tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7321349.post113521567654994725..comments2024-03-18T22:21:33.261-07:00Comments on The Debate Link: "Criminal Non-Intervention"David Schraubhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04946653376744012423noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7321349.post-1135228031591555792005-12-21T21:07:00.000-08:002005-12-21T21:07:00.000-08:00Which is an excellent reason to vote for John Kerr...Which is an excellent reason to vote for John Kerry in '04. Which is precisely what I did. Lying about going to war is, as you say, inexcusable. I agree entirely, and I agree that Bush should be held accountable to it. However, Bush's position, alas, is and was not my position.<BR/><BR/>Judging from your post, you supported the war on the grounds that you thought Iraq was a threat to American security (a position Bush mislead you into taking). Upon learning that he was lying, you thus changed ure stance, as the underlying foundation was knocked out.<BR/><BR/>That's all lovely. But it has nothing to do with why I or many others supported the Iraq war. A very-present (but minority) group supported it all along on humanitarian grounds (incidentally, this group includes many libertarians, see, e.g., Daniel Drezner and Andrew Sullivan). Bush lying about WMDs has nothing to do with Saddam being a brutal dictator with a penchant for slaughtering his citizens. That support remains quite intact. And it gives me the lovely position of supporting the war while opposing Bush-on-the-war.<BR/><BR/>Your taxonomy is far too simplistic. I am critiquing the leftist attack on the war in Iraq (and yes, this group also was critical of Afghanistan--for example Saba Mahmood). This in no way implies that all anti-war people are leftists--there are anti-war centrists and conservatives. I (or rather, she) just chose not to address them in this article. Whatever reasons conservatives, libertarians, centrists, or even mainstream liberals had for opposing the war--they are not the subject of this post. Just as I supported the war for different reasons than many others, people oppose the war for many reasons as well. I critique a certain branch of them, nothing more.David Schraubhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04946653376744012423noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7321349.post-1135222130560627712005-12-21T19:28:00.000-08:002005-12-21T19:28:00.000-08:00It's a good thing I and her are talking about "lef...It's a good thing I and her are talking about "leftists" as opposed to liberals, and American interventionism in general (including Iraq) and not just Afghanistan. Otherwise that comment might have actually been responsive.<BR/><BR/>In any event, I care what the founder's thought about American interventionism approximately the same as I do on their views of any other issue. Which is to say I think they deserve to be studied--but they can and have been wildly wrong. I'd imagine the founders would disagree with many aspects of contemporary society. Like that we let women and blacks vote. So I'm not miffed that they might disagree with me here.<BR/><BR/>As for the proper role of the military in our foreign policy--well, that's what's up for debate isn't it? It is entirely unhelpful to just assert the proposition in question--that we should only use military force to defend America from assault, as if it were incontrovertible fact, when that's what the debate is about.David Schraubhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04946653376744012423noreply@blogger.com