No pity for me

Whenever I’ve been party to a discussion on the Iraq war in some international relations class (or, for that matter, in any other class where the natural link to politics is less detectable), professors invariably have me argue the case for regime change. As much as I’d like to attribute this open invitation to my superior debating skills, I have come to notice that the reason I am called upon is less flattering: There is scarcely anyone else willing – and even fewer who seem able – to argue the case. \nIn the course of one recent argument marking the war’s fourth anniversary, an eye-rubbingly biased professor recited like a parrot the old mantra that American foreign policy has “played into the hands” of Osama bin Laden by radicalizing the youthful populations of the Middle East. I hastened to recall bin Laden’s sermon prior to Sept. 11, 2001, expressing to his fellow renegades that forcing the Soviet Union out of Afghanistan was the real battle. The other superpower, he proclaimed, was a weak horse. \nWe seem to have forgotten that – and with it, the fact that our enemy recruits on the basis of American weakness, not American strength. The point to keep in mind, in any case, is the essential corollary almost always bypassed in these juvenile arguments: Shall we furnish policy in deference to the sensibilities of those who make gruff yells while flogging emancipated women, stoning adulterers, imprisoning dissidents, decapitating journalists, burying homosexuals alive and pronouncing death sentences on blasphemers?\nThe term for this counsel, in case you’re curious, is “masochism.” The animating principle is to call a truce with forces that can only be called barbarians – and to blame civilization for the attacks made upon it. It never ceases to cause my jaw to slump in shock.\nThe small but resilient band that believes the war cannot be won without a fight is used to receiving the most pitying glances. I’ve always rather resented these stares from those who maintain that the “root cause” of terrorism is more or less fighting against it. Equally worthless is the claim to be fighting them “over there” so we don’t have to fight them “over here.” Those who don’t think it is a good use of American blood and treasure to fight this foe everywhere are the only ones for whom any pity – and not a little scorn – should be expended.\nIf one measure of a nation is its enemies, then I, for one, take immense pride in the “offence” that my country causes those who unleash the dogs of holy war upon the world. These genuine warmongers deserve nothing less than militant resistance – an idea to which those who talk glibly about “ending the war” haven’t given sufficient thought. Am I the only person to think that this condition disqualifies one from any serious debate? There is no such possibility of concluding this war and, self-respect prods me to add, there is no desire, either.