Slate is running an interesting string of posts by several of the foremost "Liberal Hawks," discussing whether or not their enthusiasm for the long, hard slog has waned. Crazy Chris Hitchens, George Packer, Fareed Zackaria, Paul Berman, Fred Kapaln, Kenneth Pollack and Jacob Weisberg (who'd of thought these would be household names...well, sort of) offer up some of the most reasoned -- and painful -- assessments of the war so far. Today, George Packer describes a situation I've been thinking about a lot as I reassess my own naivete in the run up to war:
"The Iraq war was unfinished business from the 1990s, an extension of arguments about the assertion of American power (see back issues of Commentary and Weekly Standard) and humanitarian war (see back issues of Dissent and the New Republic). Now that Saddam is gone and we're in Iraq, of course we should do everything possible to create conditions for liberalism to take root; and there's a chance that in the very long run those conditions could spread to other Muslim countries now controlled by dictatorships. In this sense, Paul and Tom Friedman are saying much the same thing, in different language. Before the war, I was ready to accept these possibilities as one argument for war, but about this my view has changed: The time I spent in Iraq was an education in the limits of war as an instrument of political transformation and the limits of America as its standard-bearer. Liberal democracy requires participation and consent, and as long as American military power is the prime tool for building it, Muslims around the world are unlikely to change their ideas. We need to decouple America and the promotion of democracy; the Iraq war did the opposite. The fact that tens of millions of Muslims around the world harbor increasingly hateful feelings toward America might not be rational, but it is a serious problem if this is a war for liberalism (as I think it is), though it isn't a reason not to fight worldwide Islamism."
Packer sees it as another cold war...unglamorous, covert...not the "bold stroke" Bush was promised by his neocons. Berman agrees, but wonders if a decades-long struggle against Islamism -- including the occasional death of 3,000 people in an office tower is something we're willing to accept.
And another of Bush's mendacious pillars for waging this war collapses.
Oh, well, we've grown used to the notion that the truth should never impede political goals. Poverty as a healthy alternative.
And Brad DeLong is posting the really good stuff from O'Neill's book. This excerpt says volumes about, well, a whole range of things, including Greenspan's integrity.
And here, a look at Bush's economics team at work. As DeLong notes, one almost feels sorry for the president.
*****
Collusion? What collusion?
"The Iraq war was unfinished business from the 1990s, an extension of arguments about the assertion of American power (see back issues of Commentary and Weekly Standard) and humanitarian war (see back issues of Dissent and the New Republic). Now that Saddam is gone and we're in Iraq, of course we should do everything possible to create conditions for liberalism to take root; and there's a chance that in the very long run those conditions could spread to other Muslim countries now controlled by dictatorships. In this sense, Paul and Tom Friedman are saying much the same thing, in different language. Before the war, I was ready to accept these possibilities as one argument for war, but about this my view has changed: The time I spent in Iraq was an education in the limits of war as an instrument of political transformation and the limits of America as its standard-bearer. Liberal democracy requires participation and consent, and as long as American military power is the prime tool for building it, Muslims around the world are unlikely to change their ideas. We need to decouple America and the promotion of democracy; the Iraq war did the opposite. The fact that tens of millions of Muslims around the world harbor increasingly hateful feelings toward America might not be rational, but it is a serious problem if this is a war for liberalism (as I think it is), though it isn't a reason not to fight worldwide Islamism."
Packer sees it as another cold war...unglamorous, covert...not the "bold stroke" Bush was promised by his neocons. Berman agrees, but wonders if a decades-long struggle against Islamism -- including the occasional death of 3,000 people in an office tower is something we're willing to accept.
And another of Bush's mendacious pillars for waging this war collapses.
Oh, well, we've grown used to the notion that the truth should never impede political goals. Poverty as a healthy alternative.
And Brad DeLong is posting the really good stuff from O'Neill's book. This excerpt says volumes about, well, a whole range of things, including Greenspan's integrity.
And here, a look at Bush's economics team at work. As DeLong notes, one almost feels sorry for the president.
*****
Collusion? What collusion?
posted by John at 7:56 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home