Derbyshire Regrets Supporting The War In Iraq
By In a completely morally bankrupt fashion, of course:
One reason I supported the initial attack, and the destruction of the Saddam regime, was that I hoped it would serve as an example, deliver a psychic shock to the whole region. It would have done, if we’d just rubbled the place then left.
He goes on to say that the problem with our attempt to bring democracy to Iraq is that the Iraqis aren’t capable of appreciating democracy.
The universalist dogmas that rule unchallenged in our media and educational institutions have fixed their grip on our foreign policy, too. When the Founders of our nation said “all men” they had in mind Christian Anglo-Saxon men. Our leaders, though, want to bring the whole world under the scope of those grand Lockeian principles.
We’ve finally found out who Bush was talking about when he said:
Some of the debate really centers around the fact that people don’t believe Iraq can be free; that if you’re Muslim, or perhaps brown-skinned, you can’t be self-governing or free. I’d strongly disagree with that.
Apparently, Bush was referring to John Derbyshire.
But Derb has, at least, come around to the realization that the US really hasn’t gotten any benefit out of the war at all — not even the demonstration of our total military dominance that he thought was worth killing incredible numbers of people, and wasting hundreds upon hundreds of billions of dollars, for. Which shows some sort of recognizable relationship to reality. So let’s all give about a third of a cheer for him. Hip. (also at Unfogged.)