Courtesy of
Think Progress (via
Atrios), one wingnut has finally come out and put the bare truth before us: Iraq isn't about spreading freedom any more than it was about finding WMD, or preventing a nuclear attack, or advancing the war on terror. Nope, it's just a global version of the game played by insecure, adolescent wingnuts all over the country: a dick-measuring contest:
We need to see peace and democracy in Iraq is icing on the cake. The real goal is the proof of resolve against Iran and others. If the public sees that, it might change its view of what's important and what success means.
Yep, that's right. 2,377 United States soldiers, sailors, marines, and pilots -- and untold thousands of Iraqi civilians -- have given their lives to prove that the U.S. is tougher than Iraq. Saddam-era Iraq, you might recall, was a country without any Air Force or Navy to speak of and an army that proved to be less effective at fighting than the current insurgency. So, neoconservative foreign policy is laid bare as an extension of the schoolyard. The U.S. is nothing more than a bully who picks on the undersized kids at recess to prove its toughness. Not that this comes as a surprise to anyone here, but it was interesting to see that delusion has so overtaken the halls of The National Review that Kurtz now thinks that admitting that U.S. foreign policy is simply an exercise in overcompensation will actually convince the public to support the Iraq war (and, by strong implication, a future war against Iran. After all, what better way to show "resolve" than by lobbing a few nukes at Iraq's neighbor and new best friend?).
Of course, Kurtz' effort to seize on a justification for Iraq that will be more popular with the public than the Administration's current "spreading democracy" canard is just as blatant a crock of shit as anything that has ever crossed Scott McClellan's lips. Or, to be more precise, if our actual goal in going to war in Iraq was to project force to Iran (and North Korea), then the Bush Administration is even stupider than I thought. Let's recap, starting with Bush's 2002 State of the Union address:
1. Iraq, Iran, and North Korea are named as the "axis of evil."
2. We elect, under false pretenses, to attack the one member of the "axis" that does not possess "weapons of mass destruction."
3. We ignore and allow to operate with impunity the one member of the "axis" that actually possesses nuclear weapons.
4. In a reversal of years of policy, we engage and prepare to sign a treaty with a country that only recently developed nuclear weapons.
5. We rebuff diplomatic overtures from third member of the "axis" and instead engage in an exercise in saber-rattling while claiming to seek a diplomatic solution through the U.N.
6. We develop a battle plan to attack said third member of the axis, using nuclear weapons for the only the third time in world history if necessary in order to prevent that country from developing nuclear weapons of their own.
Now, I don't know about you, but the lesson here does seem clear, though it's not what Kurtz hopes. The Bush Doctrine appears to be that we will
1. Unilaterally attack weak, non-nuclear countries under false pretenses to advance unstated objectives;
2. Embrace nuclear countries we deem friendly; and
3. Take no action whatsoever against hostile nuclear countries.
If I were Iran, the message to me would be crystal clear -- successfully develop nuclear weapons as quickly as possible. Sadly, Tehran appears to have received this very message, and is developing its nuclear program apace. With the current Administration in power (and its executive-as-king-in-wartime philosophy of governance), the scariest thing about Kurtz' notion is that Bush and his fellow chickenhawks may well decide to bolster public support by sending a message of "resolve" to Iran directly.