----- Original Message ----- From: "iaamoac" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, April 22, 2004 8:03 AM Subject: A Reversal of the Parties
> There is an interesting editorial in today's Wall St. Journal. > Going beyond the short-term nailing of Kerry for flip-flopping on the > primacy of democracy or stability in Iraq, a much bigger case is > made. Namely that we may be experiencing a historic reversal of the > parties. Students of American history know that there have been > several times in history in which the parties of exchanged > positions. This column argues that the party of "realpolitik" is > switching from the Republicans to the Democrats.... > > This is interesting as "realpolitik" has long been associated with > Republicans - and particularly Democrat criticisms for the way > Republican administrations cooperated with a great many extremely > unsavory regimes during the Cold War. Nevertheless, I wonder if we > didn't see the beginning of this shift in the Clinton > Administration's very non-idealistic refusal to intervene in the > Rwandan genocide. The reversal may now be complete as the > intervention in Iraq is one of the most idealistic-minded US foreign > policy actions in history, which is overwhelming favored by > Republicans and opposed (still!) by Democrats. My read of the situation is that the prime reason Bush wanted to go into Iraq was to defend the United States. It was to be the shining example of the value of his new strategy of protecting the United States by pre-emptive actions. It was also to be the start of draining the swamp in the Middle East. So, the foundation of this was not idealist nation building. Indeed, Bush had often expressed his scorn for the idea of nation building. He had to be talked out of pulling the US out of the Balkans, for example. As I see it, the argument based on the oppression of the people of Iraq addressed the validity of a massive military attack on Iraq, which was bound to kill a number of civilians. As you know, I feel that point is very well established. Since I differ with Bush on the value of nation building, I would consider it sufficiently important to outweigh some detriment to the interests of the US. My leaning against the war in Iraq was based on my assessment that the cost to the US, and to the world, of us going into Iraq when we did outweighed the benefits to the people of Iraq. Second, the questioning of the validity of the war in Iraq by liberals is not based on a realpolitk analysis that says it is our best interest to ally with this particular dictator. Rather, it is based on a long standing questioning of the use of the armed forces to solve international problems. Let me quote from a Tom Lehreh song from '65. <quote> What with President Johnson practicing escalation on the Vietnamese, and then the Dominican Crisis on top of that, it has been a nervous year, and people have begun to feel like a Christian Scientist with appendicitis. Fortunately, in times of crisis like this, America always has its number one instrument of diplomacy to fall back on. Here's a song about it: When someone makes a move Of which we don't approve, Who is it that always intervenes? U.N. and O.A.S.,* They have their place, I guess, But first - send the Marines! We'll send them all we've got, John Wayne and Randolph Scott; Remember those exciting fighting scenes? To the shores of Tripoli, But not to Mississippoli, What do we do? We send the Marines! For might makes right, And till they've seen the light, They've got to be protected, All their rights respected, Till somebody we like can be elected. Members of the corps All hate the thought of war; They'd rather kill them off by peaceful means. Stop calling it aggression, Ooh, we hate that expression! We only want the world to know That we support the status quo. They love us everywhere we go, So when in doubt, Send the Marines! <end quote> Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
