Steynsense
(Subtitled: "Toppling the Taliban is easy, it's comedy that's hard...")
So, I guess this is what Mark Steyn reads like on drugs? (Uh... him on drugs, not me...):
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FDR didn't take America to war in 1941 with the "disinterested intention of liberating others". He took America to war not to end the Holocaust or free Belgium or build a democracy in Japan but for reasons of hard-headed national self-interest. All the rest was the happy consequence of victory. Likewise, America didn't topple the Taliban because it was suddenly overcome by a burning desire to see more women legislators in the Afghan parliament: That, too, was a happy consequence of a war waged for selfish reasons.
When a democracy goes to war, there ought to be a moral component to ultimate war aims, which is why the end of the first Gulf campaign was so shabby and unworthy of America. But Senator Thompson's line is a gross sentimentalization.
Furthermore, it's not just sentimental, it's only effective retrospectively - for the war you fought 60 years ago, not for the war you're fighting now. An awful lot of Americans see Iraqis waving purple fingers at the polls and shrug, "Nice. But not worth dead Americans." To sell this struggle to the electorate, you have to frame it in terms of the national interest. It has to be a war consistent with American ideals but fought for selfish reasons.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Personally (and I'm not a REAL pundit) I think Bush Inc. should just have said the War on Terror was all about vengeance and oil. Although, Americans were pretty quick to buy the whole "liberating their women from burkas and bringing them freedom" line, too. I can't see where Bush Inc. went wrong, really. It completely had its way with the American people by telling them it was all being done in order to fight terrorism, spread democracy, free people from their tyrannical leaders - and in general make the world a safer and better place.
Oh - and let's not forget the whole Weapons of Mass Destruction line. I mean, even the New York Times bought that one. Sort of. Kind a. Well, let's put it this way - it bought it enough to stay mum on any reservations it had until it was way too late to do anything but issue a grovelling apology to its readers for unequivocally buying what turned out to be a big whopper by Bush Inc. in order to justify invading a sovereign country that had not much to do with the attacks of 9/11.
Let's face the facts - Americans are still signing up to fight in Iraq and the War on Terror continues unabated with lots of reconstruction contracts up for grabs by Haliburton and security provided by Blackwater and...
HEY! WHY THE HELL IS MARK STEYN BACKPEDDLING NOW?!
I mean, Geez Louise, Mark Steyn - Bush Inc. is way better at selling the War on Terror to Americans than any old FDR was on selling them WWII.
