Admitting It Is the First Step to Recovery
I found one guy, JBC at the Meat Eating Leftist, who at least is honest enough to admit it. Hey, good for you man. I'm sure there's a twelve-step program for this somewhere. In the post Rooting for Failure he wrote:
"The critics on the right felt that we were rooting for failure. It that sense, they are absolutely correct."
Then he drops this stunning observation: "It does seem that the motivations of this administration regarding the future of Iraq have not been totally selfless – what a shock." Well no shit Sherlock. When are the motivations of a nation-state ever selfless? When should they be? Who thinks France opposed the invasion for selfless reasons? JBC may be an leftist honest but he is naive one - what a shock. As if only pure, selfless motive result is good things. We didn't eradicate smallpox for selfless reasons. We did it so we would get fucking smallpox. Is that so wrong?
He continues. "The administration likes to tell us that we removed a cruel dictator from power, freed 25 million people from that regime, and planted the seeds of democracy. All of these statements are true, but the question, as always, is: was it our business or responsibility to do so in the first place?" Again, kodos for the honesty, even if that honestly sums up isolationism. Of course it wasn't "our job." But by that criteria what should a nation ever do beyond its own borders. Is it our job to enforce international maritime law? Nope. Is it our job to feed tsunami victims? Or send physics teachers to Kenya? Wrong again. See, nation-states aren't people. They don't have jobs. They have interests.
"The apparent success of these elections further legitimizes the invasion of Iraq by this administration in the first place." Holy crap! The guy is practically a neo-con. He better be careful some guys from ANSWER don't beat the snot out of him.
"They will ultimately use this as political capital for other imperialistic actions in the future. I can hear it now: "It is imperative that we disarm the potential conflict in [fill in county name here]. Our success in Iraq indicates that this is absolutely the appropriate action to take."" Slow down there JBC. Let's not get ahead of ourselves. We've still got a lot of hard work to do. But in general, yes. IF (and it's a big if) Iraq is judged a "success" in the future then wouldn't that in and of itself be a justification for similar (but, one hopes, better) actions under similar circumstances. Institutions tend to want to repeat their successes and avoid repeating their failures. That's why we have Spider-Man 2 and not Waterworld 2.
Then here comes the topper. "I truly hope that this doesn't happen, but for that reason alone, I admit it – I was rooting for failure." Read that again. I'll paraphrase it for you. He was hoping that the Iraqi elections would fail because their successy might be used "as political capital for other imperialistic actions in the future."
Maybe it's too late for you JBC. Maybe no program can help you recover from your affliction.
Let's be clear about what "failed" Iraqi elections would have looked like: multiple mass-killings of voters, including women and children, the murder of candidates and poll workers, the deaths of Iraqi security personnel and police and local officials, and, don't forget, many dead and wounded American troops and possibly civilian workers and journalists. That's the less violent version. He was rooting for that. JBC, the Meat Eating Leftist, would have preferred that over what actually happened because he opposes "other imperialistic actions."
How did self-proclaimed Leftists stray so far that they admit to preferring seeing people killed while trying to vote over a (relatively) peaceful election because they want to deny Bush political capital?
Now tell me again about selfless motivations?
tags: iraq rants politics