Punditwatch notes that on Fox News Sunday, Juan Williams blathered:

“I?m worried about the fact that that some people are willing to demonize anybody who questions this war effort as if they?re stupid.?

Gee, and here I thought that to “demonize” someone was to make them like, well, a demon. You know, a devil. An evil-type person.

Of course, I guess there’s nothing to prevent them being both evil and stupid.

Just kidding, and given that it was spoken rather than written, maybe I’m being a little too hard on him here.

But still, Juan is worried about “some people.” Which people? It might help his cause if he’d admit that many who oppose the war actually are stupid, or at least their arguments for doing so are (particularly the pearls of wisdom handed down from the sages of Sunset Boulevard).

What he should really be worried about is that, while there are reasoned cases to be made against the war (though I disagree with them), they’re very rarely articulated, and the stupid ones seem to dominate mind share, even in reportage and editorials in the Paper Formerly Known as the Paper of Record. Most of the “anti-war” sentiment seems to be motivated mostly by anti-Bush sentiment and, in extreme cases, anti-American sentiment.

And of course (as an aside) the notion that the fiasco in the UN is of our making is ridiculous. If a country believes that it’s in its national interest to support a dictator, then no amount of diplomacy, or acceptance of Kyoto Treaties, will change its mind. That’s the fundamental flaw of those believe that all differences can be reconciled by simply talking it out, and that creatures like Saddam can be persuaded to give up his weapons, if only we give him enough time.

One other comment on the most recent proposals to, instead of deposing Saddam, “simply” increase the inspections regime: I heard a debate between Richard Perle and former Congressman Tom Andrews on Blitzer’s show yesterday. When Perle challenged Andrews about how insensitive he was to the plight to the Iraqi people, it clearly stung. I wish that more people would do this. Let’s look at the rush transcript:

PERLE: I see no sensitivity in your argument to the plight of the Iraqi people, none whatsoever. And it’s tragic, because Iraqis are (UNINTELLIGIBLE).

BLITZER: Go ahead and respond.

ANDREWS: We feel very strongly that Saddam Hussein has to be contained, disarmed and that the people of Iraq must be protected. You don’t have to invade and occupy to protect innocent men, women and children. We have seen this time and again.

We’re calling for…

PERLE: (UNINTELLIGIBLE)

ANDREWS: Please, if you will. Some of our members have stood up just two days ago and said “We’d like to have Saddam Hussein indicted as a war criminal.” We’re talking about placing human rights monitors throughout Iraq so that he can’t continue to create the havoc inside of Iraq.

There are whole series of things, Wolf, that we can…

BLITZER: We’re almost out of time. Richard, go ahead and respond to that.

PERLE: Well, I think it’s just hopelessly impractical. I don’t think this is a serious approach to the protection of the people of Iraq who have been murdered in substantial numbers by Saddam Hussein and who will continue to be murdered by him as long as he’s in power.

This sounds to me like a desperate off-the-cuff comment to defend himself against the (apparently unexpected) charge of being insufficiently solicitous of the welfare of the Iraqi people.

Let me amplify on Mr. Perl’s comment, because Wolfie can’t cut me off.

Let’s repeat: “You don’t have to invade and occupy to protect innocent men, women and children. We have seen this time and again.”

Note that there are no examples of any case in which women and children have been protected without “invading and occupying”–it’s just stated as though everyone has seen it, time and time again.

“Some of our members have stood up just two days ago and said ‘We’d like to have Saddam Hussein indicted as a war criminal.'”

Fine, indict him. Who will deliver the indictment? As Lileks once said, knock real loud on the palace door. Sometimes they’re down in the basement biowarfare lab gassing bunnies, and don’t hear you the first time.

OK, so you’ve indicted him. Now what? Will there be a trial? Will it be in absentia? If so, and he’s convicted, how will he be punished? Will that be in absentia, too? Will he get a severe long-distance frowning?

Oh, you mean you’d like him to show up and actually be in the dock, and be able to actually punish him if convicted?

How will that occur, Tom and friends? Will we simply invite him, and hope he shows? Do you have an actual plan for getting him to accept the invitation, that doesn’t involve “invading and occupying”? If so, what is it?

“We’re talking about placing human rights monitors throughout Iraq so that he can’t continue to create the havoc inside of Iraq.”

You’re “talking about placing human rights monitors throughout Iraq”?

You’re pretty good at “talking about” stuff, Tom and friends.

I know this will seem like a silly question, but suppose Saddam doesn’t want “human rights monitors throughout Iraq”? Have you “talked about it” with him? What if, after a pleasant conversation over tea, and a group hug, Saddam says, “no, thank you anyway, my noble friends, but the Iraqi people have no need or interest in human rights monitors, though we’ll be happy to accept some human shields to protect our palaces and oil refineries.”

Now what, Tom and friends? Do you have a plan for putting in the “human rights monitors” that doesn’t involve “invading and occupying” or at least maintaining an imminent (as in “on almost a moment’s notice”) threat of one?

If the latter, who will pay to maintain the force we’ve built up there indefinitely? Who will pay for the additional forces that we’ll have to build up to deal with other problems (like Korea) to compensate for the fact that we have so many tied down in the Middle East indefinitely?

Can we charge Saddam for that? If so, how do we get him to pay? What if he doesn’t want to?

Should we charge the French? Will they pay?

Really?

How about the families of the servicemen who will be separated from them for months or years, with no end in sight? How about the morale of men and women who have trained to do a job, and now have to sit there, waiting, their training edge deteriorating weekly, and then daily, afraid that they will have to go in and fight in chem suits in the sweltering heat of August, while Saddam continues to build up weapons in hidden places because even though we know that you’d really really like for the “weapons inspectors” to be a combination of the great Kreskin and Sherlock Holmes, let’s face it, they’re not?

But let’s ignore all that, and continue to play along.

Suppose that, by some miracle, after sufficient “talking about” things, the human rights monitors are actually placed in Iraq? How many will there be? Will they be on every street corner? The abuses are widespread enough that it’s difficult to see how anything else will do, if you want to actually prevent them.

And how much force will they be allowed to carry to do so? From what I hear, Saddam’s goons are pretty brutal. I don’t think they’ll desist from abducting and raping or torturing someone, or dousing them with gasoline and setting them ablaze, simply because a “human rights monitor” asks them nicely, or even if they frown while making a stern request, or even (heaven forfend) a demand.

Oh, you mean that the monitors aren’t there to prevent abuses, but only to “monitor” them (i.e. observe and report them to somebody)?

I guess that makes sense, given their name. I just kind of figured or hoped that, you know, as “inspectors” really apparently means “detectives” or “mind-readers” to you folks, that maybe “monitors” meant something else. As in, something that might actually be helpful to the long-suffering Iraqi people.

But then, how will the Iraqi people actually be protected, rather than have their “civil rights monitored”? Will there be armed blue helmets on the ground, to whom the monitors can report, and if necessary, actually prevent abuses? How many of those will there be? Remember that there would have to be at least as many as Saddam’s minions, which if you count the army, number many tens of thousands.

So now we have a Saddam with no control over his ability to develop weapons, no control over his army, no ability to enforce his whimsical and cruel dictates. Just what is his job, and how will he carry it out? What is the point in leaving him “in power,” if he’s to be granted none? And why would he agree to it?

Moreover, in what way does this situation differ from an “occupation”?

As far as I can see, (assuming that it’s effective at all, and not merely more pretending to solve the problem with “inspectors” and “monitors”) the only difference is that it’s an occupation by UN forces instead of US coalition forces, and that it’s somehow magically accomplished, by some inspecified means, without an “invasion.” And of course, if Tom and friends don’t mean to actually be able to prevent human rights abuses, but only to “monitor” them, then it’s simply a cynical ploy to pretend that they actually give a damn about the Iraqi people, when called on it on news shows.

So, stupid, naive, or something else, Juan? I report, you decide.

[Update at 7 PM PST]

Vegard Valberg agrees that the notion of leaving the troops in place to enforce continued “inspections” is a leftist scam, with the cost accruing to the Anglosphere and the benefits accruing to the socialists and apparent lovers of fascist dictators (though what’s most important, of course, is hatred of Amerikkka, globalism, and capitalism).