Principled wars are one of the major engines of progress in America, which is one reason it depressed me to see the progressives so utterly reject the bid to overthrow Middle Eastern tyranny, fend off terrorism, and bring democracy to Iraq.But holding all friendly snark aside for a moment, there's one phrase that bears repeating:
That fight necessarily involves the Bush Administration with allies such as European homosexuals hounded by Islamists, feminist Muslims, persecuted black Africans in Darfur, and non-Christian religious minorities in Iran and elsewhere. It involves the White House in a core conflict against the very idea of theocracy and religious fundamentalism.
And holding the moral high ground in such a war will force us to straighten up and fly right at home. It offers progressives the leverage they need to effect changes that have waited years for their chance.
And holding the moral high ground in such a waris he talking about us here? It's like someone referring to me as Mr. Pooh, I still reflexively look behind me to see if my dad just walked in.
But anyway let me take a shot at something here: And holding the moral high ground...will involve not using torture, no extraordinairy rendition, not manipulating (not to say fabricating) intelligence and definitely not saying "stuff happens." So we may or may not have missed that train by a few minutes. Not to worry, another will be along shortly.
Look, you can make all the arguments you want about the morality of this or that action, and I'm generally sympathetic. Yes, Saddam was an evil beast, and the Iraqi people will be better off without him. Liberal democracy sweeping the region would be a wondeful thing. And then the Israeli-Palestine issue practically solves itself! As The Poorman says, Freedom, Democracy and Pony.
(As a sidenote, I'm somewhat skeptical about a post facto assertion of a new rationale. FD&aP is nice, but I thought it was "mushroom cloud/smoking gun," or was it "fighting them there so we don't have to over hereinIran"? Hay confundido!)
But then we get to the sharp end, and ask who's actually doing the deed, and at that point you'll have to forgive me for cravenly calculating that such an endeavor is not likely to end well. Or, as people smarter than me said not much more than 3 years ago said, roughly "not this war, now, with these guys in charge." So we are left with the ugly choice of leaving now and it being FUBAR, or staying for who knows how long, where it will be FUBAR with us in the middle. Yes with the right leadership and initiative it could still end well, and if my Aunt had balls...
Which brings me inexorably to a final question for Cal: What on God's (rapidly becoming less) Green Earth leads you to believe that any of that good stuff is on the table? Principled war...check. Allies such as homosexuals, feminsts and those persecuted in Darfur? [Crickets]
Or is this merely the seeds of a new rationale entirely? If so, I would like to christen it The Dentist/Vegatable rationale: you won't like doing it, but it's good for you and you'll thank us later.
Just a few more such scoldings and I'll be ready to eat asparagus all day long, blogging has done what 29 years of motherly advice could not.