David Horowitz was a committed propagandist for the far left in his early years. He learned all of the propaganda techniques of the new think style of writing. After watching a few murders, he realized that his approach was doing more harm than good, and switched sides.
People who switch sides can provide very interesting insights.
Since leaving the far left, Horowitz has dedicated himself to showing how the far left manipulates debates.
The downside to Horowitiz's writing is that he often uses some of the propaganda techniques he learned as a leftist in his attempts to argue against the far left.
A reactionary often bears an imprint of what he is reacting against. Horowitz does a great job discussing methods of radical propaganda, but is not as strong in helping us find a way out of the cycle of radical and reactionary thinking.
Horowitz's new work, Party of Defeat provides a nice compact compilation of efforts taken by the left to undermine the US war effort.
Anyway, with this book as a reference, I now feel that I can express why I opposed the invasion of Iraq.
The radicalization of Islam is simply one notch in a long string of radicalized ideologies that include things from Stalinists, Fascists and Nazis.
The problem the world faces is not simply radical Islam. The major problem the US faces is that a very large portion of the American professoriat and the US media learned these radicalization techniques as youth and are still enamored with the visions of the Marx. This is not surprising. It is what people learned in their youth.
The danger Bush faced by expanding the war to Iraq was that the radical left would behave as they did. Al Qaeda was negotiating with Hussein for WMDs. Unfortunately, we needed to wait until Al Qaeda took out a city or two before we could act. Otherwise the professoriat and radicalized left in this nation would turn on the United States, as history now show they did.
In the years following the war, the radical left has been able to completely take over the Democratic Party. The Republicans has been marginalized both as an political force and intellectual force.
We are now in a worse strategic situation than we would have been if Bush took a more subtle approach to the problem. I really wish that he had concentrated on the bribes taken by UN members in the Oil for Food program. It is hard to miss $30 billion in bribes. Also it was obvious that members of Kofi Anan's immediate family was living well beyond their means.
But, of course, we can't change history.
The Troop Surge was one of the most brilliant and gutsy moves ever supported by a US president.
This blow by blow account of the way the left manufactured the current climate of dissent is fascinating. In the off chance that the United States is still around 50 years from now, I think historians will assess the Democratic Party, and the legions of brownshirt bloggers that have dedicated themselves to the destruction of the West among the great villains of history.
END NOTE: The reason that some hundred thousand people have been killed after the Iraq invasion is that there are people who believe that killing large numbers of people is the path to power. This belief has been fostered by radicals on the left in a grab for power both in the US and abroad. Bush was wrong for trying to do the Saddam Hussein regime change in the current rational climate. Yet, the blame for the deaths has to lie with Bush, the intellectual community that created the belief that killing large numbers of people is the path to power. Above all, it belongs with the terrorists who actually partook in the killing.
We don't have a Democratic Party with clean hands and a Republican Party with blood stained hands. We have a world infected with radical elements that are adept at raising political issues into intractable dichotomies that rip society apart and lets the rogues of the world ascend to power.