The Central Front and a Resettlement Plan for Liberals

Weekly Standard is worth its price because of its articles on military strategy. No mass media source has equal coverage. For instance, one of my favorite news sources, the Economist, lacks editors who can write intelligently about military strategy, although they seem to do a great job on global politics. I have also been reading the incompetent US News and World Report and have read through Thomas Friedman's ill-informed opinions in the New York Times, which, as in so many areas, is a waste of time. National Review has good coverage of military issues. But the best general magazine to cover the military questions surrounding the Iraqi War is Weekly Standard. Unfortunately, besides Frederick W. Kagan's and the other editors' War-related articles and editorials, much of Weekly Standard is hot air. In particular, they have run some economics articles that were basically apologia for inflation. Given its inflationist economic platform (which is true of the other magazines too), I don't think that Weekly Standard can be considered a conservative magazine. Its military coverage is great, though.

The May 7 issue's editorial includes an excerpt from a brilliant briefing that General Petraeus presented to reporters. Its entire text can be found here at transcriptid=3951. General Petraeus makes it clear that the situation in Iraq is extremely complex and that there is little question that we are, in large part, fighting al Qaeda as well as Iran and other supporters of terrorism (as well as other groups and elements that complicate the war). Hence, as I have been arguing for over a year, the War in Iraq is a defensive response to 9/11. General Petraeus emphasizes:

"We do definitely see links to the greater al Qaeda network...There is no question but that there is a network that supports the movement of foreign fighters...The Iranian involvement has really become much clearer to us" involving secret terror cells that Iran has been funding and training.

Given that the War in Iraq is a defensive war, i.e., we fight it as an intelligent, strategic response to global terrorism and to a specific strike against the US, the question that comes to mind is why the Democrats and the left are so heatedly opposed to it. Clearly there is loss of life on both sides, yet the loss of life would also occur in the absence of a military response. It occurred on 9/11 and it would have occurred again in the absence of a military response. Should we pull out, the pull-out would encourage terrorist attacks on US soil (which were occurring with increasing regularity before the Iraqi War, as in World Trade Center I, the Cole, the African embassies and 9/11).

Instead of regarding as heroes the military men and women who are risking their lives, suffering terrible injuries and defending our nation, leftists such as Seymour Hersh attempt to demonize them. Likewise, instead of recognizing that the Iraqi War is a response to terrorism, the left and its mouthpiece, the mainstream media, have concocted a series of preposterous arguments aimed to hobble the US (the war is unwinnable because we have too few troops, but we are going to defund the war to prevent more troops from being sent there; the war offends those whom we are fighting against so it is wrong to fight; the US is immoral for defending itself; the strategy is wrong, I just know it; and similar-quality arguments that appear regularly in the mainstream media).

It is a tragedy that America has become infested with Anti-American sentiment so that it can no longer defend itself; and that the sources of news and information are largely controlled by anti-American traitors who would like to see America defeated and are amused and satisfied when America is attacked and Americans are murdered.

While I do not believe that the Iraqi War was a mistake, I do believe that American liberals are traitors and that the United States would be better off without them. Perhaps we should set up a resettlement plan for liberals. Those who hate America or would rather move to Holland or France could be financed to make the move. I think liberals should be encouraged to move to Europe, and to eat what they would serve. Instead, they aim to enjoy the affluence that the free society has created, and urge that others be subjected to the poverty of the welfare state and socialism.

Fellow DP blogger Phil Orenstein responds:

"The Central Front..." is one of your classics and I am adding it to my saved folder. Mega-dittos on everything you said esp treasonous liberals, a topic that even conservatives are not bold enough to broach. If America can no longer defend itself or its principles and liberals are seeking alliances with terrorists to turn American sovereignty into a big multicultural stew, then it's time to call a spade a spade. They're traitors period, and if my liberal cousins and friends don't like it, they don't have to invite me to their $500,000 Bar Mitzvah and wedding parties. If you want to print that, it's OK with me. I'll get my whitefish salad from the deli.

Robert Schwarz (a "progressive") also responds:

>"Thank you for sharing your views. While I don't see eye to eye, I understand how terribly frightened and angry everyone is after 9/11, and feeling the need to respond in some way."

M.L. > "Why not? Don't you think you'd like Holland?"

R.S. > "May be - how's the weather?"

M.L.> "30 to 40 in the winter, 60 to 70 in the summer."

R.S. > "Sounds just right. Can I go to Sweden instead? If you through (sic) in a Swedish blonde as part of the resettlement plan, I'll take you up on the offer. wink wink"

M.L.> Definitely. Sweden is part of the resettlement zone (any place with higher marginal tax rates than the US, e.g., Canada, is fair game).

R.S. proves that with appropriate incentives "progressives" can be induced to relocate for the betterment of all Americans. However, it is unlikely that they will ever be able to spell words like "throw". Having attended left-wing dominated elementary and high schools, "progressives" are unable to think or write coherently.

Leonard Rann, a "progressive", replies:

>"I am still struggling with the proper framing of a positive response, if it is indeed possible. I think it would be about the role, if any, of personal conscience.

>"It is too bad that when the opportunity presented itself for you to
prove your patriotism, courage, virility and obedience in the jungles of Southeast Asia, that you did not avail yourself the opportunity to fight the Orange Menace (I suppose a combination of Red and Yellow menaces). You could have made the ultimate sacrifice, like Pat Tillman, to keep America free. Maybe, next to the Vietnam War Memorial, we could construct another memorial, 'The Coalition of the Now-Willing.' The Iraq memorial has run out of room."

Leonard then goes on to quote an article about the number of war dead.

We see in Leonard's response the emotional illogic of "progressives". His argument is that Mitchell Langbert didn't serve in Vietnam, so it's wrong for America to defend itself against terrorism. (Likewise, Leonard wasn't on the 100th floor of the World Trade Center.) His argument that because many Americans have tragically died in Iraq and Vietnam, so the Iraqi and Vietnam strategies were wrong, depends on the claim that a much larger number would not have died absent these actions. We know, for instance, that the communists killed millions in Cambodia and Vietnam after the US pullout. We also know that there have been repeated terrorist murders of Americans for the past 30 years, the problem was getting worse, and nothing had been done. Most importantly, Leonard does not respond to my suggestion that the left develop a coherent strategy to deal with terrorism. Instead, he alludes to my personal failure and the costs of the present strategy. No alternative strategy is forthcoming. To develop a convincing case for an alternative, optimal strategy a "progressive" would need to show that the benefits less the costs of the alternative strategy are superior to the benefits less the costs of the current strategy. Naturally, none of the US media or their left wing associates have developed such an argument, because their goal is not to optimize the position of the United States, but to attack the United States and to support its attackers. Might many more Americans die should we submit to Islamic terrorism, just as millions died after North Vietnman conquered South Vietnam and Khmer Rouge conquered Cambodia? "Progressives" do not address such a question because they would be pleased were this to occur.

In addition, notice Leonard's reliance on emotional imagery and the absence of any logic that responds to the need for a strategic "progressive" response to terrorism and al Qaeda.