The Machinery of Night

Posted 3:59 PM by Angie Schultz

The Usual Suspect

Jonah Goldberg takes on the idiotarian anti-war arguments in a handy-dandy article you should clip and save for future reference. He is especially good on the "We must have UN approval" argument:

People who think we must go through the U.N...think the U.N. is where the nations of the world put aside their petty self-interest and do whatever is in the best interests of humanity.

...

France has billions of dollars in oil contracts it doesn't want to lose. Which is why, according to numerous accounts, the French have made it known that if they can keep their existing contracts, they will probably approve a U.S. invasion.

...

Russia's foot-dragging is also largely about oil...[b]ut Russia also wants the U.S. to turn a blind eye to its military abuses in Chechnya and Georgia. And, by the way, a precondition for China's vote is tacit American approval of a Chinese crackdown on separatist Muslim Uighurs. Now, how is it that an American invasion of Iraq is somehow morally superior with U.N. approval if that approval can only be bought by American support for bloodshed elsewhere?

In other words, it's likely that cajoling the Security Council is going to cause more suffering than the US going in alone.

Now, let's review. Back when Iraq invaded Kuwait, the US wanted to go in and push them out.

No blood for oil! Hell, no! We won't go! We won't die for Texaco!

But we went in anyway, chasing the Iraqis back into Iraq. Saddam Hussein's still alive, a dangerous man. Do we go after him?

No! He's contained now, he can't hurt anyone! If you go in there will be a blood bath! Inspections!

Saddam jerks around, then tosses out, the inspectors, thereby abrogating the agreement which ended the war. Do we begin hostilities again?

No! Sanctions!

We impose sanctions. They don't seem to be harming him much.

Sanctions are killing the Iraqi babies! Stop the sanctions!

So we should go back in and remove Saddam?

No, you warmongers!

So what do you suggest?

Leave him alone!

But he's working on WMD in there.

You don't know that!

Yes we do. Here's some proof.

What?? He has weapons even after all those years of sanctions? Your sanctions killed thousands! War criminals!

(This last from Robert "My Blood Will Wash Away the Sins of the West" Fisk, the other day.)

Now, the same people are saying that the only way that military force will be legitimate is if it's approved by the UN. If the US manages to horse-trade its way to approval, it's quite possible that blood will be spilled and oil will flow for it.

And in five or so years, those very same people who opposed force---who insisted on, then opposed, sanctions, who this time insisted on UN approval---will notice that this approval was bought with someone else's suffering.

Now. Who are they going to blame?

Are they going to blame Saddam, for being a vicious bastard in the first place?

Are they going to blame the UN for not being the Justice League of Earth?

Are they going to blame the French/Russians/Chinese for their greed and callousness?

I say no. I say there's one more group they can blame. See if you can guess who that is.