Why Glenn Beck Is Wrong About Liberals Being Right


It’s one of those things that seems like it wouldn’t, couldn’t and shouldn’t happen: Glenn Beck has come out and said that liberals were right that we never should have gotten into the Iraq War.

This, of course, has liberals running around like happy little Ewoks who think they’ve just taken down the Empire.

One of my liberal acquaintances, upon hearing of the Beck confession, commented, “I feel like I’m on the wrong planet.”

I resisted the urge to reply, “You are. That’s always been the problem.”

Yay me.

Now, I have a lot of respect for Mr. Beck. We don’t agree all the time, but mostly I find him to be intelligent and worth listening to, which makes me all the more frustrated that he could be so completely backwards on the Iraq War, much less encouraging the people — Obama supporters — who have done the most to bring about the current situation in Iraq and bring this country low.

The basis of Beck’s confession was this: “They (liberals) said we couldn’t force freedom on people. You were right. Liberals, you were right, we shouldn’t have.”

There are a few problems with this viewpoint, which Beck expressed on his radio show on Tuesday.

The first is that, while democracy for Iraq may have been a selling point used by the Bush Administration to get the support of Mr. and Mrs. America, it wasn’t the real reason we went in there.

And it didn’t work on liberals in any event, because the last thing they want is for people to be free, especially foreigners in their own country. Liberals hide this anti-American, borderline racist feeling by saying that whatever dictatorship is in charge of a country must be what the people really want.

That’s part of the reason that Beck’s confession, or conversion if you prefer, is so disheartening. “You cannot force democracy on the Iraqis or anybody else, it doesn’t work. They don’t understand it or even really want it,” Beck said. 

Now, the part about forcing democracy, or any form of government, on people is true. Forcing any kind of government on people is itself a tyrannical act of the sort that’s common in the Muslim world, where “converts” are mostly made at swordpoint. I think Bruce Lee said it best: “You can’t change people with your fist.”

But we didn’t give them democracy, we gave them freedom, then nudged them in the direction of democracy. Iraqis may have been unfamiliar with democracy, but democracy is just a system, and many of the Iraqis took to it. I recall the thousands of proud blue or purple fingertips when Iraqis cast their first vote. Democracy could have been learned and adopted given enough time.

It was freedom that the Iraqis, used to living under Muslim dictatorship, had the greatest trouble with. Many of those with a little power now found they had freedom to pursue the many corrupt games of bureaucrats, the same games their former bosses had enjoyed while forbidding them to partake.

This is where a strong, fair hand was needed, to teach the Iraqis that with their new freedom came responsibilities and a dedication to the law if the country was to thrive. America should have been that strong hand, providing a military and diplomatic presence for years to come.

That sort of modeling of principle can only come from the top, unfortunately.

Instead, we gave the Iraqis President Obama, who rather than negotiate a continued presence in Iraq decided to cut and run, using a general forces agreement signed in the last days of the Bush Administration as a convenient cover. Obama doesn’t even pay heed to the Constitution; no one can seriously suggest that a loose agreement between the Bush Administration and Iraqi diplomats was a hindrance to him in any way. The truth is, Obama wanted to cut and run like a coward so that he could tell his liberal base that he ended the war and brought the troops home.

He’s ending the war, all right, and the last image of that war will be of the last helicopters carrying U.S. embassy personnel and military guards into the sunset as throngs of cutthroat al-Qaida/ISIS soldiers cheer.

In May of 2013, Obama said the global War on Terror is over, and to prove it, he’s going to empty Guantanamo Bay.

So the loss of Iraq, humiliation of America and ignominious defeat are, in the Obamite view, actually a rare species of victory.

Maybe we could just hand over Washington, D.C., to al-Qaida and declare a global democracy.

What liberals, and surprisingly Mr. Beck, don’t get is that we didn’t go into Iraq to build a democracy. We went into Iraq to fight al-Qaida, not because there were so many al-Qaida already there, but because it was a huge, flat sandbox that formed a nearly ideal battleground — plus, Saddam Hussein had demonstrated he would not serve Western interests, essentially volunteering to be deposed, not because he was a tyrant (which he undoubtedly was) but because he was unstable and ultimately dangerous to the U.S.

The objective of the Iraq War, which I would have though Beck would have figured out, was to stomp al-Qaida, depose Saddam and put the cork back in the djinni’s bottle that is Islamo-fascism.

It could have worked. It was working.

Then came Obama, whose affinity with anything radical and Muslim is one of his most prominent characteristics, and he proceeded to not just re-release the djinni but smashed the bottle and sided with our enemies in a spate of thinly disguised  White House-sponsored regime overthrows in Libya, Egypt, Syria … and now Iraq.

I include Iraq because ISIS is marching with U.S. materiel on Baghdad, and ISIS is al-Qaida, and al-Qaida is Muslim Brotherhood, which is not only an ally of Obama’s but has its agents and hence its talons in the Administration.

Liz and Dick Cheney wrote in a column in the Wall Street Journal that during a recent tour of several Mideast countries, they were asked repeatedly what Obama thought he was doing, why was he abandoning his friends and siding with their enemies?

It’s becoming clearer that Iraq isn’t falling so much as it is being pushed by this Administration.

So, Mr. Beck, you are correct that you can’t force people to accept democracy, but to pat liberals on the back and tell them they were correct is more than a little misplaced since they are the same people forcing a socialist dictatorship on the U.S. and a radical Shariah dictatorship on Iraq as we speak.

And, Mr. Beck, you are distressingly misguided in thinking that the point of the Iraq War was to install a democracy, whatever the sales brochure said, because the real reason we went was to square off with bullies, beat them silly and secure some safety for ourselves and the world, a plan that has gone up in smoke in the hands of former “choom ganger” Barack Obama.

Liberals may have been sort of correct on one minor but ultimately irrelevant point, Mr. Beck, but please don’t use that as an excuse to encourage them.

 

Follow me on Twitter. Like me on Facebook.

Previous Al-Qaida Captures Stockpile of Saddam's WMDs -- Say What?
Next 8 Steps for Immigration Reform

 

Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.

Trending Now on Godfather Politics