Tony Judt has an interesting op-ed in the NY Times that challenges the "liberal hawks" and spells out one consequence of this immoral war:
The case for liberal interventionism — “taking a stand” — had nothing whatever to do with the Iraq war. Those of us who pressed for American-led military action in Bosnia and Kosovo did so for several reasons: because of the refusal of others (the European Union and United Nations) to engage effectively; because there was a demonstrable and immediate threat to rights and lives; and because it was clear we could be effective in this way and in no other.
None of these considerations applied in Iraq, which is why I and many others opposed the war. However, it is true that United States military intervention in urgent cases will be much harder to justify and explain in future. But that, of course, is a consequence of the Iraq debacle.
Four years ago, George F. Will made essentially the same observation:
So unless the public is convinced that the government is learning from this war
-- learning how to know what it does not know -- the war may have made the
public less persuadable, and the nation perhaps less safe.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment