The American Spectator

Reader Mail

(Page 5 of 6)

I regret that I have come to the conclusion that John Corry, a man I once generally respected, has become one of "them," the people who have become unhinged by the idea of taking on Iraq. On this matter, at least, he is unable to think rationally.

As evidence I submit this statement: "...the Iraqi invasion could destabilize the Middle East, much to our disadvantage, and that rather than deterring terrorism it would more likely promote it..."

Why, precisely, is destabilization of the Middle East a bad thing? These people are, by and large, our enemies -- some of them open, more of them covert. When the Soviet Union became unstable I remember quite a few "experts" being concerned but that seems to have turned out fairly well.

And how does defeating a terrorist regime promote more terrorism? The idea that making nice to bad people will earn their tolerance is deeply flawed; it will, rather, earn their contempt, just as Clinton's foreign policy earned the contempt of bin Laden prior to his strikes on us. In the case of most of the world -- and especially the Arab portion -- it is far better from a practical viewpoint to be feared than loved. I utterly fail to see how taking out Saddam and his supporters both domestic and imported will help al Qaeda's recruiting problem.

I only hope that Iraq will not be the last terrorist dictatorship we take down; Syria is just begging for it and we should oblige Mr. Assad. Iran is ready to revolt, and we should give them aid and encouragement. As far as the Palestinians go, let them change their ways or be driven into the sea; their complete dishonesty should long since have lost them any claims on our sympathy. And once we get through with these few we can think about straightening out the Saudis, assuming that their supporters in the State Department can be neutralized.

p>Now this won't solve all our problems -- much less all of the world's--- but it ought to give us a few years relative peace, and that's about all we can expect from life. br> -- Richard Donley /p>

Corry is adept as ever at setting up straw men. From the hawks overrunning the WH (as opposed to Clinton's bums who gave us 911) to horror of horrors, somebody winning a war game (he carefully omitted how the "Saddam" forces were to sink the entire U.S. fleet) by bypassing the rules (Oh my God! Conservatives might play by the same rules we do!)and beyond to the ultimate liberal horror, that the Dept. of Defense might be engaged actively in ridding itself of all the fifth columnists implanted by that commissar of commissars, Hillary, is too much even for him. I smell panic in the press and on Capitol Hill. These anti-American bozos have had it so for too long and now it's really sinking in that the party is not only over but that the fellatio in the Oval Office was a pretty good indicator of what the liberals really stand for, about five minutes. When this war is over people are going to turn some of their attention on those like Corry, who at every turn, came up with an excuse to cut and run and hang our heads in shame instead of standing up to the likes of a man who builds palaces while children suffer.

p>I wonder if "men" like Corry ever consider that the lies they spew will ever come back to haunt them. Why they never grew up is past my understanding. br> -- Brian Barfield /p>

More wisdom comes from John Corry. John has discovered (with respect to Rumsfeld) that many don't like the boss. Has John ever held a job? This happens in many work places especially where change is needed and there is a lot of stress. Many of those fellows taking shots at the 10-day point in the campaign look a little foolish about now. Somehow the Iraqis are cooperating with Rumsfeld. (Apparently the conspiracy is bigger than thought. John, you know Arabs are Semites too.) Maybe many Army lifers were trying to fix the war games to demonstrate the absolute need for huge ground forces. Given the results of the war this looks more likely. This kind of public sniping during a war is pathetic and those that do it should be fired and not allowed into decent society. Not because they disagree but because they choose a public forum to gain an internal political advantage while putting ordinary soldiers at risk. History demonstrates that time and time again that civilians leaders have had to prod military leaders after periods of peace and the military frequently didn't like it. Rumsfeld looks pretty smart and General Barry McCaffrey looks foolish and unaware of Air Force capabilities. The below quote from an April 4 story in the Washington Post demonstrates some goofy institutional thinking that is in need of change:

topics:
Foreign Policy, Law, Military, Iraq, Iran, Israel, NATO, Oil