Hitchens: The End of Fukuyama: Why his latest pronouncements miss the mark
The three questions that anyone developing second thoughts about the Iraq conflict must answer are these: Was the George H.W. Bush administration right to confirm Saddam Hussein in power after his eviction from Kuwait in 1991? Is it right to say that we had acquired a responsibility for Iraq, given past mistaken interventions and given the great moral question raised by the imposition of sanctions? And is it the case that another confrontation with Saddam was inevitable; those answering “yes” thus being implicitly right in saying that we, not he, should choose the timing of it? Fukuyama does not even mention these considerations. Instead, by his slack use of terms like “magnet,” he concedes to the fanatics and beheaders the claim that they are a response to American blunders and excesses.
At the WSJ, Victor Davis Hanson declares We’re winning in Iraq. Let’s not lose at home
Each time we are lectured that the looting, Abu Ghraib, the embalming of Uday and Qusay, the demeaning oral exam of Saddam, unarmored Humvees, inadequate body armor or the latest catastrophe has squandered our victory, the unimpressed U.S. military simply goes about what it does best–defeating the terrorists and training the Iraqi military to serve a democratic government. They stay focused in this long war, while our pundits prepare the next controversy.
Ralph Peters is there.
The NYT isn’t.
Why doesn’t the NYT declare itself a foreign country at war with the United States?
Don’t miss this interview of Walid Shoebat, Ibrahim Abdullah and Zak Anani. Then read Absolute Certainty and the True Nature of Islam. As Ibrahim Abdullah said in the interview, “you are born and raised in this hatred”.
Update I mentioned the Manifesto Against Islamism in another post, but you must read The Manifesto Against The New Islamic Totalitarianism. Alexandra has done a superb job of examining the issue, and includes background information on each of the signatories.