The reason Xanthippas sent me this post in the first place was because of the seeming tendency of some of the big mouths on the Right (in this case Kirchick), to use false information to make their points, or to make false inferences. In this article by Andrew Sullivan, he quotes Kirchick:
I think Ethiopia was entirely justified in ousting an Al-Qaeda affiliated, Islamofascist junta which had overthrown the legitimate government of a neighbor state and was using that state's territory to launch terrorist attacks against it. And I think the United States was justified in aiding attempts to hunt down and kill the men responsible for murdering 225 people, many of them American civil servants.
I've pointed out so many times how false these claims are. All you have to do is read some of my previous posts on Somalia to see how wrong this is. I can't stand that Sullivan gives even a moment's thought to Kirchick, much less says, "I've slowly moved away from Jamie's position toward Matt's. The reason is simply the empirical evidence of the results of intervention, Iraq being obviously the prime example." Well NO DUH, you moron! It's not like people like Yglesias (and me) weren't arguing against intervention beforehand! As in Iraq, the truthsayers were ignored while warhawks played up falsehoods and fears.
I'll let Xanthippas close this argument, since he began it. From a personal email:
And on a related point, what is the deal with TNR? They apologize for backing the Iraq war unquestioningly and smearing liberal war critics, but then they go on and write things like "terrorists in Somalia are bad we must hunt them down regardless of the cost!" I mean, thanks for the mea culpa, but some of us out here would like you to have learned something from the experience. I mean, if they're going to be so contrary to liberal opinion on the subject...why don't they pick something like taxes, immigration, something they haven't already been majorly wrong on in the not so distant past?