Sullivan's Travels. posted by Richard Seymour

I don't know yer man Andrew Sullivan very well, but he seems to irradiate his most ardent readers with idiocy off the top bunk. Here he cites a regular reader who has e-mailed him about Iraq and South Africa:

"Presently, although crime seems to have abated, the country is still racked with problems. An estimated 20.1% of the population has AIDS, 50% of the population is below the poverty line, and 37% of the population is unemployed. The current life expectancy is 46.56 years.
Now, very few people on any side of the political spectrum would argue that South Africa was "better off" under apartheid. Yet, those that oppose our war in Iraq often bitterly complain that the Iraqis are not better off. Both countries, when liberated, were coming from oppressive governments with people unaccustomed to the democratic process. It has taken ten years to get South Africa to the still troubled, but gradually improving, state it is currently in. Why is so much expected of Iraq so quickly? Apparently, the left's criterion for democratic progress is a double standard."

And, do you know, Andrew never thought to mention in respect of this that a) South Africa liberated itself, it did not require bombing out of its apartheid shell and b) because of this, South Africa has no gruesome, violent war between the "liberated" and the "liberators". Elementary observation, but apparently quite above the touch of Andrew Sullivan. I suppose it is merely pedantic to mention that, of course, "by late-2002, more than 60 percent of South Africans thought the country had been governed better by the white minority" . (I'm not endorsing this view, merely pointing out that many people on whatever side of the political spectrum do think this). Sullivan, of course, memorably mistook Najaf for Fallujah, Sunnis for Shi'ites and decided that resistance in Fallujah had been quelled. This morning's headlines rather invite a different view.