On Wednesday, October 13, the news broke that a mass grave of men, women and children had been unearthed in Hatra, which had a large Kurdish population. A baby had been shot in the head and foetuses were found among the gore in the mass grave.
News of these gruesome discoveries isn’t exactly new. We started finding them almost from the moment Saddam had been dispatched from power.
The brutal legacy of Saddam’s butchery that we keep finding, however, have no bearing on anti-war arguments. The anti-wars pretend that they were happy to see Iraqis celebrating around the fallen statues of Saddam. They say as convincingly as they can that the capture of Saddam brought them a sigh of relief. They say that these graves – entire killing fields – cause them grief.
But still, they always add, we shouldn’t have gone in. We should have continued sanctions. We should have awaited U.N. approval, and for the big man, Mr. Annan himself, to declare the legality of any war against Iraq. Most of all, France, Germany and Russia had great ideas on how to appease Iraq (especially if it didn’t endanger their precious food-for-oil programs). Even the lunatics screaming about government “oppression” don’t even care about this. The fact is that through the last few years, it’s proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the “caring and compassionate” Left is a bunch of BS. (Worse still, I’ve given it nearly a week before I decided to write about this subject, and I haven’t found one, even one, entry that discussed the Hatra killing field here on Blogcritics – correct me if I’m wrong, Eric.)
The Left still pretends that they are concerned about human rights and dignity, but they are happy to follow in the footsteps of the isolationist Old Right. If Pat Buchanan and the rest of that lot had their way, we’d never have fought World War II. And isn’t it ironic that for all the marvellous talk of stopping the Holocaust, nobody would dare to interrupt a discussion about the Second World War and say, “But it was not about stopping the Holocaust; it was because we were attacked by the Japanese.” We pat ourselves on the back for getting involved in the conflict, but it was Pearl Harbor, not the mass genocide unravelling in Europe, which provided the motive for us to enter the war. In retrospect, we can say, “We helped to end the Holocaust.” And what a truly good thing it was too.
And so, someone please inform me, how is the situation in Iraq any different? We know the horrors that went on under Saddam’s regime – the Iraqi holocaust – and we’ve known about it for quite a while. And yet, the anti-wars still shake their heads, mumble that this is not the reason why we invaded Iraq. No matter how many skeletons of babies you hold up that show bullet holes in their skulls, your average anti-war agitator will still say, “That’s very sad. But we were supposed to be looking for WMDs! Where are they? We were lied into war!” In other words, the killing fields of Iraq make no impact at all upon these people.
We hear all the time from the anti-war faction how bad we are to pretend that this was a humanitarian mission. Well, how bad is it that this crowd ignores the humanitarian aspect of the war?
We could use a little retrospect with regard to the War in Iraq, just as we’ve seen fit to do with World War II.Powered by Sidelines