The American Spectator

Print Email

Text Size

Another Perspective

(Page 2 of 2)

Yet, as Ralph Peters noted in the New York Post, the U.N. bombing and the attacks on oil pipelines and water mains means that the Baathists are failing. Their strategy of attacking American soldiers in the hopes that -- à la Mogadishu -- they would leave "was a disaster for them. Our response devastated their already-crippled organization. Now, with reduced capabilities and decayed leadership, they've turned to attacking soft targets. It's the best they can do." Backing down now, as we are making progress, would be a much bigger disaster than anything Herbert has to complain about.

So what's Herbert's solution? As if you needed to ask:

As quickly as possible, we should turn the country over to a genuine international coalition, headed by the U.N. and supported in good faith by the U.S.

Has there ever been an organization in international affairs that holds more mythical status for liberals than the United Nations? Exactly what a U.N.-led coalition could do that a U.S.-led one cannot, Herbert doesn't specify. Perhaps those blue helmets possess some untold magical power; just drop them into Iraq, add water, and voilà, instant peace in Iraq. My guess, though, is that the Islamo-fascists would just redirect their attacks on the U.N. troops. The message of the bombing of U.N headquarters was that Islamo-fascists consider anyone helping Iraq become a democracy to be a target -- a message obviously lost on Herbert.

The despondence Herbert displays isn't "kind" or "compassionate." It is weakness, and a dangerous one at that. If we are to win the war against Islamo-fascism, we cannot despair when things get rough. Fortunately, those who are presently running our foreign policy are not of Herbert's ideological ilk. If they were, the Taliban would be landing on south beaches of Florida.

topics:
Foreign Policy, Islam, Military, Iraq, United Nations, Fascism, Oil