Is Dinesh D'Souza a Real Academic?

I came across this blog by Dinesh D'Souza attacking Presidential candidate Ron Paul for not being a real Libertarian by claiming a real Libertarian would support "freedom by force".  This is surprising being that this guy is employed by Stanford University.  To work for an institution that prides itself on having high academic standards, I found it surprisingly easy to tear into his argument.  

Please read my response to this blog below:  

"Your argument MAKES NO SENSE.  Comparing a largely peaceful Civil Rights movement that had the laws changed through courts and government legislation is a far cry from the guns, missiles, and IEDs that are going off in Iraq.  

And what you fail to mention is that all the groups you mentioned who took their "freedom by force", the keywords are THEY TOOK IT.  Americans fought for their own freedom with the assistance of the French.  The French didn't win American freedom for us.  African Americans fought for their freedom with the assistance of compassionate Whites, compassionate Whites didn't didn't win it for them.  

So how is the United States going to win an Iraqi Civil War?  The outcome of the American Revolution isn't regarded as a French Victory.  It's regarded as a American victory with French support.  In Iraq, we're not there in support, we are the opposition.  The question is "Who are we really opposing?"

I wish Conservatives would stop trying to invoke World War II to justify the Iraq War.  #1, you look stupid by going back 60 years and overlooking another war in which we tried to win a nation's freedom only a little over 30 years ago, Vietnam.  If you completely ignore and dismiss our failure in Vietnam by solely invoking World War II, your argument starts off with a net loss of credibility.  #2, you dismiss the fact that Germany and Japan were already stable nations with a peaceful society prior to World War II.  Both countries were hijacked by rogue and incompetent leaders that led them into World War II.  Naturally they would be accepting of American assistance in returning to more peaceful times.  Iraq on the other hand was NEVER a stable nation.  The conflict between the Sunnis and Shiites goes back over a thousand years.  In fact, it's not even a natural nation.  It was drawn together to encompass three different groups by a British General in 1932.  

Bush used that ignorant "good vs. evil" argument trying to make Saddam out to be Hitler, and Iraq to be another Germany.  The reality is that, whether you loved it or hated it, Saddam was the cap that kept the angry killer bees in the bottle.  We took the cap off and now we have chaos.

Please, stop invoking World War II to justify a failed policy and a losing effort.  You can't want freedom and stability for another nation, especially if that nation never truly existed.  As recent history has shown, even if you do want it for another nation, it is up to the nation to fight and die for it.  Bleeding the lives of your own people, and the funds of your own treasure, for the freedom of another people is not self-sustainable if they can't/won't do the same for themselves.  

The absolute irony in this entire situation is that the United States, Iran, and Al-Qaeda were all sworn enemies of Saddam Hussein.  Now these same three groups, along with the Sunnis, are engaging one another in a war that has cost the United States over a half-Trillion dollars, over 3,600 lives, and over five years so far.  If the Iraqis were so desperate for freedom, why couldn't they use their sheer will and low-tech weapons to forcibly remove him without any direct action from the United States?  I always thought that the biggest unanswered question (outside of "Would a stable, Shiite dominated Iraq actually be friendly to the U.S.?") is, "Why didn't these three groups (Al-Qaeda, Shiites, Iran) use all of this "sheer will" and low-tech weaponry to dispose of Saddam Hussein and his supporters as they have demonstrated against the United States?  

Those are questions you really need to be asking Mr. D'Souza.  The Iraq War isn't a continued battle from World War II.  The Iraq War isn't some exercise between Good vs. Evil.  The Iraq War isn't a exercise between Pro-Freedom vs. Anti-Freedom.  The War in Iraq is a VERY complex issue with each new answer uncovering a even harder question.  If the ultimate question is, "Do you believe the Iraq War was worth it?"  My answer is a resounding "HELL NO!!!"