on violence."--from his WP column Weds a.m.
Well, so much for democracy. I thought this nitwit likes to pretend he's a conservative? What's conservative about a government violently imposing its will against its people? I wonder if he thought the same way when Clinton was President.
In the last paragraph, Will gets pissy with bush* for not being open about the sacrifices Americans will have to make for the multiple regime changes to come if bush* wins in November.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A56305-2004Apr6.htmlregistration required
<snip>
By proclaiming himself <Moqtada Sadr> allied with two terrorist organizations -- "I am the beating arm for Hezbollah and Hamas here in Iraq" -- he compelled U.S. commanders to seek his arrest, which would mean martyrdom in the eyes of his followers. In the war against the militias, every door American troops crash through, every civilian bystander shot -- there will be many -- will make matters worse, for a while. Nevertheless,
the first task of the occupation remains the first task of government: to establish a monopoly on violence.When Sadr's forces took to the streets with assault rifles and rocket-propelled grenade launchers, many of the freshly minted Iraqi security forces took flight. It is too late for debate about being in Baghdad. And the (relatively) pretty phase of empire -- the swift dispatch of an enemy army -- is over. Regime change, occupation, nation-building -- in a word, empire -- are a bloody business. Now Americans must steel themselves for administering the violence necessary to disarm or defeat Iraq's urban militias, which replicate the problem of modern terrorism -- violence that has slipped the leash of states.
<snip>
Since Sept. 11, 2001, Americans have been told that they are at war. They have not been told what sacrifices, material and emotional, they must make to sustain multiple regime changes and nation-building projects. Telling such truths is part of the job description of a war president.