The One War we are always fighting
Greg W. writes:
Mark Davis, the guest host for Rush Limbaugh, responded today to criticism of the U.S. intervention in Libya by saying, “It’s not a new war. It’s the same war as Iraq and Afghanistan. It’s not about the location.”
This goes to prove that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, in the neocons’ mind, is not about terrorism (anymore) but to “help those people who yearn for freedom in oppressive countries.” From the way they justify the action in Libya by juxtaposing its intent with the other two wars, we can only assume the neocons have no end in sight for “making the world safe for democracy.”
The neocons have changed the intent of the already vague “War on Terror” to encompass ANYTHING they see as “undemocratic.”
LA replies:
I wonder if “neocons” is an adequate label for the people supporting this policy. It seems to me that all kinds of mainstream conservatives, not just the type usually associated with neoconservatism, support this kind of thinking and this kind of policy.
In any case, regardless of how we label them, their thinking is mad. In what way is the intervention in Libya a continuation of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? In Iraq we invaded to topple Hussein and get rid of his weapons of mass destruction, then we found ourselves in a war with Al Qaeda and other Sunni insurgents, and the purpose of the war switched from ridding Iraq of WMDs to “we have to fight terrorists there, in order not to have to fight them here.” Of course, the only reason they were “there,” was that we had invaded “there.” Their being “there” was the result of our invasion. Another result of our invasion was that Kaddafi became our celebrated ally, announcing he was giving up terrorism and his nuclear program. But now we’re fighting against Kaddafi and on the side of the rebels, many of whom supported, and even participated in, the insurgency in Iraq.
So the fact that this Mark Davis could say that Iraq and Libya are the same war demonstrates a complete inability to think. In Davis’s mind, however, it makes complate sense. The U.S. always fights on the side of good and democracy against evil and oppression. Therefore, whomever we fight, it’s always by definition the same war, the war against evil and oppression. If we invaded Mars it would be the same war.
- end of initial entry -
James P. writes:
Greg W. writes:
Mark Davis, the guest host for Rush Limbaugh, responded today to criticism of the U.S. intervention in Libya by saying, “It’s not a new war. It’s the same war as Iraq and Afghanistan. It’s not about the location.”
The obvious rejoinder to that is that in 2006, the Bush administration normalized relations with Libya, declared that Libya was no longer a state sponsor of terrorism, and stated that Libya had agreed to eliminate its WMD. Thus, from 2006 to 2010, Libya was a success story—we didn’t have to fight them because they renounced terrorism and WMD! In contrast, during the same period we were fighting sponsors of terrorism and makers of WMD in Iraq and Afghanistan (or so Bush said). Befriending Libya while fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan is obviously inconsistent with the ludicrous claim that they are the “same war”; this is the kind of breathless rhetorical effrontery one would expect from a dictatorship (“we have always been at war with Eastasia!”). Moreover, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are ending—or so we are told—so how can the war in Libya be just now beginning if it is the same war?
This claim might hold water if Libya had done something recent to call into question its renunciation of terrorism and WMD, but Libya has done no such thing. All the Libyan regime has done is totter on its throne, and we hope that a push will knock it over. This is a brand new project, not the continuation of an old one.
Gintas writes:
We’re Oceania, right? We are at war with unDemocracy, we have always been at war with unDemocracy.
N. writes:
With apologies to Tolkein:
“One War to rule them all,
One War to find them,
One War to bring them all and in the darkness bind them … ”
Greg W. writes:
You said:
I wonder if “neocons” is an adequate label for the people supporting this policy. It seems to me that all kinds of mainstream conservatives, not just the type usually associated with neoconservatism, support this kind of thinking and this kind of policy.
I would argue that most mainstream conservatives are indeed mostly neocons, not true conservatives in the traditional sense. It may all be semantics, but I label those who support exporting “democracy” to the world as neocons.
As for Mark Davis’s words, this is typical neocon verbiage. It can be called a continuation of the other wars because the initial basis for military action in Libya is the same as what the others are said to be now. Since the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are NOW about “ensuring freedom and democracy for the people,” as well as “fighting them there so we don’t fight them here,” it’s the same war, same cause, regardless of the original purpose. It’s simple in their mind.
By the way, if the neocons who support the wars in the Middle East truly believe that we have to fight “them” there so we don’t have to here, why would they let ANY of “them” here? Neocons make sure to preface any statement about Muslims with ” … not all Muslims are bad, we welcome the good ones to America,” then admit it’s impossible to tell an insurgent from a civilian on the battlefield. If they can’t tell the good from the bad on the battlefield, they can’t on the airplane immigrating here either, right? Why take the chance? Oh, I forgot, we’re a nation of immigrants, and that makes us stronger.
James P. writes:
Another thought—how can Libya be the “same war” as Iraq and Afghanistan given that Iraq and Afghanistan are not even “one war” (fought for different reasons against different enemies in different countries)? Libya cannot be “the same” as two things that are different!
LA writes:
If everyone who supports this war is a neocon, is Bill O’Reilly a neocon? He does not speak neocon lingo. See my entry tonight about his interview with Dennis Kucinich.
Ron Littlewood writes:
You wrote:
“Therefore, whomever we fight, it’s always by definition the same war, the war against evil and oppression. If we invaded Mars it would be the same war.”
I can’t wait for the declaration of war against the evil Martians. First a no-fly zone …
Posted by Lawrence Auster at March 21, 2011 03:28 PM | Send