable. Will staying or leaving make American more or less safe, cost America more or less, benefit Jihdists or harm their cause, in fact, is staying for an indeterminate period of time to "establish a self-sufficient, democratic Iraq" even doable? I think it clearly isn't.
Krauthammer's efforts to trivialize the anti-war movement and cast the questions in black and white terms that assume we can win is, at best, naive. Having listened to him on several occasions, however, I doubt he's naive; I suspect he's laughing at those he "convinces." Ed |
