Liberal Hawk Speaks (With apologies to the renowned Black Elk)
Lee Bockhorn in the Weekly Standard writes this week about the motivations and behavior of liberal war hawks. They agree to the war, but they do not seem to like the President.
As one of these liberal hawks, I thought that I might inform Mr. Bockhorn and refute the infamous Charles Krauthammer concerning their possible motivations.
1. Support for the War in Iraq has little to do with September 11 or Ann Coulter's now-infamous remark on the case of John Walker Lindh, "Let us show liberals that they can die too." While I have said in these hyperpages that if there was ever substantive proof that Iraq was in league with Al-Qaida I would wholeheartedly support the invasion of Iraq in self-defense, the Administration has not produced such proof. So far, most liberals, I suspect, have been treating the problem of Al-Qaida as incidental to that of Saddam Hussein.
2. Although Bockhorn claims that the war against Iraq would not be about humanitarian considerations, most liberal hawks would disagree. What makes this war so attractive to a non-Marxist leftist like myself is that we are intending to commit our armed forces to free the people of Iraq from a monster of their own making. Looking at the arguments of our fellow ideologues, we could not have avoided noticing (what commentators on right cannot avoid talking about these days) that Saddam Hussein is an evil bastard domestically and a rogue sovereign who invaded his sovereign neighbor in an open attempt to steall their oil fields. On these grounds, only a Quaker or a Mennonite (or anyone else with religious consciences against all wars) could seriously object to war against that man for failing to honor the terms that allowed him to retain sovereignty after his defeat in 1991. War in Iraq is a humanitarian mission. Don't forget that, Mr. Bockhorn.
3. Objections to Bush, however, stem from this humanitarian approach to the war. I have reasonable friends who object to war because they are worried about Iraqi civilian casualties or the conditions that will exist in Iraq after the war. The hawks aren't far from that position, I suspect, for they remember Bush's history.
A. In their heart of hearts, most liberals still feel robbed by the 2000 Presidential Election debacle. If Bush were to admit that he was in office due to the fiat of the Supreme Court and to preserve civil peace, they would appreciate him a lot more. He finally would be living up to all the talk of duty and obligation he likes to spin.
B. Bush's domestic agenda is a joke. He has squandered the federal surplus on tax cuts (for whomever is supposed to benefit from tax cuts by his plans). His social services agenda has attempted to grossly misuse the workings of Grace (the capital G is intentional) to solve the surface emanations of an inequitable economic structure and an almost DOA public educational system. Miracles are happening, but they ought to be a leaven for the transformation of American society and not as bread to sate the poor while business as usual continues. His environmental plan promotes a dangerous energy alternative to excuse the unrestrained consumption of gifts that God has been making for us since the foundation of the world. He neither has a handle on God nor Mammon.
C. Having seen the development of Afghanistan since the liberation of its cities, liberals are not impressed by the Bush Administration's commitment to rebuilding any territory it conquers. The Romans used a substantial amount of their military and civil budgets to build new infrastructure. The British were known to make improvements here and there. Even the Soviets built a lot of ugly public works in Eastern Europe. So far, the Bush Administration only has earmarked $35 million to give to the UN to rebuild Iraq. I know that the Administration has released far more ambitious plans, but there must be no agreement in the Administration about specifics. Otherwise, there would be no controversy about how many troops will be necessary to occupy Iraq. Moreover, baldly saying that Iraqi oil is going to finance rebuilding is an affront to military and public relations strategy. First, Bush's finance scheme gives Saddam every incentive to burn his oil wells behind him when we invade. As we recall from the Gulf War, it will take more than a year to extinguish those fires. We are going to have to spend a great deal of money before we can make any of it back. Second, Bush's plan makes this war look like a war for oil even if that thesis is a logical fallacy. Logical fallacies do not need more supporting logic.
Indeed, until our ideas and our moral authority are recognized by the Administration, liberal hawks will continue to make fun of Bush, Mr. Bockhorn.
ESA (20030301.1)
Lee Bockhorn in the Weekly Standard writes this week about the motivations and behavior of liberal war hawks. They agree to the war, but they do not seem to like the President.
As one of these liberal hawks, I thought that I might inform Mr. Bockhorn and refute the infamous Charles Krauthammer concerning their possible motivations.
1. Support for the War in Iraq has little to do with September 11 or Ann Coulter's now-infamous remark on the case of John Walker Lindh, "Let us show liberals that they can die too." While I have said in these hyperpages that if there was ever substantive proof that Iraq was in league with Al-Qaida I would wholeheartedly support the invasion of Iraq in self-defense, the Administration has not produced such proof. So far, most liberals, I suspect, have been treating the problem of Al-Qaida as incidental to that of Saddam Hussein.
2. Although Bockhorn claims that the war against Iraq would not be about humanitarian considerations, most liberal hawks would disagree. What makes this war so attractive to a non-Marxist leftist like myself is that we are intending to commit our armed forces to free the people of Iraq from a monster of their own making. Looking at the arguments of our fellow ideologues, we could not have avoided noticing (what commentators on right cannot avoid talking about these days) that Saddam Hussein is an evil bastard domestically and a rogue sovereign who invaded his sovereign neighbor in an open attempt to steall their oil fields. On these grounds, only a Quaker or a Mennonite (or anyone else with religious consciences against all wars) could seriously object to war against that man for failing to honor the terms that allowed him to retain sovereignty after his defeat in 1991. War in Iraq is a humanitarian mission. Don't forget that, Mr. Bockhorn.
3. Objections to Bush, however, stem from this humanitarian approach to the war. I have reasonable friends who object to war because they are worried about Iraqi civilian casualties or the conditions that will exist in Iraq after the war. The hawks aren't far from that position, I suspect, for they remember Bush's history.
A. In their heart of hearts, most liberals still feel robbed by the 2000 Presidential Election debacle. If Bush were to admit that he was in office due to the fiat of the Supreme Court and to preserve civil peace, they would appreciate him a lot more. He finally would be living up to all the talk of duty and obligation he likes to spin.
B. Bush's domestic agenda is a joke. He has squandered the federal surplus on tax cuts (for whomever is supposed to benefit from tax cuts by his plans). His social services agenda has attempted to grossly misuse the workings of Grace (the capital G is intentional) to solve the surface emanations of an inequitable economic structure and an almost DOA public educational system. Miracles are happening, but they ought to be a leaven for the transformation of American society and not as bread to sate the poor while business as usual continues. His environmental plan promotes a dangerous energy alternative to excuse the unrestrained consumption of gifts that God has been making for us since the foundation of the world. He neither has a handle on God nor Mammon.
C. Having seen the development of Afghanistan since the liberation of its cities, liberals are not impressed by the Bush Administration's commitment to rebuilding any territory it conquers. The Romans used a substantial amount of their military and civil budgets to build new infrastructure. The British were known to make improvements here and there. Even the Soviets built a lot of ugly public works in Eastern Europe. So far, the Bush Administration only has earmarked $35 million to give to the UN to rebuild Iraq. I know that the Administration has released far more ambitious plans, but there must be no agreement in the Administration about specifics. Otherwise, there would be no controversy about how many troops will be necessary to occupy Iraq. Moreover, baldly saying that Iraqi oil is going to finance rebuilding is an affront to military and public relations strategy. First, Bush's finance scheme gives Saddam every incentive to burn his oil wells behind him when we invade. As we recall from the Gulf War, it will take more than a year to extinguish those fires. We are going to have to spend a great deal of money before we can make any of it back. Second, Bush's plan makes this war look like a war for oil even if that thesis is a logical fallacy. Logical fallacies do not need more supporting logic.
Indeed, until our ideas and our moral authority are recognized by the Administration, liberal hawks will continue to make fun of Bush, Mr. Bockhorn.
ESA (20030301.1)
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home