Goldberg on right track


Share your views

Have something you would like to share? Send a letter to the editor or submit a comment to Sound Off.

Jonah Goldberg's column on Oct. 20 ("Iraq was a Worthy Mistake") was well reasoned and logical. It was a bit of a surprise given that in the past Goldberg has been a staunch supporter of the war in Iraq, to the point of blindly following White House dogma without question. Alas, despite his reasoned tone he still missed a few facts that are worth emphasizing.

For example, he stated: "The failure to find weapons of mass destruction is a side issue." We have to remember that a UN inspection team said there were no WMD, then a US inspection team said there were no WMD, finally the intel people said there was no clear and absolute evidence of WMD. Any other administration, presented with all this lack of evidence, would have proceeded very cautiously. Not so this administration. The lack of evidence makes it abundantly clear that war was planned, regardless of what anyone said. That is why Goldberg is mistaken in dismissing this vital fact as a side issue. It clearly reveals that the whole WMD issue was disingenuous and the administration was going to war, just as the Project for a New American Century dictated even before 9/11. Didn't this White House tell us that character was very important? They were right, the WMD argument drives home just how important character is and how they came up short.

Further on Goldberg averred "... calling Saddam Hussein's bluff after 9/11 was the right thing to do." What bluff is he referring to? Unlike the WMD issue, which had a lot of people confused as to the true facts, there was no doubt here. No one was suggesting Hussein had anything to do with 9/11. That was simply a red herring thrown out by the administration to play on the justifiable fears of Americans of a 9/11 repeat. Telling us Hussein was involved in 9/11 was an outrageous lie, which served to shore up the WMD uncertainties. The White House shouldn't be let off the hook on this either; if anything, this out and out lie was the more egregious of the two facts Goldberg wants to dismiss.

But his recommendation to ask the Iraqis to vote on keeping American forces is certainly an interesting idea. You have to give him credit for offering up fresh thinking in contrast to the 'stay the course' mantra we hear every day. I recently heard another idea worthy of consideration. It was two pronged: first, pull some US troops out into Kuwait. They remain close enough to lend credence yet the move suggests a small step toward self rule in Iraq. Second, ask the UN to replace those troops leaving Iraq. This is another small step toward self rule. Of course, we would have to relinquish some control of military actions to the UN - but that is a small price to pay to start unraveling the civil war and getting our troops out of harm's way.

This idea came from a Democrat. It is evidence of Goldberg's accurate acknowledgement that "In the dumbed-down debate we're having, there are only two sides: pro-war and antiwar. This is silly."

Hopefully, as more voices such as staunch supporter Goldberg's offer up new ideas, perhaps the myopic White House will begin to consider new strategies.

Paul Mauro

Steamboat Springs


dogd 10 years, 6 months ago

CDR: You are missing the Only major point of dismay and contention widely in play regarding the dismal situation in Iraq. There was a FATAL lack of brainpower and both information and the will and capability of getting any regarding the plans for Iraq post-Saddam.

The problem with the current "plan" is that it still has a particular fundamental flaw. It assumes that if you get the power and water back 100% on line and an elected government in 100% control at an upcoming point in time, that all will be well.

This "plan" assumes that these things will please the population and make them free to be who they really are, and that THAT is a good thing.

The problem is, in a nutshell, who these people really are. THAT is the fatal flaw with the current "plan" and why it will certainly FAIL, even in the unlikely event that the "plan" is carried out to perfection.

So, when you consider who some of these people really ARE, maybe the early-on unrestricted looting, and even Abu Gharib won't be THAT important.

Some of these people who make up the population of Iraq have a history of raiding and violating each other which goes back centuries and centuries, and that instinct for raid and counter-raid was not made to go away by the British installed Hashemite king in the early 1900's or by the strongman regiemes which have toppled each other since. These oppressive regiemes made them stop the raids. But they did not make them WANT to stop.

It is part of the Bedouin make-up, and these people can and will view an elected government and framework as a power-vacum which allows them to go after each other as they have through history.

The only kind of government which can restrain these folks from being who they really ARE is the kind which WE would not view as anything but oppressive. Best that we can do in this area at this point in time is to do what has ALWAYS been done, manipulate the outcome, as much as we are able to do.

Palestine is a preview of the wonderful new privilege that Arab voters have embraced. They overwhelmingly elected a terrorist organization. Anybody with faith in the current"plan" has not even taken a second glance at who these people really ARE. That is disasrously ignorant.


Requires free registration

Posting comments requires a free account and verification.