WUI (Writing under the influence)

Somebody once said we are all Americans, sometimes born in the wrong places.
On a warm autumn day in 1986, while enjoying beer with my college buddies,
I decided to join my new homeland.

I've come to appreciate the ideals that helped create this great country.
Liberalism, political-correctness, multiculturalism and moral equivalence
are destroying it.

This old house Grovenet Wal*Mart Visiting Poland American wine better than French.

Thursday, July 26, 2007

 

Liberals couldn't care less

A while ago I asked why liberals care about Darfur but would easily condemn Iraqis to a blood bath that will result if we leave. Of course, I'm not alone asking the same question.

In the aftermath of America's withdrawal from Vietnam, hundreds of thousands of refugees fled Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos. According to the U.N. High Commissioner on Refugees, between 1975 and 1995 more than 1.4 million Indochinese escaped, nearly 800,000 of them by boat. This does not include "boat people" who died at sea, 10% of the total by some estimates.

But of course, liberals couldn't care less.

The question is: if you know what happened there and if you know there is a very good chance it will happen again in Iraq, and if you care some much about human suffering that you are willing to start wars that have nothing to do with American interests (e.g., Kosovo), why are you so uncaring about what surely will happen in Iraq even if you don't care about American interests?

Genocide Flip
Liberals on Iraq.

By Jonah Goldberg


Barack Obama says preventing genocide isn’t a good enough reason to stay in Iraq.

“By that argument you would have 300,000 troops in the Congo right now — where millions have been slaughtered as a consequence of ethnic strife — which we haven’t done,” he told the Associated Press. “We would be deploying unilaterally and occupying the Sudan, which we haven’t done. Those of us who care about Darfur don’t think it would be a good idea.”

It’s worth pointing out a key difference between the potential genocide in Iraq and the heart-wrenching slaughters in Congo and Sudan: The latter aren’t our fault. But if genocide unfolds in Iraq after American troops depart, it would be hard to argue that we weren’t at least partly to blame. Yes, the mass murder would have more immediate authors than the United States of America, but we would undeniably be responsible, at least in part, for giving a green light to genocide. Obama offers precisely that green light in his proposed Iraq War De-escalation Act.

Some advocates of withdrawal try to maintain the moral high ground by arguing that there won’t be genocidal slaughter — though that sounds like self-delusion to me. Most close observers of the situation believe that if the U.S. were to sail out of Iraq, it would be on a river of Iraqi blood.

“The only thing standing between Iraq and a descent into a Lebanon- or Bosnia-like maelstrom,” a new report from the liberal-leaning Brookings Institution concludes, “is 135,000 American troops.” Rapid withdrawal, the report says, could bring “a humanitarian nightmare” in which “we should expect hundreds of thousands (conceivably even millions) of people to die.”

New York Times reporter John Burns, who has won plaudits across the ideological spectrum for the clarity of his reporting, recently told Charlie Rose of PBS, “It seems to me incontrovertible that the most likely outcome of an American withdrawal any time soon would be cataclysmic violence, and I find that to be widely agreed among Iraqis, including Iraqis who widely opposed the invasion.”

Ultimately, it’s unknowable what would — or will — happen if the U.S. “redeploys” until it happens. But what I find fascinating is the growing consensus around the Obama withdrawal-is-justifiable position. (If you think this unfair to Obama, feel free to call it the Hillary Doctrine or the Edwards Corollary or the Richardson Rule.)

Liberals used to be the ones who argued that sending U.S. troops abroad was a small price to pay to stop genocide; now they argue that genocide is a small price to pay to bring U.S. troops home.

President Clinton lied in his 1998 apology to survivors of the Rwandan massacre when he suggested that he and his staff hadn’t known genocide was taking place. Documents obtained subsequently under the Freedom of Information Act in 2004 by activist groups showed that the Clinton administration referred to the slaughter as “genocide” in its internal discussions but refused to say so publicly because Clinton had decided against intervention.

“Genocide can occur anywhere. It is not an African phenomenon,” he said in 1998 as part of his apology. “We must have global vigilance. And never again must we be shy in the face of the evidence.” Thus, Clinton nicely articulated a moral principle whose moral authority he excluded himself from.

Nonetheless, this principle has saturated much of the recent discussion about Darfur. Indeed, as historian and columnist Niall Ferguson noted, Obama called for an increased military commitment in Sudan, including possibly sending NATO, in order to prevent genocide just two years ago.

There’s been so much talk about how conservative foreign policy’s moral credibility has been demolished under President Bush. Maybe. But what of liberal credibility? In the 1990s, amid the debates about Haiti, Somalia, Yugoslavia and Rwanda, the broad outline of the debate had conservatives advocating a narrower definition of the national interest while liberals argued — and I often agreed with them — for a more expansive one that included a heavy dose of moralism. Finally, liberals seemed to have shaken off the Vietnam syndrome and embraced an overly optimistic but benign foreign policy of nation-building and do-goodery.

Conservatives are at least still arguing about the national interest — but they’re also the ones touting the moral imperative of preventing genocide and even the need for nation-building. Where is the principle in the hash of liberal foreign policy today? How does liberalism recover? If you can justify causing genocide in order to end a nation-building exercise that — unlike similar efforts elsewhere — is fundamentally linked to our national interest, then how can you ever return to arguing that we should get into the nation-building and genocide-stopping business when it’s explicitly not in our interest?


Comments:
So the Right lies in order to get us into an unjust, poorly planned war, and with no end in sight you're comparing a real genocide (about which the Right is doing just about nothing) to a potential bloodbath (if no other countries, or the dreaded UN, don't step in). Talk about unknowables: would Sadaam have even been in power if it weren't for the US support of his war with Iraq? Was there ever a plan to win this war? Should the US have supported the Mujahadeen?

The Right has no argument. Instead of attacking the Left, they should come up with one, or stop speculating about what would happen if the Democrats were in power.
 
Polish dude-

Goldberg writes about how the US of A will be responsible for "genocide" if we leave Iraq. But if we are not there, pulling the trigger, then we're not committing "genocide." In that case, you'd better call it what it already is, "civil war."

Conservatives would love to relabel the already ongoing bloodbath in Iraq, but we libs have already beat you to the punch. It's a civil war, AND, so long as we are in Iraq it's also "genocide," because there we are, busy pulling the trigger.

And blaming Clinton, yet again, seven years on in the Bush admin, no less, is so like a conservative. When blame is not readily available, deflect responsibility to the previous administration.
 
Our presence in Iraq doesn't do anything to prevent the bloodbath. The bloodbath is already happening. Our presence is preventing the Iraqis from resolving it for themselves.

The only reason you want to stay in Iraq is that you and your winger buddies were advocates for going in and you are waiting for some way to save face. So how does it feel to be pro-bloodbath?
 
Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link



<< Home

Archives

October 2004   November 2004   December 2004   January 2005   February 2005   March 2005   April 2005   May 2005   June 2005   July 2005   August 2005   September 2005   October 2005   November 2005   December 2005   January 2006   February 2006   March 2006   April 2006   May 2006   June 2006   July 2006   August 2006   September 2006   October 2006   November 2006   December 2006   January 2007   February 2007   March 2007   April 2007   May 2007   June 2007   July 2007   August 2007   September 2007   October 2007   November 2007   December 2007   January 2008   February 2008   March 2008   April 2008   May 2008   June 2008   July 2008   August 2008   September 2008   October 2008   November 2008   December 2008   January 2009   February 2009   March 2009   April 2009   May 2009   June 2009   July 2009   August 2009   September 2009   October 2009   November 2009   December 2009   January 2010   February 2010   March 2010   April 2010   May 2010   June 2010   July 2010   August 2010   September 2010   October 2010   November 2010   December 2010   January 2011   February 2011   March 2011   April 2011   May 2011   June 2011   July 2011   August 2011   September 2011   October 2011   December 2011   January 2012   February 2012   March 2012   April 2012   May 2012   June 2012   August 2012   September 2012   October 2012   November 2012   January 2013   February 2013   March 2013   May 2013   July 2013   September 2013   October 2013   November 2013   December 2013   January 2014   March 2014   April 2014   May 2014   June 2014   July 2014   August 2014   September 2014   October 2014   November 2014   December 2014   May 2015   September 2015   November 2015   December 2015   March 2016  

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?