"The Good War" In Burma

It's a Good War, to liberals and chin-strokers, because the US is doing absolutely nothing there to abate slaughter and tyranny. Which makes reporters and academics effectively our "front line" of defense -- which is how they want it. Their "defense" amounts for nothing, of course, and saves no lives and destroys no tyrant's bunkers, but they get to be the stars of this do-nothing immorality play, which is better than the non-college-educated morons in the US military who got stuck in Iraq getting to be the stars.

So we can all cluck, cluck about how horrible this all is and pretend that it matters a whit that we are collectively "horrified."

But it's a lie, because it doesn't matter how we feel about it. It's what we do about it that counts. And were Bush to announce airstrikes of opportunity on government forces tomorrow, the MSM and our very-concerned media and academic classes would suddenly find all of this not nearly as "horrifying" as they find it now.

Which isn't to say I advocate such an action (though neither do I oppose some low level of commitment to striking government troops and materiel and vehicles as targets may present themselves).

Just to note that for the left the proper way -- the only way -- to deal with brutal murderers and tyrants is to caterwaul about it and peacock-preen their pretty feathers of righteous indignation.

A Bit More: Compare the media's rather upfront branding of the insane Burmese regime as murderous with their solicitousness of Iran's madmen. The difference? There is a relatively low probability the US will intervene at all in Burma, whereas there's a somewhat higher likelihood that the US will bomb Iran. Thus it's "safe" to brand the Burmese murderers as vicious tyrants; the media can all take solace in the fact they're not contributing to belligerent action that might actually matter in the scheme of things. They can talk tough on Burma, without fear that their tough talk may impel tough action.

I think I see now why Allah was so down on the SNL Ahmadinejad spoofs. Because they minimize and trivialize the threat from Iran, and allow our bien pensents the opportunity to believe they've actually "struck a blow for liberty and dignity" by simply laughing at a buffoon. Having "done their bit" for a cause, the mass of Americans who would like to believe they're tough on tyranny but who are actually its greatest facilitators can sleep easy knowing they've advanced the cause of progressivism by chuckling along with some TV clowns.

Same deal with Jon Stewart. Oh, sure, he really zings some of the lunatics of the world's rogue regimes, and that's really all that's needed, isn't it? A few zingers, a few faked laughs. By our Mighty Mirthfulness shall we bring the tyrants to their knees, so long as doing so doesn't violate their national sovereignty. Or something.

Meanwhile the "bed-wetters" and "fear-mongers" who suggest that maybe we ought to actually do something about these bastards besides show our contempt are painted as the lunatics flip-side-of-the-coin equals in evil. So much easier to sit back and laugh, laugh, laugh at all the buffoonish thugs of the world than lower oneself to actually opposing them.

Incidentally, it strikes me as curious that the media has had relatively little to say about Ahmadinejad's frequent threats to nuke Israel but is only now takes (mocking, unserious) notice when they threaten gays. (Or more than threaten, of course, but the media and the smarties are too brave to note they're actually hanging gays. Safer to just euphemize it as "threaten.")

Not that we shouldn't be concerned about gays, of course. But once again we see the left's pecking order in the heirarchy of protected minorities. No big deal when Hizballah rains missiles onto Jewish cities, but claim there are no gays in Iran and it's on, baby.

And by "it's on, baby," they mean Iran has invited a terrible retribution of mockery upon it. Yeah, take it. Stings don't it, bitch?

posted by Ace at 02:03 PM

| Access Comments