Hey,
War Supporters
by
Thomas E. Woods, Jr.
There’s
no delicate way to say this, but to supporters of the Iraq war I
have a little message.
All
together now, people: you were scammed.
No
"weapons of mass destruction" have been found. None.
Some
of us figured as much, since the rationale for the war kept changing
so frequently. And when the search for these weapons was carried
out in such a lackluster manner, one had to assume the administration
wasn’t really worried about them. (We were casually told that perhaps
seven suspected Iraqi nuclear sites had been looted. Nice planning
there.)
Some
people will believe administration propaganda no matter what. In
reply to an
article I wrote for SeattleCatholic.com, one person wrote
to the editor: "Contrary to Dr. Woods’ reference to the
lack of Al QaedaIraqi links, we have all read of the proof
of links dating to before 9/11." Have we? That’s funny, because
every news article one reads these days concedes that the link has
not been made, and that experts prior to the war insisted the alleged
link was a mere fantasy. I wonder what special intelligence briefings
this critic received.
Some
supporters of the war will doubtless plead, "But, but…that’s
what Hannity and Limbaugh told me to think!"
Well,
it’s time now to start doing your own thinking, since Hannity and
Limbaugh wouldn’t know conservatism if it punched them in the face.
The
automatons who send you angry emails when you write an article like
this condemn you for not wanting to "liberate the Iraqis."
(I dealt
with that one in an earlier piece.) They’ll point to the toppling
of the statue of Saddam as a glorious moment of liberation. They
somehow missed the news items informing us that that spectacle was
entirely staged: 500 Iraqi National Congress goons were flown in
by the Pentagon to put on that display for us. A wide-angle camera
shot of the incident shows American tanks patrolling a completely
deserted square (apart from the 500 goons).
Moreover,
the likelihood increases with each passing day that Iraq will, whether
we like it or not, wind up an Islamic state. (The idea that enfranchised
Iraqis would vote for feminism and its allied ideologies was, in
retrospect, a little ridiculous.) That’s just one of the answers
to the veritable army of propagandized automatons who spend their
time telling atrocity stories from the days of Saddam’s regime.
"Nothing could be worse than Saddam." Well, Woodrow Wilson
didn’t think anything could be worse than the Kaiser in Germany.
A decade after the President’s death, intelligent men longed for
the old Kaiser.
I’ve
already explained on this site why crusades for democracy are in
no sense "conservative"; the very fact that this needs
to be pointed out is something of a barometer of conservative thought
at the moment. The neoconservatives, not exactly known for their
knowledge of history, point to Japan and Germany as democracy-at-gunpoint
success stories, but Japan’s intellectuals had been acquainted with
and increasingly interested in Western ideas for nearly a century
by 1945, and Germany had been at the heart of Western civilization
for millennia. Neither is true of Iraq, to say the least.
It
is in the nature of the state to want to keep its people permanently
mesmerized by some terrible dictator somewhere. ("Ethel, did
you hear he used weapons of mass destruction against his own
people?") Saddam may well have been a monster. There are
plenty of monsters ruling African nations right now. Anyone care
to depose them all? To the brainwashed among us, of whom there are
many, try to think: do you suppose that would lead to more stability
or less?
To
peddle this silly campaign of installing democracy by force, you
would have to impugn the patriotism of every early American leader,
from Washington to Jefferson to Hamilton to John Quincy Adams to
Henry Clay. Every one of them considered it dangerous utopianism
to suggest that the United States should right the wrongs of the
world (as if the matter were that simple in the first place, a point
which the aftermath of the most recent conflict should be bringing
home if anyone were paying attention). Anyone criticizing opponents
of the Iraq war should have the integrity to condemn these great
Americans as well, and be explicit in their repudiation of the American
tradition. Now who’s "anti-American"?
Meanwhile,
Afghanistan, another example of goodness and light being brought
to a benighted people, continues to degenerate into chaos. But for
people even to remember Afghanistan, they’d have to have an attention
span longer than ten minutes.
Just
think about how this is going to go over in the history books, or
in history classrooms. The neocons had better enjoy themselves now.
History doesn’t look kindly upon those who asked no questions about
the alleged Gulf of Tonkin incident in 1964, and the prospects for
the present boondoggle don’t look much better.
"Didn’t
people know that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11?"
"Yes
and no. The easily suggestible among us were carried away by the
carefully worded insinuations of the Bush Administration."
"So
you mean the patriotism of many decent Americans was exploited and
taken advantage of by government officials whose motives couldn’t
possibly have had anything to do with ‘weapons of mass destruction’
or any of this other nonsense?"
"I’m
afraid so."
"So
let’s see. We alienated some of our oldest allies, often gratuitously.
We made accusations based on cooked evidence (e.g., the forged documents
‘proving’ an Iraqi nuclear program, the 12-year-old student term
paper plagiarized to produce a dossier on Iraqi activity in 2003).
We destroyed our credibility in the world through our reckless statements
and our transparent desire for war throughout the inspections process,
thereby making it less likely that other countries would cooperate
with us against real terrorists. Some countries, including some
of our friends, even suspected we might plant weapons in Iraq if
we couldn’t find any. That’s a new low."
"Correct."
"Then
we invaded and found no weapons at all – none of the allegedly huge
stockpiles of anthrax and whatever else was supposedly on the verge
of being used against us. Meanwhile, order collapsed in the country,
and enormous demonstrations favoring an Islamic state broke out."
"Right."
"And
hatred of the U.S. grew to an all-time high."
"Indeed."
"And
there were people foolish enough to denounce as ‘unpatriotic’ those
who had warned that this would happen?"
"Believe
it or not, there were."
"And
people who called themselves conservative considered this a glorious
event? They think conservatism means ignorant, bungling belligerence,
and that considerations of diplomacy or their country’s image around
the world are the stuff of carping liberals?"
"Yes."
Good
thing the neocons have no sense of history, or they’d worry about
this: in the decades to come, fewer and fewer people will be able
to hear about the Iraq war without snickering and shaking their
heads.
May
21, 2003
Professor
Thomas E. Woods, Jr. [send
him mail] holds an AB from Harvard and a PhD from Columbia.
He teaches history, is associate editor of The Latin Mass Magazine,
and is co-author (with Christopher A. Ferrara) of The Great
Façade: Vatican II and the Regime of Novelty in the Roman Catholic
Church (2002). The book (as well as a sample chapter) is available
at greatfacade.com.
Thomas
Woods Archives
|