I'm Not Sure What Sullivan Is Saying
I kinda agree with both sides on this debate, but I'm not sure really if there's any difference.
It seems to me that Sullivan thinks the war was the right thing to do, but handled poorly by the Bush administration, citing torture and general incompetence and unintended consequences.
But here's the thing - I don't think the Bush administration wanted torture. At best, the argument is that they were too lax about it. Unintended consequences - well, shit, that's obvious and it swings both ways, that is, there would have been unintended consequences to not going to war. It's the general incompetence argument that I find easy to agree with, but also fairly tough to feel honest about using myself.
It's easy for me to support the war and the minute it goes bad to criticize the administration for too many troops, or too few, or for promising results and not delivering. But it's hard to know all the factors and the decision making process. So many tough decisions I come across in my own life boil down no right answer - just a choice. It seems to me, we all want right answers where there aren't right answers to be had, just choices.
The same goes, even moreso, for the handling of nascent democratic movements in the region. It looked like Lebanon was working, but that's obviously done with. I've heard rumors about Bush failing to support democratic movements in Egypt. But again, it's so hard to tell and the devil is in the details.
Choices, choices.
2 comments:
I see your dilemma as the hawkish version of the "Yes, but..." mantra:
Yes, the premises for the war proved to be unfounded, but...
Yes, the war was inadequately planned for and carelessly managed, but...
Yes, Bush doctrine has proven to be something of a failure thus far, but...
Some on the fringe left refuse to confront the evidence of how evil the terrorists are, and qualify their views based on a vague sentiment that the US is somehow at fault. I feel like you do the same thing when looking at the overwhelming amount of evidence that the Iraq war has been grossly mismanaged and on the brink of becoming a disaster. You respond with "Yes, but leaving Saddam in power wasn't an option" or "Yes, but the left offers no viable alternatives."
I say no more "Yes, but...'s" If you acquaint yourself with the facts, and look at how this administration ran this country's foreign policy like a bull in a China shop, not just with our allies but with our own top military brass, CIA, and State Dept, than I hope you will change your mind.
Just like MoveOn.org types need to sit down and read about the nature of Islamic fundamntalism and men like Qutb, you need to look at the actual decision people like Cheny and Rumsfeld made. You can't explain it away with abstractions like "mistakes are made in all wars" or sentiments like "I don't think the Bush administration wanted torture." These statements serve as convenient methods of avoiding confronting the difficult questions. I say no more "Yes, but..." answers all around.
i agree to no more yeah, but.
but...
alright, that was a joke.
but (and this is not a joke), with respect to the war and so forth, i can acknowledge administration mistakes and can disagree to the degree of the mistake. i feel like that is reasonable.
if, on a scale of one to ten, i disagree with the administrations torture (or should i say, lack of torture) policy, i give it a 5. that's not to say you can't give it a 8. it's a nuanced view. andrew sullivan may value it as a 10, and believe bush should be charged with war crimes because of his shitty torture policy. i don't agree with that, although i disagree with his policy. if that qualifies as a yeah, but. well, then i can't concede to no more yeah buts.
my problem with moveon is they assign the war on terror a 2, when i assign it a 9. i believe this is irredeemably stupid whereas as i view bush's torture policy as only very stupid.
Post a Comment