All errors should be reported to DonSurber@gmail.com

Saturday, October 19, 2019

NYT once supported genocide



Spare me the sanctimonious denunciation of President Donald John Trump's decision to leave Syria. Liberals do not care about the Kurds. They were willing to allow ethnic cleansing in Iraq not that long ago just to spite President George Walker Bush.

Remember?

On July 8, 2007, the New York Times published a contemptible editorial, "The Road Home," that showed a lack of human compassion that reflects the soullessness of a people who call killing babies in the womb a civil right.

The editorial began, "It is time for the United States to leave Iraq, without any more delay than the Pentagon needs to organize an orderly exit."

The Times's argument for leaving Iraq sounded reasonable.

The editorial said, "Continuing to sacrifice the lives and limbs of American soldiers is wrong. The war is sapping the strength of the nation’s alliances and its military forces. It is a dangerous diversion from the life-and-death struggle against terrorists. It is an increasing burden on American taxpayers, and it is a betrayal of a world that needs the wise application of American power and principles."

President Donald John Trump made the same case this week. He said, "It's not our border. We shouldn't be losing lives over it."

The difference between Iraq in 2007 and Syria in 2019 is we caused the havoc in Iraq. The deal at Pottery Barn is if you break it, you bought it.

Nevertheless, the New York Times took President Trump to task in an editorial on Monday, "Trump Just Created a Moral and Strategic Disaster. As desperate Kurds ally with Assad in Syria, the specter of the Islamic State threatens again, and American power dims."

I won't argue that the Kurds in question are a small subset who are rebelling and trying to overthrow the government of Turkey, which is a NATO ally. Erdogan isn't killing Kurds because they are Kurds. He is killing the ones who have taken up arms against his government.

I won't make that sensible argument because I don't have to. The Times no more cares for human life than Planned Parenthood does. The Times was willing to let all the Kurds die and the region implode 12 years ago.

The Times wanted to abandon Iraq for political reasons, not humanitarian ones.

In that woebegone editorial of yesteryear, the Times wrote, "Americans must be clear that Iraq, and the region around it, could be even bloodier and more chaotic after Americans leave. There could be reprisals against those who worked with American forces, further ethnic cleansing, even genocide. Potentially destabilizing refugee flows could hit Jordan and Syria. Iran and Turkey could be tempted to make power grabs. Perhaps most important, the invasion has created a new stronghold from which terrorist activity could proliferate."

Now the Times argues that the United States should not abandon the very people the Times wanted to sacrifice at the altar of presidential politics 12 years ago.

Liberals talk a lot about principles and morality but the simple truth is they lack both.

George Walker Bush hung in there, weathered the frantic call for impeachment, and spared Iraq from chaos. Bush learned the lesson of Vietnam.

President Trump will do the same. By backing out of Syria, he has forced all sides to seek peace. He learned the lesson of Iraq.

And while General Colin Powell failed to apply it, the Powell Doctrine should guide the nation by forcing us to ask eight questions.
  1. Is a vital national security interest threatened?
  2. Do we have a clear attainable objective?
  3. Have the risks and costs been fully and frankly analyzed?
  4. Have all other non-violent policy means been fully exhausted?
  5. Is there a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement?
  6. Have the consequences of our action been fully considered?
  7. Is the action supported by the American people?
  8. Do we have genuine broad international support?
I just don't see staying in Syria.

No comments:

Post a Comment