Iraq and "Political Blasphemies"

The columnist fisking department has been quite busy here at the humble offices of 26th Parallel. Yesterday I posted on Ana Menedez's Hialeah column (thanks to all for the kind comments and e-mails, and of course to my blog-father Val for his seal of approval).

Today I am posting on another column from Wednesday's Miami Herald, this one from Editorial Columnist Robert Steinback. It deals with his perception that no one wants or dares to ask tough questions about the war in Iraq. He uses Cindy Sheehan as the example of someone who has stood up to the president and asked those questions that people are afraid to ask. At the end, he lists his seven "political blasphemies" which no one wants to touch.

Read the column here, or scroll down to read it in its entirety. Then tell me if you're as surprised as I was to read that, according to Steinback, the media has been "intimidated" into not asking tough questions. I don't know if they're actually asking tough questions, but based on the coverage in the MSM, one would be led to believe that absolutely nothing good has come out of the war so far, which logically leads the average American to doubt our involvement in Iraq.

I e-mailed Steinback and responded mainly to his seven blasphemies, which I indicated in bold, followed by my response.

Here's the column:

For more than two years, many Americans have wondered what noble cause our soldiers are fighting for in Iraq. But to dare to ask the question brought certain denunciation from the neo-conservative political power grid: Only a traitorous, subversive, unpatriotic, flag-burning, communist America-hater would question the virtue of a U.S. military venture.

The intimidated media shied away from asking the question. A decorated Vietnam veteran presidential candidate waffled over posing it. The opposition party caved in rather than mount a challenge about it.

And so it went largely unasked, except by a few harmless pundits on the Left.

Meanwhile, the stinking morass of Iraq deepened, claiming military and civilian lives, depleting the U.S. treasury and eviscerating U.S. global prestige.

It took the mother of an American soldier slain in Iraq, Cindy Sheehan, camping outside President Bush's Texas ranch, to ask for an explanation of the noble cause her son died for -- and thereby expose the president's utter lack of a persuasive answer. Sheehan embodies the power grid's worst nightmare: A citizen whose authority to pose the question is close to unassailable (though they've tried) -- and whose personal loss makes her impervious to intimidation.

Sheehan's stand got me thinking about what other legitimate debates have been turned into sacred but dubious axioms. I came up with what I'm calling the Seven Blasphemies None Dare Debate -- concepts neo-conservative Bush loyalists feel must not, should not and cannot be questioned.

Political blasphemies aren't synonymous with conventional wisdom, which are ideas no one bothered to question for so long that they gradually became broadly accepted -- even if inaccurate.

Rather, political blasphemies are highly debatable, complex issues that have been deliberately reduced to simplistic maxims specifically to squelch debate -- which then work to the clear advantage of one side in that debate. Partisans need only express shock that anyone would dare question what everyone knows to be true, and voil! Debate closed.

Here's my e-mail to Steinback:

Mr. Steinback,

Your column in yesterday's Herald regarding your "seven political blasphemies" has prompted me to respond to each of them. Before I do, I have to say that I'm truly shocked that you think that media has shied away from questioning the war in Iraq. I'd say the exact opposite has happened: all you see in the mainstream media, TV and print, are negative stories, followed by even more negative editorials condemning the war. Yes, bad things happen in wars. But rarely, if ever, do we see or read any positive news from Iraq. The elections in Iraq earlier this year was an exception, but even that story was laced with doubts about the future. Not totally unwarranted, but extremely unbalanced.

You're surprised that John Kerry didn't openly question our involvement in Iraq? If I recall, he, along with virtually all of his Democratic colleagues, voted in favor of using force to topple Saddam Hussein.

Now to your blasphemies:

- Not every deployment of U.S. troops is, by definition, a noble exercise.

Sure, everyone makes mistakes, even the commander-in-chief. But I have a hard time accepting that the U.S. makes decisions to deploy troops for anything other than to protect ourselves and to promote stability in different parts of the world. I see no problem in questioning the president, this is after all a free country. However, accusations of "liar" and "murderer" that have been leveled by many in the left in this country toward our president is extremely irresponsible, disrespectful, and counter-productive. Ms. Sheehan, I'm talking to you.

- It is overly simplistic to dismiss all those who resist the American presence in Iraq as ''terrorists.''

Perhaps the resistors don't openly support terrorists, but by resisting our efforts to promote democracy in Iraq and fight those who seek to perpetuate oppression and terror, by default they are supporting those who seek to destroy our way of life. We are not provoking the resistance (i.e. terrorists). They have been attacking us for decades now. Ignoring the problem and appeasing the terrorists won't make them go away or hate us less. How many 9/11s do we have to go through to learn this lesson?

- It can be argued that the world is not better off without Saddam Hussein.
Premise: Nobody likes a dictator, but sometimes, there is a short-term geopolitical benefit in the presence of a tyrant who keeps rival factions from colliding -- Tito in the old Yugoslavia, for example. This doesn't have to undermine the long-run goal of eliminating all despots.

Ask the families of the thousands of Kurds he gassed to death several years back. Ask those others who were victims of his brutal regime. Mr. Steinback, he used WMDs to kill those Kurds, and who's to say that he didn't have them right up to the day the war began? And who's to say that he didn't have indirect connections to Al Qaeda who would've loved nothing more than to get their hands on those weapons to hurt us? When do you suggest is a good time to eliminate despots? After they inflict massive damage, or do we take the appropriate steps to get rid of the problem before more innocent lives are lost?

- Not every society is ready for American-style capitalism and democracy.

Capitalism isn't without its flaws, but it's the best system we've come up with. Democracy needs to be encouraged right from the start. There must be a transition period, but democracy must still be included even in those early stages. Otherwise, what's the purpose of promoting peace and stability if we don't encourage people to have basic rights?

• The word of God is what one chooses to believe, not a universal truth that unerringly applies to all people. Premise: Your belief in your particular version of God is not sufficient justification for you to impose your will on others.

Sounds like you're referring to Islamic fundamentalists. I thought the purpose of toppling Saddam was to promote freedom in Iraq, not to impose our religious will.

- The American social model may not be every reasonable person's idea of a perfect society. Premise: Other cultures are not necessarily inferior to ours simply because they are different. We, as Americans, should proudly promote our values, but our aim should be to persuade, not compel, others to embrace them.

Our values are democracy, pure and simple. It's the only system that's been proven to work.

- Criticizing the U.S. government is not synonymous with criticizing America. Premise: Nonviolent dissent can be both patriotic and healthy for the nation.

I agree 100%, but I would add "respectful". Calling the president a liar and accusing him of murder is neither patriotic nor healthy.

Sincerely,
26th Parallel