|
|||||
A liberal’s case for the warIt’s not just the moral case, although that should not surprise – there’s also the practical rationale. It is not true of course, that only certain British progressives remain in favor of the nearly three-year old regime change in Iraq, even as American neo-cons experience changes of heart, and whey-faced, Kissengerian paleo-cons murmur “told you so’s.” Nor is it necessary to believe that every thing which has transpired in the intervening years has gone exactly according to plan, to believe that removing the risk Saddam represented to the free world is worth the pain, blood and treasure we have spent. One may lament the lost opportunities along the way, without also succumbing to the tempation of throwing a brutalized populace to the jihadist wolves, and hoping perhaps that they’ll worry more over the re-subjugation of distant Kurds and Shiites, rather than turn their energies outward again, against the rest of us. One can believe all of these things, and yet lament that there are not more people on both sides of the Western political divide who believe in the ends of the underlying ideas which once united us – even as they disagree with each other as to means : Freedom of thought, expression, conscience, democracy and human dignity. When you combine these our ideals with the cultural imperative to defend them and ourselves from vicious and remorseless men, you gain the clarity of Oliver Kamm, committed leftist:
There’s a great deal more besides. Do read on. (In the Guardian, of all places!) 4 comments to A liberal’s case for the war |
 |
||||
|
Copyright © 2009 Neptunus Lex - All Rights Reserved |
|||||
To tell it briefly: I started out fully and completely against the war. Then after much reading (thank you, milblogs), much thought, and maybe some soul-searching I finally drew different conclusions.
Today, essentially, my first/foremost criteria for anyone campaigning for office in this country is “Will you commit to staying in Iraq as long as it takes to achieve success? Will you take a position for our heroes in uniform so that the lives given up by their lost brothers and sisters are not rendered meaningless?”
If not, don’t bother putting your name on my ballot.
I watched a show on History Channel the other day. It showed the helo evacuation of Saigon. Due to the airstrip being shelled by the NVA, cargo planes couldn’t perform the job as planned. The helo guys performed above and beyond to accomplish the numbers evacuated, versus the casualties sustained.
But through the entire program, I couldn’t help but think about everyone that hasn’t given success in Iraq a chance. We abandoned the folks in the South to a brutal and sustained retribution by the commies. I was on a ship 3 years later, plucking people off little more than rafts, as their desire to face death at sea was greater than life in a “unified” Vietnam.
If we pull out too soon, there will be blood on the hands of many of the same folks that showed the same resolve 30 years ago. I firmly believe that if the True story of what is happening in Iraq were told on a daily basis, there would be no tolerance of an anti-war movement.
Like Jeff, I started with total opposition to this war. By seeking out information from all sides of the conflict, and soul-searching, I also had to change my mind. That’s what separates a progressive from a leftist, if you ask me–the strength to change when it’s right to do so.
I’m trying to do my part by talking about it within my liberal circle of friends, because I know they’ll never read a milblog. I owe it to the men and women who put on the boots and took up the guns to protect freedom.
Interesting article. And one can certainly see the left wing bias Mr. Kamm has (the Abu Ghraib comment was needless but always part of the rhetoric). But it was nice to see the conclusions he reached – and doing so through a pretty rational thought process. Funny thing about how logical processes can do that.