Matthew 24
I have expressed my fear that the US is about to abandon another people who trusted us. Wretchard says what I have wanted to say, but could not find the words for.
It is at heart a struggle between good and evil; and must begin with an understanding of what is good. Many liberal commentators mistakenly argue that “catch and release”, and strict adherence to the letter of the Geneva Convention and international rules of evidence are necessary to attain the Moral High Ground; and thereby overawe the world with an admiration for America’s shining moral superiority. But no one is impressed, not our friends nor our enemies. Because those pretensions to superiority based on legalisms are undermined at every turn by actual betrayals. The liberals have identified the wrong moral high ground, because a more convincing demonstration of moral superiority lies not in ostentatious adherence to often incomprehensible Western ceremonies but a sincere commitment to stand with and protect anyone who stands for good against evil. In the Third World especially, America’s moral quality will be judged more by its willingness to keep its word of honor than in any self-absorbed liturgy to the gods of political correctness. Moral superiority must first of all begin with a determination not to sacrifice men who have decided to fight on the American side; because without the ability to stand by those who have risked their lives for us, no sweet words, no fastidiousness references to law will adequately substitute. Against fear we must set not Moral Superiority, but love. Fear is the lunchbox bomb; yet our love is that we should lay our lives for our friends until the lunchbox bomb is no more. Down that road of love the road to winning over terrorism lies; down that path and not the path of Judas.
A reader replied that we have been in Iraq for six years, and asked rhetorically how much longer we should stay. How long did we stay in Germany, in Japan, in Korea? We should stay until those who cast their lot with us no longer need our protection. It is that simple.
Posted on November 22nd, 2006 by pwyll
Filed under: politics, war
Entries RSS
The long quote above is rubish and Mussillini-esque.
I disagree. Since you offer nothing but an ad hominem attack, I’ll let it go at that.
To be over technical, mine is not an “ad hominem” attack. I attack no man, no woman, no persons. I negatively characterize the long quote in the post; my problem is with the ideas in it, not persons who think it right. To butcher a cliche, I disagree with the long quote, but will defend to the death anyone’s right to agree with it. I’m very pro-hominem.
I characterize the quote as Mussolini-esque. Apparently you disagree with this characterization. I also am happy to move on. (To be perfectly honest, I’m working on understanding John Steinbeck’s East of Eden right now, so I plead guilty to your implicit charge of lazy commentary, with the aforestated excuse.)
Thank you for calling me on my lack of intellectual rigor. I should either take the time to trash the quote properly or just keep my perky little fingers off the keyboard. My bad.