IRAQ AND SOUTH AFRICA

An email worth reading:

“In reading articles marking 10 years since the end of South Africa apartheid, I was struck by the similarities between that country’s struggle since liberation and the current struggle since the liberation of Iraq. Likewise, I was struck by the relative silence of the left on the real problems South Africa has faced in the past 10 years.
In the early 1990’s, the movement against apartheid was one of the most passionate cause of the American left. The struggle for freedom is South Africa ended on April 27th 1994 when over 90% of the people of that country went to the polls to elect the first democratic government the country had ever seen. Since that time, South Africa has been one of the most, if not the most, dangerous place to live on the planet.
In 1998 for instance, South Africa led the world with a recorded 59 murders per hundred thousand citizens (source: Interpol). By comparison, the United States had 6 per hundred thousand that year; England had 1, France 4, and Russia 21. The closest to South Africa was Colombia, with 56.
Presently, although crime seems to have abated, the country is still racked with problems. An estimated 20.1% of the population has AIDS, 50% of the population is below the poverty line, and 37% of the population is unemployed. The current life expectancy is 46.56 years.
Now, very few people on any side of the political spectrum would argue that South Africa was “better off” under apartheid. Yet, those that oppose our war in Iraq often bitterly complain that the Iraqis are not better off. Both countries, when liberated, were coming from oppressive governments with people unaccustomed to the democratic process. It has taken ten years to get South Africa to the still troubled, but gradually improving, state it is currently in. Why is so much expected of Iraq so quickly? Apparently, the left’s criterion for democratic progress is a double standard.”

More feedback from the smartest readers on the web here.

QUOTE FOR THE DAY I: “In Iraq our national security interests and our national values converge. Iraq is truly the test of a generation, for America and for our role in the world. Faced with similar challenges, previous generations of Americans have passed such tests with honor. It is now our turn to demonstrate that our power, ennobled by our principles, is the greatest force for good on earth today. Iraq’s transformation into a secure democracy and a force for freedom in the greater Middle East is the calling of our age. We can succeed. We must succeed.” – Senator John McCain, getting it right, again.

QUOTE FOR THE DAY II: “I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute; where no Catholic prelate would tell the president – should he be Catholic – how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote.” – John F. Kennedy, the nemesis of theocons everywhere.

SPEDALE’S FULL RESPONSE

… to the mischaracterizations of Stanley Kurtz can be read here. Meanwhile, an email from a Norwegian who knows what he’s talking about, points out more inaccuracy:

Let me just say that some of Kurtz’ assertions, i.e. “Nord-Troendelag is like Massachusetts – a socially liberal state influenced by left-leaning institutions of higher learning”, are simply not true.
Nord-Troendelag does not distinguish itself as more “socially liberal” than any other part of Norway, and if the NTNU is having any influence at all, it’s in the conservative/realist direction — after all, it’s a school primarily of Science and Technology, not Sociology and Film Theory, or what have you.
Also, the differences between the geographical entities within Norway aren’t anywhere near big enough to warrant comparisons with states in the US. Nord-Troendelag and neighbouring Soer-Troendelag are absolutely indistinguishable, and most people just lump them together as “Troendelag” (calling their inhabitants “Troenders”) for simplicity.

On another note, I’d say that yes, more than half of my friends were probably born “out of wedlock”, and more than half of my friends’ parents are certainly divorced or separated at this point. The question is: who cares? As you say, there aren’t really any significant practical benefits (i.e. from the government) of getting married in the first place, and couples are very serious on raising their children in a decent manner no matter what their civil status. It’s not like we’re a country of “crack babies” and abandoned orphans, we probably have some of the best statistics in the entire world despite low marriage rates!
I myself was born by unmarried parents. They married a year or two after I was born (civil marriage, not in a church), and divorced when I was 16. Now (six years later), they’re back living together, but still haven’t gotten “re-married” officially — and why should they, as long as they’re happy living together? Also, I’m happy to say I turned out okay despite all this which for Americans probably seems a bit stormy.

But the truth, of course, will not inflame the religious right sufficiently.

THREE NEW POSTS: On Iraq, the Washington Post’s privacy issues, and – yes – the case for a gas tax. All now posted on the left, so to speak.

TIME OUT: I’m going to have minor surgery today (hernia fix) so if you read anything on the blog this weekend, it will be either because a) I’m really bored or b) I’m really addicted to this blogging thing. But the odds are I’ll be on painkillers. Hey, it worked for Rush … (Oh, and no Inside Dish this weekend either.)

AN EDITOR LOSES IT

The editor of the Sioux Falls Argus Leader cannot take any criticism from the outside about the blatant bias displayed by one of his key political reporters. Money quote:

The internet is both a good and a bad thing. The bad is that it has allowed people who hate to distribute their vitriol anonymously, um, using gang emails, using blogs, what have you, with barely a shred of proof, manipulating facts, to perpetuate an ideology. And it’s a truly sad thing. And I guess that I would suggest that I’m not going to dignify that kind of crap with an answer.

Using blogs to criticize newspapers? How sad. How awful. How terrifying. I think we’ve hit a nerve here, haven’t we? When you stumble onto the truth, it sometimes hurts.

COMPASSIONATE CONSERVATISM

A Catholic and Republican initiative in Michigan will allow doctors to refuse treatment to any person of whom they morally disapprove. I can see why some doctors should be allowed to refuse to perform abortions on moral grounds (except I doubt that any doctors are routinely put in that position). But the sweeping nature of this bill is clearly aimed at allowing doctors to refuse care to homosexuals (there is an exception barring refusal of care on racial grounds). Now take a look at what is going on in Virginia, where the Republican-dominated state-legislature has not only banned marriages and civil unions for gays, but even legal contracts designed to secure some basic rights, like hospital visitation. A few of you have written to argue that my citation of a New Mexico Republican suggesting “assassination” for a county clerk who issued marriage licenses to gay couples should not be regarded as the norm for the Republican party. But I have yet to read a conservative denunciation of this. Just as I have yet to see this president do anything to distance himself from the hatred coming from some parts of his own party. Why should it always be up to gay people to point this out? Are there no straight people prepared to stand up against this kind of thing in the G.O.P.?

EMAIL OF THE DAY

I can’t verify this first-hand but it comes from a source I know and trust. It’s from a military chaplain in Fallujah:

Here’s some background on Al Faluja to keep in mind.

A) Why is it in the news almost every night? Because it is one of the FEW places in all of Iraq where trouble exists. Iraq has 25 million people and is the size of California. Faluja and surrounding towns total 500,000 people. Do the math: that’s not a big percentage of Iraq. How many people were murdered last night in L.A.? Did it make headline news? Why not?

B) Saddam could not and did not control Faluja. He bought off those he could, killed those he couldn’t and played all leaders against one another. It was and is a ‘difficult’ town. Nothing new about that. What is new is that outside people have come in to stir up unrest. How many are there is classified, but let me tell you this: there are more people in the northeast Minneapolis gangs than there are causing havoc in Faluja. Surprised?

C) Then why does it get so much coverage? Because the major news outlets have camera crews permanently posted in Faluja. So, if you are from outside Iraq, and want to get air time for your cause, where would you go to terrorize, bomb, mutilate and destroy? Faluja.

D) Why does it seem to be getting worse? Two answers:

1) This country became a welfare state under Saddam. If you cared about your well-fare, you towed the line or died. The state did your thinking and your bidding. Want a job? Pledge allegiance to the Ba’ath party. Want an apartment, a car, etc? Show loyalty. Electricity, water, sewage, etc. was paid by the state. Go with the flow: life is good. Don’t and you’re dead. Now, what does that do to initiative? drive? industry?

So, we come along and lock up sugar daddy and give these people the toughest challenge in the world, FREEDOM. You want a job? Earn it! A house? Buy it or build it! Security? Build a police force, army and militia and give it to yourself. Risk your lives and earn freedom. The good news is that millions of Iraqis are doing just that, and some pay with their lives. But many, many are struggling with freedom (just like East Germans, Russians, Czechs, etc.) and they want a sugar daddy, the U.S.A., to do it all. We refuse. We don’t want to be plantation owners. We make it clear we are here to help, not own or stay. They get mad about that, sometimes.

Nonetheless, in Faluja, the supposed hotbed of dissent in Iraq, countless Iraqis tell our psyopers they want to cooperate with us but are afraid the thugs will slit their throats or kill their kids. A bad gang can do that to a neighborhood and a town. That’s what is happening here.

2) We have a battle hand-off going on here. The largest in recent American history. The Army is passing the baton to the Marines in this area. There is uncertainty among the populace and misinformation being given out by the bad guys. As a result there is insecurity and the bad guys are testing the resolve of the Marines and indirectly you, the American people. The bad guys are convinced that Americans have no stomach for a long haul effort here. They want to drive us out of here and then resurrect a dictatorship of one kind or another.

Okay, what do we do? Stay the course. The Marines will get into a battle rhythm and, along with other forces and government agencies here, they will knock out the crack houses, drive the thugs across the border and set the conditions for the Falujans to join the freedom parade or rot in their lack of initiative. Either way, the choice will be theirs. The alternative? Turn tail, pull out and leave a power vacuum that will suck in all of Iraq’s neighbors and spark a civil war that could make Rwanda look like a misdemeanor.

Hey, America, don’t go weak kneed on us: 585 dead American’s made an investment here. That’s a whole lot less than were killed on American highways last month. Their lives are honored when we stay the course and do the job we came to do; namely, set the conditions for a new government and empower these people to be the great nation they are capable of being.

The American burden.