Mr. Nielsen's History Lesson

Columnist Jim Nielsen chooses to use a historical example to prove his argument that redeployment from Iraq is a momentous error. I too believe history is a deep font of knowledge that statesmen should study before making decisions. But the key to a good use of history is an accurate understanding of history.

Let’s look at just one of Mr. Nielsen’s examples. He chose to compare Great Britain’s termination of its Palestinian Mandate to the recent Democrats' proposal to redeploy from Iraq within 12 months. He suggests that Britain’s departure ignited that region in civil war and terrorism. He neglects to mention that when Britain left Palestine the terrorism of the Zionists had already begun. Britain left because it foresaw a “lose-lose” situation. They could either enter into a protracted fight against Jewish Zionists and earn the enmity of everyone sympathetic to the victims of the Holocaust, or leave the Zionist and Palestinians to work out their own destiny and suffer the type of criticism Mr. Nielsen now levels. Britain chose the latter because it best suited their own interest. Had they chose to stay, Britain might be still spilling their children’s blood in Palestine today, and that is assuming their entire economy hadn’t already collapsed under the burden of policing the globe.

There are similarities in these two episodes of Middle Eastern history. In both cases indigenous peoples chose internecine conflict to resolve divergent political-religious philosophies. A democratic nation such as ours can never effectively police these bloody local feuds. We can not stomach the brutal tactics needed to subdue such fierce and obstinate adversaries, particularly when we see no vital self-interest. To bring order to these types of warring factions, only the cold-blooded methods used by Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russian can be effective. Fortunately, America has difficulty playing that role.

Mr. Nielsen should reach a little further back in the history of his own country to throw some light on our current situation in Iraq. He should remember that the original colonists of our country came here largely to escape the constant cycle of internecine warfare in Europe between peoples of different political or religious stripe. Some would argue that the greatness of our nation resulted from this divorce from Europe’s mindset and strife. Now, in our very dangerous modern age, Mr. Nielsen and others of his ilk, many close advisers to our President, wish to make us the policeman of the world and throw us into the thick of bloody and interminable conflicts far removed from our shores and interests. One has to wonder where was the referendum in which we Americans chose to bring the world to order and prosperity when we are still so far from either at home.

When Mr. Nielsen says, “Over the decades the intervention of other nations, particularly America have served to end the rein (sic) of despots and effect truces calming ancient sectarian animosities,” I wish he had given some examples because I can not think of any.

Finally, Mr. Nielsen’s piece misses the point entirely. He equates the War on Iraq with the war on terror. The War on Iraq is to the war on terror as would be an invasion of New York City to the war on organized crime. He suggests that the Democrats’ proposal will lose the war on terror. He ignores the fact that the invasion of Iraq was itself a disastrous setback in the war on terror. Our government is finally trying to recover from this setback so we can win the war on terror.

It is those bull-headed few who can not admit error who are the defeatist in our nation. Rather than encouraging those who beat their heads against the wall of a dead end alley, let us embrace those who seek a way that will bring us to victory in the war on terror and that much closer to peace in the world.