People, People, People...

I 'gin to be aweary of all the monday-morning quarterbacking with regard to the aftermath of the Iraq war. Some of you out there seem really upset by the fact that Baghdad fell to our tanks and terrorism wasn't magically whisked away to the land of Nod. Andrew Sullivan seems to be worried that the lack of WMD's we've found since the war ended somehow undermines our victory. Mark Shea, the author of the "Catholic and Loving It!" blog, is ready to declare quagmire. The Post has been running this way for some time, and when the most hawkish liberal establishment paper starts to wobble, you can bet the rest are. The stupidity is complete.





Nothing demonstrates the problem with our surfeit of media than this, our lack of patience. Folks, Germany had not been de-Nazified, nor been given a democratic government, in July 1945, two months after the Third Reich surrendered. It defies my understanding as to why anyone would expect two months to take care of everything we need to take care of in Iraq. Running a foreign country is not an easy task. It's dangerous and time-consuming. Lots can go wrong. Some things have gone wrong, but I don't think those things add up to the trend that some of you seem to want them to. There are problems, but I have confidence, because we are led by a man who, as near as I can determine, is sincere in his desire to be benificent to the Iraqi people, and has the moral courage to see the thing through. If the poltroon from the southerly state whom I excorciated yesterday were still in charge, I would know the venture to be doomed. The man who retreated from Mogadishu would feel hypnotically compelled to assuage every negative voice on Iraq. But he isn't in charge, so I'm not worried. You may think this mindless of me, but consider two things: 1) no fretting by me is going to change the situation in Iraq for good or ill, and 2) all the naysayers have been wrong thus far.





On WMD's, on the other hand, we do have to confront the following dirty secret: they weren't the real reason we invaded. Saddam's chems, bios, and nuclear program made for a nice fig leaf for the international community, and removing any he had from him hands was obviously not a bad thing. But they were a side-issue against the greater goal.





The Bush Doctrine, issued soon after 9/11, was clear: there is no distinction between terrorists and states who support terrorists. Afghanistan, the crash-pad of Public Enemy Number One, was the first state to discover that Bush meant it. The link between the Taliban and al-Quaeda was evident. With Iraq it was more tenuous, but put your mind at rest. Saddam knew terrorists, and gave them money and safe haven. He had to go. Syria, Iran, North Korea, and Saudi Arabia will all be dealt with, according to different schedules and strategies. The fact that his WMD's are better hidden than we had anticipated isn't relevant. That's one less source of support for Hezbollah and every other cell of hate that plagues our world. Let's not be legalistic. Do you really think we can annihilate al-Quaeda, leave the rest, and be any safer?





The hand-wringers have been saying since before the second tower even fell that terrorism is the expression of a poor and benighted people struggling with oppression. And they're right, though perhaps not in the way they intend. And we're doing something about it. That doesn't mean it's going to be easy, or resolve itself as cleanly and telegenically as a season of Survivor. So fasten your seat belts; it's going to be a bumpy war.