It's nice to see that the Iraqi woman appreciates our soldiers' sacrifice, but I so deeply fucking resent the fact that a good man like Byron Norwood had to die because Arabs won't deal with their own political demons. The only reason Norwood was in Iraq to begin with is because the people of that region let their culture degrade to the point where Osama bin Laden could attack American civilians and reasonably expect his popularity to increase because of it. The hug was a beautiful moment on a human level, but an American mother had to be consoled tonight only because so many Iraqi mothers, and Saudi mothers, and Syrian mothers, and Egyptian mothers, and Iranian mothers, never had to be.

Woah. You singed my hair, Allah. As a Marine mom, I ain't EVEN going to bite, hon. Sorry. I just can't do it.

But it still made me cry to see them hug. I suppose that cinches my Sap Of The Frickin' Year award, hey?

It was a great moment and Ilyka really made the most succing point about.

"There's the seeds of your peace-on-earth dream, pacifists.."

Will they see it as that? Doubt it.

"There's the seeds of your peace-on-earth dream, pacifists."

Yeah, right there in Sgt. Norwood's corpse. Maybe we want to hold off on using dead Marines and their moms to taunt the left, hm?

Cynic that I am, I have a little fantasy of the Iraqi woman whispering to Mrs. Norwood as they embraced, "Thanks for the free ride." Ah well.

Also, I see that the Powerline boys have a photo of the hug featured prominently on their site today. A tribute to a poignant moment between two grief-stricken women? Or a transparent moving of the political goalposts to make the Iraqi election in and of itself a sufficient justification for having gone to war? You make the call!

Goddam, Allah. Haven't you imploded from your own cynicism, yet?

Oh. Right. Since I haven't imploded from my own optimism. . .yes. Right. I see the connection.

You *definitely* give me thngs to think about. That's for sure. But really. . .a line from Good Morning Vietnam comes to mind here:

You are in more dire need of a blowjob than any [deity] in history.

Just sayin.

Yeah, right there in Sgt. Norwood's corpse.

I was thinking more of "right there in the shared bond of suffering between two women," since I suspect al-Suhail's life wasn't all roses before that moment, either, but it doesn't matter; even putting it as you did backs up my point that peace is seldom won through marches and rallies.

Maybe we want to hold off on using dead Marines and their moms to taunt the left, hm?

I don't think I was doing that. What was interesting to me about it--and even with just a cursory look around this morning I can see I didn't have an original thought about this--is that here you have two people from disparate backgrounds, each with her own reasons to resent or begrudge the other, and each got past that for a moment, and that is exactly what I was always taught would happen once the world learned to (for example) "Make Love, Not War"--but it's war that brought it about regardless. Certainly a "duh" realization if you know even a thimbleful of history, but the hug crystallized it nicely.

As for the late Sgt. Norwood, perhaps it's rash to speculate, but I somehow doubt his wish from the afterlife was to see his mother turn to al-Suhail, shriek "You bitch!" and start pulling her hair out.

You are in more dire need of a blowjob than any [deity] in history.

Be nice, girl. :)

You are in more dire need of a blowjob than any [deity] in history.

Heh. If you know any cute single girls willing to test your theory, Margi, I'm more than game. Be sure to tell them I have a great sense of humor, too; that sort of thing seems to get the ladies I know really hot.

All I'm saying here, and I'd think that a Marine mom would be uniquely sympathetic to this argument, is that we can't go sending our troops into every hot zone on earth simply because the people there would benefit from their presence. There has to be an American interest at stake. Most people on the right agree with me -- or at least they did, before the Day of the Blue Fingertips. Suddenly I'm sensing a shift towards, "Well, democracy makes it all worthwhile." It does? It makes 1400 American soldiers being blown to pieces worthwhile? We're all having a big freedom feast here and forgetting about who got stuck with the bill.

I was thinking more of "right there in the shared bond of suffering between two women," since I suspect al-Suhail's life wasn't all roses before that moment, either

True, no doubt. The question is, why is that our problem? Answer: Because Arabs refuse to take out the garbage that resides at the top of their own political system. Paging Garbageman Norwood....

here you have two people from disparate backgrounds, each with her own reasons to resent or begrudge the other, and each got past that for a moment

Absolutely. That's why I acknowledged that it was a beautiful moment. But, like it or not, having been broadcast to the world during a major speech, that moment is now going to take on political significance. It's going to stand for the proposition that Arabs are as human as we are (true and salutary) and therefore it's okay to risk the lives of U.S. troops in order to make their lives better. Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. As I said on Roger Simon's site, we all love the "Iraq the Model" guys but not to the point where I'm willing to trade their safety for Byron Norwood's. At least, not without an overriding, coincidental U.S. security interest.

As for the late Sgt. Norwood, perhaps it's rash to speculate, but I somehow doubt his wish from the afterlife was to see his mother turn to al-Suhail, shriek "You bitch!" and start pulling her hair out.

The key word in that sentence being "late." Look, as I've said, my point is not to belittle the human moment between the two women. It's lovely that they could connect, and that the Iraqi woman feels gratitude for Mrs. Norwood's sacrifice. But gratitude doesn't absolve the people in that region from their near-total abdication of responsibility for their own governance. It's one thing to support the war as something that has to be done but it's another thing to do the Julie Andrews twirl and exult about the hills being alive with the sound of democracy. We're cleaning up their mess here and it's costing us big time. Let's keep our heads in the game.

Thank you for not sending 40 camels to do the watusi in my thong panties. Heh.

I understand better at what you're getting at, now. Thank you for the clarification. I will address this further, but it will have to be much later, as I am "working." *koff*

And, in all sincerity. . . I believe that if you placed an ad for the services of the aforementioned act, you would be deluged with responses. Of course, the cute factor would have to be your determination as it "cute" is highly subjective.

Do you like the smell of Ben-Gay™.

And I will be going to hell for THAT question.

::: flee :::

Nuts. There were countless Iraqi women who lost their own lives, or the lives of their loved ones, in the struggle for freedom. It's obscene to sugest that they didn't. Here, read this if you can be bothered. I'll quote from it for you just to get you started:

"Safia Taleb Al-Souhail has, out of tragedy, gained the determination to speak out against Saddam Hussein's brutality. "In 1994, an assassin traveled to Beirut on orders from Baghdad and, working with Iraqi diplomats, gained entry to our house and shot my father at his front door." Al-Souhail's father was an Iraqi patriot, democrat, leader of the respected Bani Tamim tribe, and father of eight children."

Ah, there's more. You want me to link you to the Iraqi women's group made up of women who'd watched husbands, brothers, fathers, sons--and sometimes daughters, sisters, mothers--brutally tortured or killed just for fighting for democracy and human rights?

I'll tell you something else: you ask your average Marine serving over there and I'll think he'll tell you he's fucking proud of that election.

Of course I don't count as an easy member of "the right" but democracy in Iraq was a concern for me from DAY FUCKING ONE. I started a goddamned button campaign for it before we even invaded. Know why? Because democracy in that region is FUCKING WELL IN AMERICAN SELF-INTEREST, THAT'S WHY. It DIRECTLY serves our strategic and tactical and economic self-interest that the status quo no longer be maintained in that region.

We were a part of creating and maintaining that status quo. Not the largest, to be sure, but blaming it entirely on Arab culture is just ignorant.

Furthermore, it would have been a FAILURE if we had wound up having to leave that place with just another bully boy dictator. It would have NOT been in our STRATEGIC interests to do that, because despite whatever fantasies some people have there's no such thing as a "pet dictator," they all go off on their own and in defiance eventually.

No, this was a fucking VICTORY, and it was ALWAYS part of the strategic mission, and to piss on it is to piss on the sacrifice of every life given by a member of the armed forces in that conflict.

In need of a blow job? Yeah right. More like a kick in the head.

Whew. Remind me not to get on Dean's shit list...

I was going to say much the same thing, albeit more gently. But damn straight, invading Iraq was a vital strategic interest of the United States.

Allah, some people will achieve democracy on their own. Some need to be persuaded. And some will need outside help, because they CAN'T do it on their own. Iraq under Saddam fell into that third category, and as such I don't resent the Iraqis for not liberating themselves. Saddam would never have permitted that in a million years.

And no, I don't think we should help people merely because they need help; plenty of people "need help". The United States is not the world's father-figure. But WE needed Saddam's regime to disappear, so we took care of it -- and did the Iraqis a world of good at the same time.

Lighten up on the cynicism a bit, dude. Yes, the death of every soldier, and sailor, and airman, and Marine, is an utter tragedy. It always has been. But good warriors die while fighting for a good cause; that's what they do. This cause was a worthy one.

respectfully,
Daniel in Brookline

So then, for supporting the war as something that had to be done but resenting the fact that Americans were the ones who had to do it, I'm (a) a loser who isn't getting laid often enough and/or (b) an asshole who would benefit from head trauma. Anyone want to up the ante and tell me they hope I get AIDS?

Let's get to it.

There were countless Iraqi women who lost their own lives, or the lives of their loved ones, in the struggle for freedom.

That's true. Many have suffered. But as you know, Dean, the reason we're in Iraq has less to do with Iraq itself than with what success there portends for the region as a whole. In other words, the War on Terror is a regional war, and notwithstanding the bravery of those Iraqis who resisted Saddam, we shouldn't bullshit ourselves about there having been some huge, widespread Arab resistance movement against the local despots throughout the region. Where are the Egyptians and the Saudis and the Syrians and the Iranians? 22 countries in the Arab League and not a single fucking one has a truly democratic form of government? If the struggle for freedom over there has been so vigorous, surely we'd expect to see at least one or two democracies born of popular revolution in the mix. Yet the fact remains -- 0 for 22. Which is why it's now the U.S. military's responsibility to go in and get them on the scoreboard. Enter (or should I say "exit"?) Sgt. Norwood.

I'll tell you something else: you ask your average Marine serving over there and I'll think he'll tell you he's fucking proud of that election.

I haven't seen a strawman this impressive since the scarecrow's dance number in The Wizard of Oz. What does this have to do with anything? Of course they're proud. They should be fucking proud. They've accomplished something the rest of the world thought was impossible. They stood in the line of fire for two straight years and ended up delivering something that's objectively morally good to people who were denied it for decades. And if Bush is right, it's going to pay huge dividends for our national security in the long run. I'd go so far as to say that last Sunday was the greatest accomplishment the U.S. military has had since V-J Day. But what does any of that have to do with the fact that 1400 American troops might be alive right now if Arabs had pressed more insistently for progressivism over the past half century or so?

Know why? Because democracy in that region is FUCKING WELL IN AMERICAN SELF-INTEREST, THAT'S WHY. It DIRECTLY serves our strategic and tactical and economic self-interest that the status quo no longer be maintained in that region.

Correct. Precisely right. IN FACT, I SHALL USE ALL CAPS TO EMPHASIZE THE DEGREE TO WHICH I CONCUR WITH YOUR STATEMENT.

This is exactly, but exactly, but exactly the point I've been stressing with people who complain that intervention in Iraq wasn't justified because it served only a moral interest. Not true. If it were true then I would come down on their side; in my opinion, good causes don't justify American troops being put in harm's way. But it ain't true. For exactly the reasons you gave.

We were a part of creating and maintaining that status quo. Not the largest, to be sure, but blaming it entirely on Arab culture is just ignorant.

I'm not touching this one. There's enough on our plate already in this thread without dumping a "root causes" argument on there too. Suffice it to say, I think you've got yourself a chicken-and-egg problem here.

Furthermore, it would have been a FAILURE if we had wound up having to leave that place with just another bully boy dictator. It would have NOT been in our STRATEGIC interests to do that, because despite whatever fantasies some people have there's no such thing as a "pet dictator," they all go off on their own and in defiance eventually.

No, this was a fucking VICTORY, and it was ALWAYS part of the strategic mission, and to piss on it is to piss on the sacrifice of every life given by a member of the armed forces in that conflict.

ONCE AGAIN I AM MOVED TO DEPRESS MY "CAPS LOCK" KEY TO SIGNAL THE FERVOR WITH WHICH I AGREE WITH THE PRECEDING STATEMENTS. Well, except for the part about "pissing" on victory. Why is it pissing on victory to say that I resent the fact that Arabs couldn't do this for themselves so that no American lives had to be lost? Travel back in time with me to the late 1940s, Dean, as a defeated Japan embarks on its democratic journey towards progressivism. Can we wish them well while still feeling a wee fucking bit ticked off that it took 400,000 American corpses to get them to that point? I think that we can.