Monday, August 29, 2005
Confessions of a Doubting Conservative
I supported the invasion of Iraq for one reason. It is true that Saddam was a menace who had to be dealt with sooner or later. We could have waited for later. The real virtue of the war was that we could put a democratic capitalist regime in power. These regimes are self-sustaining and mostly peaceful. These regimes also act as a virus. The spread of democracy in Eastern Europe in the 1990s is a perfect example of this. The idea of democracy spread from nation to nation without a single country invading another.
The argument against this is not that we cannot put a democracy in place. Countries have forced regime changes on one another for centuries. Ask Germany, Japan, or Panama how they "chose" their current regime. The argument against regime change is that America does not have the will to implement regime change on a mass basis. We will not risk enough money and blood to get the job done. Consider:
1. U.S. public opinion is now against the Iraq war.
2. Iraq suffers from consistent terrorist attacks on a regular basis.
Point 2 requires that we put more money and blood on the line. However, Point 1 negates are ability to do this very thing. The 2006 election will decide this fate. If the Republicans lose the House or Senate, the Iraqis will soon find themselves on their own.
The sensible thing is to keep fighting, but that is not my concern here. My concern is about first principles. Of course, it is not moral to advocate wars that the nation cannot finish. In 2002, the country was pro-war and a reasonable person would not have expected a prolonged insurgency. Now we know different. Was it foolish to think that we could act as an Imperial power? Is it time to recalibrate our foreign policy to match the American people's apparent unwillingness to shed blood for anything less then dire threats to this nation?
The argument against this is not that we cannot put a democracy in place. Countries have forced regime changes on one another for centuries. Ask Germany, Japan, or Panama how they "chose" their current regime. The argument against regime change is that America does not have the will to implement regime change on a mass basis. We will not risk enough money and blood to get the job done. Consider:
1. U.S. public opinion is now against the Iraq war.
2. Iraq suffers from consistent terrorist attacks on a regular basis.
Point 2 requires that we put more money and blood on the line. However, Point 1 negates are ability to do this very thing. The 2006 election will decide this fate. If the Republicans lose the House or Senate, the Iraqis will soon find themselves on their own.
The sensible thing is to keep fighting, but that is not my concern here. My concern is about first principles. Of course, it is not moral to advocate wars that the nation cannot finish. In 2002, the country was pro-war and a reasonable person would not have expected a prolonged insurgency. Now we know different. Was it foolish to think that we could act as an Imperial power? Is it time to recalibrate our foreign policy to match the American people's apparent unwillingness to shed blood for anything less then dire threats to this nation?
Comments:
<< Home
To your question,no. Should policy derive from the opinions of the American people, based on polls of the American people, whose opinions reflect the one sided,distorted and context-barren opinions of the Dinosaur Media? I believe this rephrases your question. In his screenplay to his play, A Man for All Seasons, Robert Bolt places these lines, delivered by Paul Scofield: "The statesman who forsakes his private conscience for the sake of his public duty, leads his country by a short route to chaos." Do you really want ABC setting national policy, based on their own reporting? I thought not.
Gentleman, thanks for your comments. My internet access is sporadic which is why I did not reply sooner.
Kerry, I agree that politicians should not make policy decisions based on reading the modern tea-leaves known as polls. And JF is right that polls move like roller coasters. And that soldiers in the dirt get the job done regardless.
I am still concerned that as this war gets worse, we will begin to pull away. I think the 2006 elections will prove me right or wrong. If the Republicans lose the House or Senate then the War on Terror will be over. In the end, polls be damned, the people can make their will known.
Post a Comment
Kerry, I agree that politicians should not make policy decisions based on reading the modern tea-leaves known as polls. And JF is right that polls move like roller coasters. And that soldiers in the dirt get the job done regardless.
I am still concerned that as this war gets worse, we will begin to pull away. I think the 2006 elections will prove me right or wrong. If the Republicans lose the House or Senate then the War on Terror will be over. In the end, polls be damned, the people can make their will known.
<< Home
