Wow! What an incredibly stupid guy! Just to give you an idea of how amazingly lunkheaded this guy is, here's an excerpt:
Mark Steyn on Bush:
In my corner of northern New England, as in Highgate and Holland Park, it is also stressful being a Bush apologist. Most of the guys I hang out with demand to know why he's being such a wimp, why's he kissing up to King Abdullah about a few stray bananas in some jailhouse, why's he being such a pantywaist about not letting our boys fire on mosques, why hasn't he levelled Fallujah. In other words, don't make the mistake of assuming that Bush's poll numbers on Iraq have fallen because people want him to be more multilateralist and accommodating. On my anecdotal evidence, they want him to be more robust and incendiary.
People I know of invented the term “knuckle-draggers” to describe people like this. Why would anyone object to firing on a mosque? Gee, I don't know. Maybe because they don't want to provoke the country into throwing American troops out by their keisters, ya think? Level Falluajh? Sure, let's commit an act of genocide in the country we were suppposedly liberating. Yeah, that'll convince the world that when America invades a country, that that country better jolly well not act up or anything. We'll go flying off the handle and murder a few hundred thousand of them. Granted, we condemned the Nazis and the Serbians under Slobadan Milosevic and several African nations for doing exactly the same thing, but hey, we're Americans. We're entitled to do that sort of thing anytime the mood strikes us.
Steyn's stupidity continues in The (British) Observer:
As for Iraq, the UN system designed to constrain Saddam was instead enriching him, through the Oil-for-Food programme, and enabling him to subsidise terrorism. Given that the Oil-for-Fraud programme was run directly out of Kofi Annan's office, the Secretary-General ought to have the decency to recognise that he had his chance with Iraq, he blew it, and a period of silence from him would now be welcome.
There is of course not the slightest evidence that Saddam Hussein ever, at any time, subsidized terrorism. Hussein was an awful ,evil, terrible guy, but US intelligence agencies have come up completely dry in finding any connection between his regime and terrorists. The fact that Hussein made more money than he should have off of the Oil-for-Food program is indisputable.
The idea, however, that Hussein used his illegal profits to buy weapons is complete nonsense. The Iraq Survey Group finished up 15 months surveying Iraq and that:
The draft Duelfer report, according to the New York Times, finds no evidence of a capability, but only of an intention to rebuild that capability once the UN embargo had been removed and Iraq was no longer the target of intense international scrutiny.
This is an interesting statement, however:
The Malayan "emergency", to take one example, lasted from 1948 to 1960, and at the end of it Britain midwifed what can reasonably claim to be one of the least worst Islamic states in the world.
The numbers are that 135,000 troops (35,000 British and 100,000 Malay) were up against 500,000 ethnic Chinese who had no real support in the countryside and of whom 80,000 were active fighters. Current support for the US occupation was last counted as being at 2%, so US troops at roughly the same size of the combined British/Malay force is facing a total population of around 25,000,000 with who-knows-how-many active fighters, a vastly larger force than the British had to face in Malaysia. Note that the struggle was finally petering out in 1958. That's ten full years for the armed struggle to persist.
Funny, the US doesn't seem to have a program like that running. Not because US troops haven't been trying, but because they seem to be busy just trying to stay alive. It also doesn't help that only about 5% of the money allocated for reconstruction has been spent with about 15% now being redirected towards war-fighting.
So, can the United States possibly hope to duplicate what the British did in Malaysia? Doesn't seem likely.