Monday, September 19, 2005

An Argument Worth Having

'As the French intellectual Henri-Levy put it, he is opposed to the war because it is "morally justifiable but politically unwise."'

I can certainly respect this position on the Iraq war. I think the Left in America did a shitty job of articulating this position, instead choosing to focus on "Bush's a liar," and "There is no Iraq-Al Queda connection." But just to say the Iraq war is politically unwise begs the question: what do we do about the Middle East, given that there is so much anti-American sentiment which fuels Islamic terrorism? Do we lessen our support of Israel? Do we publically denounce the Saudi Royal Family? Do we try to assassinate Assad? Do we become friends we the Iranians? Do we maintain the status quo relationships we had with countries prior to 9/11? These are the questions the anti-war position needs to answer - not merely to say, "The war in Iraq was wrong because of ___________" This is what Hitchens means when he says the anti-war crowd has the explaining to do.

"I think you are a bit dismissive of a leader's role in going to war. If you can't convince a majority of the population that the war is the right move, you probably shouldn't do it."

Well, not necessarily. I'm not advocating bullying ahead with unpopular and unwise decisions. I'm advocating what I would call, leading by example as opposed to leading by consensus. For the Iraq war, I would state my position and invite discourse, with the knowledge that at a certain point, one needs to make a decision and always with imperfect information.

The reason we have representative government is because we entrust decision making responsibility to our representatives. We don't take a popular vote on each policy decision, especially not when deciding to go to war.

One could argue the most unpopular war in American History was the Civil War, but it was also probably the most justified. Likewise, Gulf War I was a super popular war that I believe we mishandled because no one wanted to get rid of Saddam in 1991. Bush I, if he were wise, would have understood that guys like Saddam don't become better, that we should have gotten rid of him then and there. But this was not what the Arab league agreed to, nor what the UN sactioned. Granted the US people would probably have rallied behind it....wait a second, this sounds like Gulf War II, doesn't it? Hmmmmm.

1 comment:

Dan Kauffman said...

Gulf War Phase I we did the politically expediant, diplomatic European thing.

The European diplomacy like the Ente Cordiale that gave us the Versailles Treaty, a Nation formed from a Catholic portion of the German Empire, an Orthodox portion of the Austro-Hungarian Empire and a Muslim portion of the Ottoman Empire and called Yugoslavia?

An Country named Iraq cut out of the Ottoman Empire as well that was 60% Shi'ite, 20% Kurdish-Sunni and 20% Arabic-Sunni and gave control of it to the Arabs and after all the Nation building was down left the Kurds as the largest ethnic population in the world without a Nation.

We are STILL paying the piper for the European Diplomacy from the first quater of the 20Th Century, so were does anyone get a basis for them being so good at it?