Liberals and the War on Terror
I should definitely read this book. I listened to an interview with Beinhart and he's got a respectable position and I applaud his effort to tackle the subject from the left. His argument is that only liberals can win the war on terror through respect for international institutions and use of coalitions, proven through the example of the Cold War. But Powerline, which for awhile was one of my favorite blogs and recently has become less-favored (too partisan), pretty much dissects his position, I feel, accurately.
2 comments:
i think powerline gets it right in that beinhart does not accurately reflect the right wing position, which accounts for american imperfection, but does not believe that imperfection neccessitates world approval and coalition building for taking action overseas.
i agree we should use world bodies such as the UN to deal with world problems, and we made an attempt, albeit not the greatest of ones, to include them in the iraq war. but when it comes down to doing what we think is best versus what we can get support for, we have to make a balance the righteousness of the cause versus the support or lack thereof. there is no steadfast rule that we should only take actions with coalitions, and no steadfast rule of the opposite. each calculation should and will be made on it's own.
in the case of iraq, un approval would have helped the cause. would it have prevented the aftermath? i'm not sure. in my support for the war, i balanced what i thought was the right thing to do and factored in that it would not be popular in all spheres. other people who didn't support the war gave greater value to the issue of popularity and perhaps less value to the righteousness of the mission. and that's fine.
so far from a divine right of the united states or totalitarian world government, i think decisions are made and continue to be made with all sorts of considerations, factoring what's worked in the past and what hasn't.
1. didn't the supreme court just rule on guantanamo? as far as i can tell, they pretty much got it right. so it seems to me the system of checks and balances worked itself out. problem solved, can we move on?
2. wasn't the idea of putting bolton in the UN to fix things up exactly what you are asking for? what you call open distain, the right would probably call candid criticism. you yourself admit the UN doesn't handle all problems well, so we use the organization for it's strengths, but not for it's weaknesses.
anyhow, i don't advocate the abolishment of the UN or the world bank or IMF, so i'm not sure what all the fuss is about.
Post a Comment