Some in the "conservative" party insist that our involvement in the Middle East is a good thing,
despite the wanton killing and destruction. I beg to differ. As the Israelis have learned through
the decades, there are Muslim factions that are willing to die in great numbers to get their way.
Sticking our nose into that mess can only lead to disaster.
OpinionJournal thinks that Bush is following in the footsteps on Lincoln, as if either were on
some great moral crusade. I'm not sure which is more dangerous, one who only pretends to be
righteous (Lincoln with slavery), or one who actually thinks he is righteous enough to rule the
world (Bush with anti-terrorism policies). My missive to the Journal follows:
Mr. Miniter has spent too much time reading biographies written by Lincoln apologists to realize that the
man was at best ambivalent about slavery prior to and well into the Civil War. It certainly wasn't his
intention to solve the moral problem of slavery, and he only became an advocate of partial emanicipation to
improve his war prospects. While this move may have been politically astute, please spare the readers the
claptrap of Lincoln as the Great Emancipator. His was a war to centralize power, and doing so required him
to sacrifice hundreds of thousands to prevent southern secession. Whatever one thinks of his decision, it had
nothing to do with liberating slaves.
Or maybe Mr. Miniter learned his history in the public school system, another failed government program
that President Bush appears willing to further fund despite its predictably dismal performance. By all means,
let's throw good money after bad into the maw of the inept school monopoly!
As for "liberating" Iraq and Afghanistan, that the political leadership in both countries cannot leave their
capitals without throngs of bodyguards protecting them tells me all I need to know about our progress there.
It also worries me that Miniter feels perfectly willing to let Bush "overhaul" the Middle East. This is foolish,
dangerous, and self-defeating, not to mention extraordinarily expensive. Would it be asking too much for our
government to consider the advice of another well-known president, George Washington, who called for
trade with all and alliances with none?