Blakley: Collateral Damage? Get real!

On October 12, 2007, Tony Blankley, on KCRW's "Left, Right, and Center" took issue with the discussion of recent "collateral damage" involving Iraqi civilians and coalition (U.S.) forces.

He pointed out that far more French civilians were killed during World War II than in present day Iraq, and those French civilians were killed with the tacit approval of General DeGaulle.

WikiAnswers has this to say about the Battle of Normandy: The battle of Normandy caused the death of less than 14,000 civilians in the three departments of Basse Normandie, that is to say: 8,000 in the Calvados;
4,000 in the Manche; 2,000 in the Orne

Assuming that General DeGaulle must have been in on the planning for D-Day, which included estimates of losses, military and civilian, Blankley probably had a point, but for one concept, which illuminates the problem which supporters of this involvement in Iraq have as they craft their defenses of the Bush administration's Iraqi policies. That concept is the concept of justifiability.

The way Blankley couched his comment, it sounded as though he were equating the Iraqi invasion by Coalition forces with the efforts of the Allies against the Axis powers of World War II.

Arianna Huffington immediately took issue with Blankley's inference, pointing out that there is not uniform agreement that the invasion of Iraq was justified.

Could Blankley really have meant to equate World War II with the invasion of Iraq in 2003? If so, he has a "lot of 'splainin'" to do. If not, then he unintentinally exposed the fatal flaw in the Bush "vision": Is the United States truly safer with the removal from power of Saddam Hussein in the manner in which he was removed?

Blankley needs to do some soul-searching.

Trust, but verify.

Sphere: Related Content