Tuesday, February 25, 2003
Mark Goldblatt seems to give a thoughtful and somewhat more sympathetic rebuttal of antiwar protests than I have seen in conservative media of late, yet he uses many of the same points, and therefore I will use his article to respond to criticism.
1) Though it is true that antiwar protests are filled to capacity with the uniformed, so too are assembly halls and rallies of presidential support. Most of my colleagues and acquaintances opposed to military action are fully aware that this phase of the war on terrorism isn't about Iraqi oil. We are also less naive about Bush's stated objective. Saddam isn't an Islamic fundamentalist, he is a tyrant and a madman, his weapons of destruction are pointed first at Israel, then Iran, then dissidents within his own kingdom and then U.S. interests within the region. Chances of Iraqi weapons playing a role in an attack on US soil are and have been extremely thin. The purpose of this part of the war is purely for strategic geographic control and to trumpet further a "Don't Tread on Me" message to possible foes seeking to thwart the march of our corporate expansion.
My opposition therefore, stems not from some selfish idealism, but instead from genuine concern that instead of weakening fanatical extremists, we will awaken thousands more and that the cycle of war will never be abated by following this course of action. Goldblatt's article in fact shows just the beginning, first we have to attack Iraq, then Syria, then Iran and the Sudan, by then our troops are already stretched thin, Pakistan turns against itself, North Korea goes on the offensive and China decides it's high time Taiwan realized what "one China" is all about. At this point what do we do?
"Indeed, it is characteristic of liberals to avoid painful, long term solutions to difficult problems in favor of ill-conceived but humane-sounding stop gaps that make them feel good about themselves. Racial quotas are a legacy of the Left's craving for immediate gratification; so, too, is welfare dependency."
It seems characteristic of conservatives to avoid real solutions in favor of painful, long term problems that sound good on paper or in sound bites, but in real life do little but maintain the status quo. Economic stagnation and consistently high unemployment are the Right's rewards for their failure to change; so too, are a health care crisis and the abandonment of American markets by foreign investment.
2) In regards to racial favoritism in United States foreign policy, well, I don't believe that's the case. I think the administration favors wealthy, developed countries with populations likely to buy American corporate goods and services. If centuries of repression, conquest and colonialism have given almost all of the world's wealth to white Eurostock, is that the GOP's fault?
3) And as to his related vein, I for one feel Condoleeza Rice is a sell-out. Like my gay republican friends, she has left her people to pursue a political objective that will allow her to stay richer and stay more powerful. She is brilliant, Colin Powell is charismatic, both are excellent choices for their posts, yet they are leaders (like Miguel Estrada I might add) despite the Presiden't aversion to racial quotas, chosen as much for their racial heritage as for their skills. Bill Clinton did the same thing with his cabinet. As long as the Bush team uses them to puppet his weak foreign policy agenda and keep all Americans distracted from his racially divisive domestic proposals (do any of us really see this tax cut affecting America's minorities?), I feel they do their country a disservice.
It does not escape me that the administration is well intentioned, however Goldblatt's article seems to suggest that countless domestic and international foreign policy experts, heads of state, diplomats, are also all misguided leftists. His attribution of Cold War genocides in China, Cambodia as well as the Korean and Vietnam conflicts to an American decision not to go after Stalin suggests that the misguided may come from other places.
In fact, the suggestion that after years of American warcraft in their portion of the world that Islamic peoples will rise in support of the red white and blue and welcome our particular form of name brand freedom would be laughable if it weren't for the sad irony, the similarity to another man's lunatic vision of his people's triumphant liberation of Palestinian Jerusalem, after squashing the conquering American hordes at the gates of Baghdad.
Bran 2:08 AM : |
New York Times
The New Yorker
The Atlantic Monthly
Bloggers we like:
Baseball on Blake Street
Non Tibi Spiro
Bloggers you already know: