Causality And Moral Responsibility

For a lot of people, the bombings in London proved a point: Britain was punished for its role in the war to remove Saddam Hussein from power.

I strongly disagree with this line of reasoning. I believe the terrorists use the Iraq war as a convenient excuse to drive wedges between Western allies and within Western democracies. This does not mean that Muslims liked the war in Iraq and that it hasn’t been a real source of resentment. (That said, Muslims could just as easily see the war in Iraq as a war of liberation of an oppressed Muslim people. They could be thankful that the seeds of democracy have been planted in a part of the world that has known only tyranny.)

In today’s Washington Times, Jamie Dettmer wrote:

Much of Britain's political class and public remain opposed to the decision to go to war in Iraq, or harbor deep misgivings about the conflict and the chances of success. However, few are ready to use the mayhem in the heart of London as a stick with which to beat Mr. Blair or to raise yet again the issue of the Iraq intervention.

Kudos to those Brits. They might have fallen for the argument that the bombings were retaliation for British involvement Iraq, but despite that mistaken belief, they are not about to absolve the terrorists and the terrorist sympathizers of any moral reponsibility for the despicable bombings. And that's good, because once you do, you are on a slippery slope of appeasement.

If the London bombings were "understandable" because of Britain's involvement in Iraq, then what next? More bombs in London because of the Britain's close diplomatic relations with "the Great Satan?" Bombs because a British billboard has a scantilly clad woman on it and offends Muslim sensibilities?

Dettmer continued:

Two major British newspapers that were opposed to the war, the left-wing Guardian and the conservative Daily Mail, are now saying that while the war was a misbegotten adventure, there can't be an immediate withdrawal from Iraq because it will lead to greater bloodshed there and may be seen as handing the terrorists a victory. According to the Daily Mail, "if the allies scuttle home with the job undone, as some on the Left want, it would plunge the region into even worse anarchy. Whatever mistakes have been made, this would be the most dangerous of all."

Exactly correct. If we leave now, we leave Iraq to the tender mercies of the Sunni-Arab headchoppers. You know, the “insurgents,” the folks Michael Moore called “Minutemen”; the “freedom fighters” who recently rammed a car full of explosives into a crowd of children who were guilty of being Shiite and receiving candy from infidels.

For decades the Shiite-Arab majority and non-Arab Kurds have been ruthlessly oppressed and subjugated by the Sunni-Arab minority. Now, these formerly oppressed peoples have held democratic elections and—despite having been oppressed—are offering an outstretched hand to the embittered Sunni-Arabs for cooperation in drafting a constitution.

And how does the “progressive” Left respond? The Left that claims to support the oppressed underdog—the Left that ostensibly supports equal rights for all people—what do they propose?

Jane Fonda to Oppose Iraq War on Bus Tour

“Actress and activist Jane Fonda says she intends to take a cross-country bus tour to call for an end to U.S. military operations in Iraq.”

Sheesh. I guess Fonda would like to see Iraq ruled by a genocidal mixture of ex-Ba’athists and Taliban-minded Islamists instead of a constitutional democracy.

The irony is that my views on the war in Iraq earn me the label of “conservative,” or “rightwing,” at least in the present American political lexicon. Call me what you will. The truth is, I support our actions in Iraq in large part because of my liberal values. I’m a classic liberal. Unfortunately, the far Left has hijacked the terms “liberal” and “progressive.” Indeed, if “conservative” means to “conserve”—to keep things as they are instead of supporting change—then the anti-war folks were acting as conservatives in that they preferred the Saddam-ruling status quo instead of change and progress.

The proof that the leftists (I don’t mean mainstream Democrats, but the far Left) are hardly liberal is obvious when you compare the anti-war arguments of Patrick Buchanan on the eve of the war in Iraq to those of leftists—they were identical.