Rabbi Gellman on Iraq

This is the first I’ve heard of Rabbi Marc Gellman, though a quick Googling reveals that he does some interesting stuff.

In this article, he describes his support for the war in Iraq, and I agree with many of his points. I am not a religious person but have great respect, perhaps even admiration, for those with faith. Rabbi Gellman’s most important point, and one that many don’t want to hear, is that this is a war for human rights -- for Jews, for Kurds, and for the greater Middle East.

There are many things that I think when I hear folks comparing Iraq to Vietnam. The first is, wow, this person hasn’t thought much about either war. The second is, is that wishful thinking? The third is, World War II is a much better comparison.

In that war, the US decided to go abroad to combat a truly racist and fascist regime, one that hoped to enslave a continent, and to establish ethnic purity. In the present day, the attempt at enslavement is worldwide and religious purity is the motivation. Just as force was necessary against the Nazis, force is necessary against a new and fundamentalist form of fascism.

(It is symbolic, but not necessary, to point out that Jews were among the prime targets for both movements.)

I’ll go a little further. The political patterns in the current war are much more similar to WWII than in Vietnam. For example, a continental European instinct for appeasement, and the tragic results.

And, unlike during Vietnam, there is no substantial anti-war movement in this country. In the case of Vietnam, the protests came at late in the conflict, as the casualties mounted and a loss became possible.

In the current war, protests came at the beginning of the conflict, prior to substantial losses, and diminished quickly. They had no political force. They might have even helped Bush, since they alienated huge numbers of people (like, say, NYC commuters).

I’m sure this will make many people’s hair stand up straight, but an anti-war “movement” is a journalistic fantasy. There are plenty of people opposed to the war but no serious counter-argument has emerged.

Bush has compared the current war with the war against communism, but that plays into the Vietnam comparison. Bush would serve himself politically by invoking WWII instead...

Update: looks like my post has been noticed by MSNBC, thanks to Technorati.

Comments

[atomase]

I agree, WW II is a better comparison; and I have used it in some of my letters to editors on the subject.

But I would also argue that the same can be said for any struggle against an expansionist totalitarian movement that constitutes a threat to the free world. That would include the Cold War (See Norman Podhoretz's WW IV in Commentary).

The current "continental European instinct for appeasement," to use your words is an excellent analogy. And, unfortunately, it appears that history may repeat itself again.

Vietnam is fair game only because we failed to fight to victory, and refused to support the South Vietnamese when after the armistice, obtained by finally bobbing the North, the latter invaded the South. The result, Canbodia, re-education camps and the hundreds of thousands of fleeing Vietnamese risking their lives on the open seas.

Need we say more?