2008 Woodie Awards
The U.S. denies it, but an Italian government-TV documentary says that U.S. troops used chemical weapons in the assult on Fallujah.
Maybe it’s not true. But if it is, it is cynical beyond belief.
They really are. Just goes to show why Prof. Reinhardt’s op-ed was probably the most insightful published in any of the major papers this whole year.
Wow. My thoughts exactly:
Much of the antiwar initiative was taken by left-wing groupuscules who cannot find it in their hearts to find fault with Saddam Hussein; who consider the no-fly zones that afford some protection to Kurds and Shiites illegitimate; who for that matter think the military action in Afghanistan illegitimate, and whose essential views amount to: U. S. out of everywhere, on principle. These Old Left remnants cherish their own version of bulldozer politics. That limits their potential—not just against the Iraq war, but against others that might well be in the offing as the Bush doctrine comes into play in the years to come . . .
This from the former president of SDS, and I think it’s right on. I sort of bit my tongue about it, but I have been profoundly disturbed by the way many progressives seem unable to distinguish between rotten, bad wars- like the one in Iraq, and situations where America should be using its military power to uphold basic human rights standards where they happen to be in profound jeopardy.
Saddam Hussein was a bad dictator, no doubt. But when America went to war against Iraq, Saddam wasn’t a genocidal dictator. Yes, yes, I know: the Kurds. But he wasn’t committing any sort of genocide against them in 2003. And furthermore, as Matt prudently reminds us, we did not go to war because Saddam was a bad dictator. The administration only started talking about ‘democracy promotion’ when they couldn’t find any WMDs- the original justification, and the one they need to be held accountable for lying about.
At the same time as America fights a very wrong war in Iraq, a genocide of mass proportions is occurring in Sudan. I have argued before that America and its allies should use their military power- through a UN mission, I would hope- to stop the murders. The genocide in Darfur represents the most profound violation of the human rights provisions at our contemporary moment. At the same time, it’s clear that no amount of negotiation with the government of Sudan will stop them from aiding the Janjaweed rebels committing the genocide.
Intervening in Sudan isn’t about ‘democracy promotion,’ nor do America and other military powers have anything to gain economically or politically from such a move. But we all do have something to lose morally. After Rwanda, the world said ‘never again.’ ‘Never again’ is happening right now in Darfur, and nobody is stepping up to defend the humanity of individuals- which is what is under assault in Darfur- against the brutality of a racist, fascist government that has no respect for international law. Liberals often talk about the fact that the Iraq war was illegal under international law, and some say that those who waged it should be prosecuted for violating it. How about the individuals responsible for the Darfur murders? Why have we not singled them out?
I know, however, that many on the Left would reflexively oppose such a war. They would be very much in the wrong- and betray everything that progressives are supposed to stand for.
From this morning’s Packet:
A locally produced film that could find its way into high school guidance departments across the country aims to counter the “seductive and often deceptive” tactics employed by military recruiters, its producers say.
The video, which is being created amidst a chorus of growing concern from parents about recruitment practices at area high schools, is titled “Before You Enlist” and is being produced by Princeton-based Telequest Inc. It will use interviews with combat veterans and family members of deceased military personnel to provide additional perspectives about life in the armed forces.
But representatives from the military deny that the recruitment practices targeted at young adults are deceptive, and they say that they simply want the same access to students afforded to college recruiters.
This is bad stuff, and clearly one symptom of the larger troop crisis we’re facing as a result of our overextension in Iraq and Afghanistan and mistreatment of the armed forces. The move to target high school students came as a direct consequence of the pressure Iraq has put on the all-volunteer army. It’s very wrong to subject high school students to this type of thing. Of course, a draft isn’t the right solution either- a genuine change in our foreign strategy is what’s needed, though I don’t think this lady has any good ideas toward that end.
We’ve received many very interesting comments, both in agreement and in disagreement, regarding the article I recently published in TAP Online about the military draft. All of it is appreciated; the dialogue is very constructive, and particularly helpful for me. Keep ‘em coming, on this and all topics.
Several of the draft’s progressive defenders have written to us making the argument that by calling for a draft draws attention to the President’s failures to manage the war on terrorism properly, and highlight how little the public actually supports him.
It’s a tempting way of putting it (and, admittedly, one I used to be persuaded by), but I don’t think it’s right. By calling for conscription, you ignore the strategic problem that’s caused the military crisis in the first place. Consider what wouldn’t change with conscription: we’d still be in Iraq (when we shouldn’t have been there in the first place and should be looking for an exit as quickly as possible), and we’d still not be effectively catching and killing terrorists (adding more regular conscripts, who lack the special-ops expertise necessary to fight stateless, transnational terrorist cells, won’t change this). In short, the draft won’t fix the big problems. And it’ll only cause more: it will lower overall troop quality, not to mention damage America’s social fabric.
The progressive political rationale is thus a red herring. It’s bad policy, and it would be pretty dishonest for Democrats to peddle it. It would backfire on, not help, the Democrats politically. The American people aren’t going to like a party that advocates sending their kids into harms way to fight a badly managed war that has unjustifiably and unnecessarily engaged costly fronts. It doesn’t make Democrats look “tough”; it makes them look stupid. They should instead be offering a new foreign policy vision (here’s an excellent start) that uses our military judiciously and honorably.
The problem here is the policy. It’s what has caused this recruitment crisis to begin with. We need a permanent fix to our strategic vision, not stop-gap measures that don’t remedy the diseases ravaging American grand strategy.
Why then have they started an unnecessary war that, among other things, is wrecking marriages?
Just when I think Democrats have learned to hit home runs instead of beating out ground balls to first base, this Times article proves me wrong. Democrats need to learn that carping about Halliburton makes marginal difference, and doesn’t do much good but to reinforce the issue-based thinking of the Democratic party. The larger issue here isn’t Halliburton’s waste. Sure, it’s a very bad thing to be happening at a time of war and budget deficits, but the larger issue is the entire Pentagon system of procurements and budget prioritizing.
Read the rest of this entry »
The United Nations has found that the Bush administration committed torture at Guantanamo.
Just another WordPress weblog
RSS 2.0
