More thoughts on the Iraqi communiqué
Here is a blog entry by Dan Darling that purports to show that the statement issued by the Iraqi reconciliation conference in Cairo does not, as I argued, accept the right of insurgent groups to attack U.S. forces. In fact, Darling’s discussion only confirms my own interpretation of the Cairo statement. He adds nothing new.
So far, Richard Lowry, the editor of America’s flagship “conservative” magazine, has, with disgraceful glibness, dismissed the Cairo statement as merely “symbolic,” while Dan Darling tries and fails to show that the statement does not mean what it plainly means. I therefore challenge the supporters of President Bush to challenge the president on this. How can he justify our sacrifices for a government that sides with its own enemies against us? If the Bush supporters fail to challenge Bush on this, then they are as bad as he, because it shows that they have no problema with our sacrificing our men for the sake of a government that formally legitimizes our men’s killers.
Apart from throwing the Iraqi involvement into question, there is a deeper reason why Bush supporters and neoconservatives cannot afford to face the Cairo communiqué. It is that it demonstrates something about the nature of Muslims that shatters the neoconservative belief in a universal human sameness leading to universal democracy: Muslims favor Muslims who slaughter them over non-Muslims who help them.
If readers come across further discussions of the Cairo statement, please let me know.