luckydevil Posted July 16, 2003 Share Posted July 16, 2003 This is from a few days ago and I thought it was dead on. I have even talked to some leftists about it and they acknowledge it was a good piece http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A40916-2003Jul10.html Liberal Democrats' Perverse Foreign Policy By Charles Krauthammer Friday, July 11, 2003; Page A21 It was the left that led the opposition to war in Iraq. Now it is the left that is most strenuous in urging intervention in Liberia. Curious. No blood for oil, it seems, but blood for Liberia. And let us not automatically assume that Liberia will be an immaculate intervention. Sure, we may get lucky and suffer no casualties. But Liberia has three warring parties, tons of guns and legions of desperate fighters. Yet pressure is inexorably building to send American troops to enforce a peace. There are the usual suspects, Jesse Jackson and the New York Times, but the most unapologetic proponent of the no-Iraq/yes-Liberia school is Howard Dean, Democratic flavor of the month. "I opposed the war in Iraq because it was the wrong war at the wrong time," says Dean, but "military intervention in Liberia represents an appropriate use of American power." Why? In terms of brutality, systematic repression, number of killings, relish for torture and sum total of human misery caused, Charles Taylor is a piker next to Saddam Hussein. That is not to say that Taylor is a better man. It is only to say that in his tiny corner of the world with no oil resources and no scientific infrastructure for developing instruments of mass murder, Taylor has neither the reach nor the power to wreak Hussein-class havoc. What is it that makes liberals such as Dean, preening their humanitarianism, so antiwar in Iraq and so pro-intervention in Liberia? The same question could be asked of the Democratic Party, which in the 1990s opposed the Persian Gulf War but overwhelmingly supported humanitarian interventions in places such as Haiti and Kosovo. They all had a claim on the American conscience. What then was the real difference between, say, Haiti and Gulf War I, and between Liberia and Gulf War II? The Persian Gulf has deep strategic significance for the United States; Haiti and Liberia do not. In both gulf wars, critical American national interests were being defended and advanced. Yet it is precisely these interventions that liberals opposed. The only conclusion one can draw is that for liberal Democrats, America's strategic interests are not just an irrelevance, but also a deterrent to intervention. This is a perversity born of moral vanity. For liberals, foreign policy is social work. National interest -- i.e., national selfishness -- is a taint. The only justified interventions, therefore, are those that are morally pristine, namely, those that are uncorrupted by any suggestion of national interest. Hence the central axiom of left-liberal foreign policy: The use of American force is always wrong, unless deployed in a region of no strategic significance to the United States. The war in Afghanistan was an exception, but it doesn't count because it was retaliation against an overt attack, and not even liberals can oppose a counterattack in a war the other side started. Such bolts from the blue are rare, however. They come about every half-century, the last one being Pearl Harbor. In between one has to make decisions about going to war in less axiomatic circumstances. And that is when the liberal Democrats fall into their solipsism of righteousness. This is the core lunacy of Democratic foreign policy. Either it has no criteria for intervening militarily -- after all, if we're going into Liberia, on what grounds are we not going into Congo? -- or it has a criterion, and its logic is that the U.S. Army is a missionary service rather than a defender of U.S. interests. What should be our criteria for military intervention? The answer is simple: strategic and moral necessity. Foreign policy is not social work. Acting for purely humanitarian reasons is wanton and self-indulgent. You don't send U.S. soldiers to die to assuage troubled consciences at home. Their lives should be risked only in defense of their country. Should we then do nothing elsewhere? In principle, we should help others by economic and diplomatic means and with appropriate relief agencies. Regarding Liberia, it is rather odd for the Europeans, who rail against U.S. arrogance, to claim that all the armies of France and Germany, of Europe and Africa, are powerless in the face of Charles Taylor -- unless the Americans ride to the rescue. We should be telling them to do the job, with an offer of U.S. logistical help. We have quite enough on our plate in Iraq and Afghanistan and in chasing al Qaeda around the world. If, nonetheless, the president finds the pressure irresistible to intervene in Liberia, he should send troops only under very clear conditions: America will share the burden with them if they share the burden with us where we need it. And that means peacekeepers in Iraq. The world cannot stand by watching us bleed in Iraq, and then expect us to bleed for it in Liberia. © 2003 The Washington Post Company Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted July 16, 2003 Share Posted July 16, 2003 bravo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackC Posted July 16, 2003 Share Posted July 16, 2003 BS! This guy is a stooge. Talk about spinning the issues! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckydevil Posted July 16, 2003 Author Share Posted July 16, 2003 Not surprised Jack. You are nothing more than a partisan hack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackC Posted July 16, 2003 Share Posted July 16, 2003 Originally posted by luckydevi Not surprised Jack. You are nothing more than a partisan hack I guess I should know it when I see it then too! Karauthammer is a GOP spin meister! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckydevil Posted July 16, 2003 Author Share Posted July 16, 2003 Tell me what was wrong with that piece. Please explain to me why the left is so gung-ho about going to Liberia, but not Iraq. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackC Posted July 16, 2003 Share Posted July 16, 2003 Oh come on Chuckie, give me a break! Didn’t the Bushies tell us the Iraq war was about the evil Sadam and not about WOMD? Isn’t Dubya running all over Africa in an attempt to gain the votes of African Americans? It seems to me the Jackson’s and Dean’s of the nation are just using the reasons the Bush Administration is now using after the fact in Iraq. Now Chuckie is attempting to declare degrees to mass killing and torture. It seems to me he is asking why the majority democrat position is different between the conflicts. Well for one they were all different conflicts. And for the record why isn't he asking why the GOP was against the action in Kosovo and Haiti but for the Bush wars? No I guess that would be to even handed for Chuckie! How ironic of Chuckie to attempt this arguement at the precise time the Bushies are trying to spin the most recent war as one of morality and social work! Based on his own criteria for military intervention the most recent war in Iraq was a missuse of the military. But Chuckie is too much of a GOP hack to say it! Now Chuckie wants the rest of the world to help us in Iraq. Where was his voice while George W Bush almost single handily ruined our collective reputation in the world, with all of his cowboy and fankly false statements designed to do nothing more than to court the red neck vote in this country. Maybe part of the reason Chuckie is against action to stop the Charles Taylor in africa is because most of the citizens there don't look like typical republican voters! The guy is such a hack that he's already given Dubya a pass to act in Liberia. If he thinks action there is so wrong why doesn't he tell Bush not to do it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted July 16, 2003 Share Posted July 16, 2003 Jack, a serious question. Do you think we should send troups to Liberia? And if so, what in your mind is the difference between Liberia and Iraq? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riggo-toni Posted July 16, 2003 Share Posted July 16, 2003 I was neutral about Gulf War II, but vehemently opposed to action in Kosova (or Kosovo, if you prefer the ****ized Western spelling). Why? 1) We had no strategic interest in Kosovo 2) The KLA was/is a terrorist organization, financed by Al Quaeda 3) It was clear that involvement in Kosovo would lead to a refugee crisis which would in turn de-stabilise macedonia (which is exactly what happened) I was similarly opposed to intervention in Haiti because there were no national interests involved, and because Aristide was a bloodthirsty SOB who was thrown out because he asked his followers to necklace his opponents (a practice of beating someone senseless and then throwing a burning tire around his neck). As for G-War II, I was and continue to remain apprehensive, primarily because I doubt Iraq can survive as a democratic country. there are however, clear-cut differences. 1. Iraq is obviously of considerable strategic importance. 2. Iraq was a threat to our allied nations Kuwiat and Saudi Arabia. 3. Iraq was financing suicide bombers thru channels provided by the PLF, the most violent terrorist organisation of the 1980s, whose members (most notably Abu Nidal and Abu Abbas) received sanctuary and support from the baathist government. 4. The need to contain Iraq forced the US to maintain a presence in Saudi Arabia, an action which became a major recruiting tool for Islamic terrorists. 5. The remote chance that a democratic republic could emerge in Iraq would (should it occur) provide an enormous foreign policy victory with potentially tremendously beneficial repercussions. It would silence the criticisms among fundamentalists that the US only supports dictators, and a prosperous and free Iraq could spread the seeds of democratic reform to many of its neighbors. The chance for such a success may be small, but the potential for long-term good is enormous. No such upside ever existed in Kosovo nor Haiti. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chiefhogskin48 Posted July 16, 2003 Share Posted July 16, 2003 JackC, if you can't at least acknowledge the difference between the two conflicts, then you're hopeless. 1) Liberia has never had or used WMDs, such as the chemical weapons Iraq used. 2) Liberia is a civil war and did not actively invade its neighbors. 3) Liberia has no strategic importance. 4) Liberia does not openly despise the United States and does not openly seek to destroy our allies (Israel, in this case). 5) Liberia hasnt consistently disobeyed UN resolutions. Those are just *some reasons why the two situations are completely different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mardi gras skin Posted July 17, 2003 Share Posted July 17, 2003 Man, that was a great article. :applause: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redman Posted July 17, 2003 Share Posted July 17, 2003 Originally posted by Kilmer17 Jack, a serious question. Do you think we should send troups to Liberia? And if so, what in your mind is the difference between Liberia and Iraq? *crickets*Jack, I'd point out that saying "you do it too" - even if true - doesn't disprove the original point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackC Posted July 17, 2003 Share Posted July 17, 2003 Originally posted by Kilmer17 Jack, a serious question. Do you think we should send troups to Liberia? And if so, what in your mind is the difference between Liberia and Iraq? No I don't think we should send troops to Liberia. We should apply pressure short of troops to help the situation. That being said, I have a question for you. Do you think the Bush adminstrations handling of the facts leading up to the invasion of Iraq will help or hurt our trust factor around the world? I mean this was the State of the Freakin Union speech right? Maybe they could have gotten the facts straight for that one speech! It seems as though Bush thinks the American people are stupid. Maybe he's right, his approval is still over 50%! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackC Posted July 17, 2003 Share Posted July 17, 2003 Originally posted by chiefhogskin48 JackC, if you can't at least acknowledge the difference between the two conflicts, then you're hopeless. 1) Liberia has never had or used WMDs, such as the chemical weapons Iraq used. 2) Liberia is a civil war and did not actively invade its neighbors. 3) Liberia has no strategic importance. 4) Liberia does not openly despise the United States and does not openly seek to destroy our allies (Israel, in this case). 5) Liberia hasnt consistently disobeyed UN resolutions. Those are just *some reasons why the two situations are completely different. You thoughts here are short sighted my friend. Of course they are different. You think Liberia has no strategic importance? Do you think the world should sit around and watch these people kill each other every day? Oh I get it as long as the country doesn't say bad things about the US they can do what they want? That being said I don't approve of sending troops to Liberia. But the position of sending them is noble. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted July 17, 2003 Share Posted July 17, 2003 Do you think the Bush adminstrations handling of the facts leading up to the invasion of Iraq will help or hurt our trust factor around the world? 2 things. I still believe his words were accurate. And like the British intelligence, I still think that Saddam was trying to buy nukes from Africa. The forged document was not the proof itself, rather it was MORE evidence to support a claim they were already making. That being said, I think Bush's critics in the world will hapr on this ad nauseum and claim it will affect our "trust factor". But in reality, whose trust would we really lose? Britains? Australia? not a chance. France and Germany? maybe, but they didnt trust us enough to help get rid of Saddam so I dont know how losing MORE trust would hurt us strategically. Good answer on my ?, but would you agree that their is a hypocrisy by some on the left in regards to our use of military intervention? That's really the crux of the article. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbear Posted July 17, 2003 Share Posted July 17, 2003 I think we should go, and I'm against the way Iraq has been waged. That's different from being against the war which I was not. Why you say? 1) I don't like the precident set by the thinking of you must have WMD to be worth our time. We have been asked to intervene by the UN and by the country itself. IF we say no, you're not worth our time because you aren't armed yet, just what do you expect their reaction to be. I hesitate to refuse because of no WMD when all that does is encourage countries to develope wmd. See Korea. Unfortunately, they are practicing the end result of a policy of "you must have wmd" before we become involved. 2) why is it different? We were asked by the country itself and the UN. We can share the costs as opposed to going it alone. 3) we can undo some of the damage done by Iraq. We're seen as self serving and willing to lie through much of the world right now. This is a relatively cheap way to raise our prestige. That said, I'd say the same thing I said before Iraq: I'd like to see an exit strategy/time frame before we go in. 4) comparrision between Iraq and Liberia ignores scope: In liberia, I believe we were asked for 2,000 troops as part of an international force. In Iraq we have roughly 150,000 going it alone. 5) not that I want to be the worlds police force, but if you are talking about fighting terror proactively, isn't it easier to do it now while we are talking 2,000 troops than latter on when terrorists have fled to there because it's where we aren't (see Afganistan). 6) We wouldn't have to lie/mislead/exagerate some points to our citizens about why we were going. Anyway, that's my quick and dirty. edit: going it alone is unfair. THe Brits and Australians were and are there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackC Posted July 17, 2003 Share Posted July 17, 2003 I do not agree that there is hypocrisy from the left in regards to use of military intervention. I think we all agree the two situations are completly different and thus it is OK to not have the same opinion. There is open warfare in Liberia and no real political stability. Given the Bush administrations attempt to rewrite the reasons for the invasion of Iraq to because Sadam was a bad guy, how can they not respond to all of the other "bad" guys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted July 17, 2003 Share Posted July 17, 2003 Of course there was no warfare in Iraq, Saddam killed all his dissidents. Isnt that what Taylor is attempting (or was anyway). Bush hasnt changed the reasons for war, people opposing him simply practice selective memory when remembering the pre-war speeches. Saddam being a bad guy was one aspect of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chiefhogskin48 Posted July 17, 2003 Share Posted July 17, 2003 :laugh: Social work interventions, that's a good way of putting it. I'm pretty isolationist myself. I hate to look like an imperialist, and that's exactly what we look like to the world when we move into Iraq, Haiti, Kosovo, etc. It doesnt seem to matter how altruistic our motives are, the worldwide left (and right) will be quick to accuse us of imperialist motives in EVERY instance. It was the same BS accusations under Clinton- "war for oil", "USA= Hitler", etc. The ignorant, hate-filled portion of the world- now a majority- would much rather us not be involved anywhere. So let them complain when we do nothing in matters and situations that, frankly, don't concern us. They can't have it both ways. I am not critiquing the American left as much as the world, here. In my opinion we are damned if we do, and damned if we dont. So why waste our time and energy on the ungrateful who would just as soon spit on us and boo every incarnation of America? We are already knee-deep in Iraq, unfortunately, so we MUST follow through. Looking back, I don't think I would have rolled in like Bush did because of the enormous effort it takes to clean up the mess. It's going to be a painful process that I would rather not have had to deal with. We need to keep a low profile in the world. North Korea already has nukes. Isolate them and prevent ANY distribution. But we can't attack them. It would be a fool's gambit. Iran, we could theoretically take, but talk about a quagmire! Iraq AND Iran? It would legitimize our perception as the great Satan in the Muslim world. Sit back and let time heal wounds. Don't legitimize the criticisms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackC Posted July 17, 2003 Share Posted July 17, 2003 kilmer, Don't you think we share some as far as Sadam killing all of those people after the last war? Didn't we encourage the uprisings and then give Sadam the go ahead to put it down? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted July 17, 2003 Share Posted July 17, 2003 Jack, we also fought next to Stalin in WW2. Just because we made a mistake, doesnt mean we should fix it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JackC Posted July 17, 2003 Share Posted July 17, 2003 Kilmer you're right. Why did Duya feel the "need" to fix it in Iraq? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted July 17, 2003 Share Posted July 17, 2003 Because they were a threat to our security for one. Add OIL, human rights, strategic base, ignoring ceasefire agreements. The list goes on and on. Other than being a human rights violator, what else has Taylor done to warrant our intervention (that's not saying HR isnt enough on it's own). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riggo-toni Posted July 17, 2003 Share Posted July 17, 2003 Can someone explain why we should go into Liberia instead of the R. of Congo (yes, I know we have "cultural links" to Liberia...)? Why we bombed Serbia, but ignored Rwanda? Why Jesse Jackson and others lobbied so vociferously against apartheid in South Africa, but never made a peep about slavery in Sudan, or why Dems fault taking out Saddam because he was once an ally thanks to his aggression against a common enemy, but all the go to Liberia guys seem to forget Taylor's biggest supporter was Jesse Jackson - even though it was clear Taylor was supporting Al Quaeda aligned diamond terrorist groups in Sierra Leone? Hmmmm........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tarhog Posted July 17, 2003 Share Posted July 17, 2003 Jack....the reason I have trouble taking you seriously on any of these foreign policy threads is because you can't for a second remove your political hat and analyze a topic with even a shred of fairness or objectivity....you are so predictable it hurts. Even us right wing idealogues (and at least I can 'come clean' and admit my bias up front) acknowledge some self-doubt about the whereabouts of Iraq's WMD's..... I do have some doubts and it concerns me (to a point) that we seem to be somewhat clumsy in our handling of post-conflict Iraq. What I NEVER hear from you is any kind of objectivity related to the Bush Administration and our foreign policy. We know you hate Bush. Great. Wonderful. But how about some substance in place of the pithy one-liners. Had Bush never gone to Africa, you'd be bleating about his lack of concern for non oil-producing countries and how the Republican Party isn't a big tent party afterall. Thats a ridiculous charge, and irrelevant. Its not always about politics....really.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.