I'm thoroughly fed up with all the liberal and Democratic soul-searching on whether it was right to go to war in Iraq, or invade Afghanistan, or whether it's ever right go to war at all, or how to battle the utter lack of credibility that Democrats and liberals have when it comes to matters of national security. Why do I bring this up you ask? Well, among some prominent liberal bloggers there's a conversation on this very topic.
I'm just about sick of it.
It's very simple.
Was it right to go to war in Iraq? No.
Was it right to go to war in Afghanistan? Yes.
Is it ever right to go to war? Absoulutely.
Liberals and Democrats sit around wondering why this credibility gap exists, and what they can do about it. The fact that we have to sit around and TALK ABOUT IT is the answer to the question. Do you hear Republicans talking about whether war is ever right? Or regretting the overthrow of the Taliban because Afghan civilians died? No.
Why not? Because they understand that there are simply times when you MUST go to war. To fail to do so shows reckless disregard for the safety and well-being of your own countrymen. War is evil, yes. It kills innocent poeple, destroys socieities, and leads otherwise good people to do awful things. But it is sometimes a necessary evil, and there are times when it must be waged without fail and without hesitency.
Anti-war advocates are not traitors. They are patriotic, hopeful Americans just like you or I. But their heads are sometimes either in the clouds or in the sand, and the only reason some of them were right about Iraq is because if you oppose all wars all the time, you're bound to be right at some point.
As a result of this hesitency, or flat-out unwillingness, to deal with the seriousness of national security issues, Democrats have managed to cede authority on the issue to the people who can't find Osama, have failed to secure Afghanistan thoroughly, invaded Iraq for WMDs that were never there, and allowed North Korea and Iran to develop nuclear programs that we have no power to stop. Is that absurd? Yes. So how is it possible? Because Republicans and conservatives project an aura of certainty and strength, even when they are hopelessly wrong; in fact the more wrong they are, the more they make up with it for loud talk about the rightness of their approach. What do Democrats offer in return? Silly debates about whether we really had the right to invade Afghanistan or not.
The truth is Democrats are better at issues of national security, because in that area we're more interested in outcomes than in ideology. We don't mind working with the Palestinians, or offering the Iranians or the North Koreans some concessions, so long as it gets the job done. In other words we're willing to use the stick AND the carrot. We'll compromise, give money away, work with allies, or twist thumbs and threaten military strikes, so long as it gets the job done.
It's time to get over the debates about whether war is ever right, to stop patting ourselves on the back for being right about Iraq, and to stop castigating the liberals who were naive enough to trust our government about the claims of WMDs. It's time to get serious, and to give the American people a real alternative to the incompetence they've had more than enough of for the last four years now.
6 comments:
Who the hell but a bunch of insignificant bloggers debates the merits of the Afghan war? No Democratic office holder, even Dennis Kucinich, does. Ralph Nader does, but we'd be talking about those much farther left than Democrats now wouldn't we? This people aren't even worth talking about because they have nothing to do with mainstream politics or mainstream politicians.
Yeah Daniel, guess that really trumps the whole invading Iraq thing.
Yes, there are a *few* Soviet apologists on the left, but most Democrats were fervently anti-communist and well, if you actually study history, did something about them.
As for your point Xanthipass, I agree. It's time Democrats started laying out a real foreign policy of their own instead of just attacking what Republicans do. Ditto for everything else.
I would point out too that the overwhelming majority of Democrats and liberal supported the Afghan war. Picking out people like Ted Rall and saying they represent a substantial part of liberal opinion is sort of like picking out Jerry Falwell and saying he represents mainstream conservative opinion. This sort of goes to our earlier comments, about wishing the nuts on both sides would hush and leave the reasonable members of their parties to do all the talking. Now given the considerably larger number of liberals who opposed the Iraq war, you might have a legitimate concern. But that's just flat-out hypocrisy, and frankly those are the kind of people I think the Democratic party should be expelling. However I also think it's a largely hypothetical problem; the litany of mistakes that have been made in Iraq could hardly be forgotten, even if Iraq is somehow eventually stabilized.
And I agree that half-assing it about our response to Osama, and hitting a target in Sudan that we're still not sure about, was a poor response. I thought so at the time, but unfortunately that was pre-9/11 and in the midst of Monica, and I think it's unfair to judge that by the standard we generally hold ourselves to now.
I'd actually say the goals aren't much different; national security is one of those things that I think can be remarkably free of politics. It's mostly implementation of those goals that I'm aimed at. Clearly North Korea and Iran should not have nukes, Afghanistan needs to be stabilized, the Palestinian-Israeli issue needs to be resolved, we need to mend our ties with Europe, and above all else secure our borders and our infrastructure against terrorists at home, and prosecute our little "war" on terror overseas. As for Iraq...well, what's done is done. Now we just have to make the best we can of the situation, and try to get it stabilized or(we can dream)actually turned into a fruitful Middle Eastern democracy.
There is one area where I think there is profound disagreement; how much we're willing to sacrifice the ideals of democracy and work with dictatorships, or undermine stable but unfriendly regimes, in our own interests. That's a tough one. Mostly I argue with those who think that "realpolitik" ALWAYS means working with dictators and undermining democratic movements that threaten our interests. I think there's more room to weigh the various interests than that.
I agree with Alex. I'd also add that I'd like to see a Truman Doctrine/Marshall Plan approach to keeping countries from going the way of dictatorship, terrorism, etc. as well.
Sure. I think anywhere in Africa is a good place to start...
Post a Comment