Wednesday, January 04, 2006

Debate, Dissent, Victory

Two articles over at townhall caught my eye today, both dealing with the current war at home over Iraq. Bill Murchinson writes about how this is a very weird war.
How all this looks to the outside world, we can only imagine. A strong, confident America disposing of its enemies would seem to others -- wouldn't you suppose? -- like a giant you don't want to touch. A divided, bitter and perpetually squabbling America, headed by a president the ACLU wants to impeach, is a country that seems unlikely to scare off determined enemies.

Once upon a time, we sought victory in war. No wonder our wars were generally victorious. What we now seem -- wearily -- to want is a stop to the screaming, the vilification, the accusations, the moral muddle. We went into Iraq determined to oust a slimy, America-hating dictator who, by cooperating with outside inspectors, could have settled accusations about his commitment to build chemical and biological weapons. We won, but the screaming goes on. Weirder wars than this one, you wouldn't want to see. I mean, would you?
This isn't specifically an indictment of the left or the media. Rather it seems to be decrying the general morass of our public discourse. There are too many voices clammoring for our attention; it's hard to know which ones are correct. Of course we know what sorts of voices Murchinson thinks we should be paying attention to and what sorts of voices he wishes we'd tune out.

Tony Blankley covers similar terrain in his article, discussion how our national disunity is hurting the war effort. He, however, proposes a solution.
As the president and other national politicians have failed to make that case, it is time for convinced members of the public (including prominent figures) to organize at a much higher level than exists a broad-based, well-financed operation to try to move the better part of the American public to a unity of purpose in the face of the present danger. Any takers?
What's interesting about these two articles is that they aren't particularly partisan. They are partisan of course, but it is muted a bit. Rather both articles seem content to pretend that at least some of the reason for our national disunity comes from the Republican side of the fence. It's clear that the solution to the problem is largely for those critical of the President to shut up, but interesting that they aren't being as direct about that as they have in the past. Perhaps they don't feel their position is strong enough to demand compliance; they are reduced to requesting.

No comments: