Small Government Blog

Sometimes an argument can turn on the failure of one side to emphasize an obvious and crucial distinction.

Such was the case last week, with the controversy generated by the NY Times article “A War We Just Might Win” by Michael E. O’Hanlon and Kenneth M. Pollack. O’Hanlon and Pollack describe themselves as “two analysts who have harshly criticized the Bush administration’s miserable handling of Iraq.” This false claim was summarily debunked the very day the article appeared by Glenn Greenwald.

“Here is the most important thing Americans need to understand: We are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at least in military terms” say O’Hanlon and Pollack. As Greenwald enumerates, O’Hanlon has been handing us this song-and-dance all along, going back to before the invasion in 2003.

Tucked down towards the end of Greenwald’s critique, under “UPDATE V”, he observes “Pretending to be a war opponent notwithstanding one’s support for the war seems to be a trend today…”

As great a job of exposing the O’Hanlon-Pollack charade as Greenwald does, this is perhaps the most significant point he makes. It should have been the opening sentence.

Clearly, O’Hanlon gets a great deal of mileage out of the conflation of criticism with opposition.

For those of us who opposed the war from the beginning the current cause de jour seems chosen, to taste, from a bizarrely varyed menu.

Some of us never bought “Our cause is just, the security of the nations we serve and the peace of the world. And our mission is clear, to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, to end Saddam Hussein’s support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people.”

So “It’s a new mission. And David Petraeus is in Iraq carrying it out. Its goal is to help the Iraqis make progress toward reconciliation…” is about as easy to swallow as our so-called “president’s” party’s mascot

While the bogus threat Iraq supposedly posed, pre-invasion, might have had some plausiblity to those not attuned to the behavior patterns of the current White House resident and his criminal gang, this excuse is far outside the bounds of the correct and proper functions of a federal government; charged by any legitimate mandate with taking military action only in defense of the nation.

If “That has been our mission all along, to develop the conditions such that a free Iraq will emerge, run by the Iraqi citizens”, that “mission” cannot be carried out by the use of coercive force applied by an invader.

To the contrary, if we wish to see a “free” Iraq “emerge”, then we must allow emergence. A “free” Iraq is, by definition, one absent an occuping foreign military force.

bush’s willingness to engage in the most heavy handed of means to achieve a “free” Iraq belies his commitment to American ideals of personal liberties and respect for national sovereignty.

“Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations – entangling alliances with none”…said Thomas Jefferson.

A concept, no doubt, that bush is both unable and disinclined to grasp. If we wish a free Iraq, we must show them how, and get the hell out of their way.

The critic/opponent obfuscation may well have had the desired effect, as USA Today reports “Latest poll shows growing support for Iraq war policy”

Referring to the O’Hanlon-Pollack article, John Hinraker writes “…some think this piece is significant, because of who wrote it–two liberals from Brookings…”

“This NYT article is significant both for what it says, and for who is saying it. Prior to the war, Kenneth Pollack was a Democrat who supported it…Now, at least going by this article, he’s back on board.” Says “Hot Air Network, LLC”

The implication here is obvious; two “respected” liberals went to Iraq and found, to their chagrin, that lo and behold, much as they may hate to admit it, the good ole’ USA is actually WINNING in Iraq!

Greenwald refers to O’Hanlon and Pollack as “liberals” in quotation marks, implying that to support the war against Iraq is somehow a disqualification.

But does support for the war really constitute forfeiture of the “liberal” mantel?

Senator Joe Lieberman probably doesn’t think so. He got some milage last week from the great critic/opponent conflation.

He was asked ‘Probably 95 percent of Salon readers violently disagree with you on Iraq. And that’s probably a conservative estimate. Is there something that you could say to them so they could look back in, say, five years and say, “You know, Joe Lieberman may have had a point”?’ by Walter Shapiro.

Lieberman responded “Here’s what I would say to people who are opposed to the war. Acknowledging all the mistakes that were made — and even if you thought that we shouldn’t have gone in…

…in one sentence, what would I say? If we pull out of Iraq while there is still hope to stabilize the country — and I believe there is — it will be a victory for Iran and al-Qaida. And it will destabilize the Middle East. And stability in the Middle East has, for a long time now, been directly related to what we think to be security for the United States.”

Lieberman engages in some of the O’Hanlon fantasies along the way, denying the fundamental wrongness of the intervention and the consequent unevitability of it’s failure.

But why do either Lieberman or O’Hanlon think they can string liberals along, given that, as Lieberman acknowledges, “Probably 95 percent of Salon readers violently disagree with you on Iraq”.

Currently, one may just as well substitute “liberal” in that sentence for “Salon reader”.

Libertarians, such as the above-quoted Thomas Jefferson, oppose the war on principle. By definition, a Libertarian is an opponent of unprovoked military agression; it is the most severe, blatant and destructive form of interventionism.

And it is in the more fundamental level of opposition to interventionism that Libertarians find their firmament for opposition to the war against Iraq.

Liberals cannot go there. They honestly think interventionism is cool. As long as it takes the form of some sort of foreign aid handout. After all, if the Washington regime has a maternalistic responsibility to it’s own citizens, as wealthy a nation as we are (were?), shouldn’t our government try to help the needy and/or unfree of other countries?

As long as liberals buy into interventionism, however sincere and intense their opposition to the Iraq war, it remains on the shake ground of superficiality.

History illustrates.

Woodrow Wilson, a Democrat, presided over the implimention of the federal income tax. Thus facilitating the order-of-magnitude expansion of the federal government’s influence in the lives of Americans by FDR’s “New Deal”. He signed the 1915 Seaman’s Act federally dictating working conditions for merchant seaman. He signed the Smith-Lever Act of mandating federal meddling in agriculture.

Wilson is perhaps most famously known for his April 2, 1917
address to a joint session of congress, seeking authorization for war with Germany, in order to make the world “safe for democracy”.

If that has an eerily comtemporary ring to it, please note that it does not impinge upon Wilson’s liberal cridentials. Anymore than Vietnam did to LBJ, of “Great Society” fame. Or Bill Clinton’s Balkan interventions.

There is nothing in liberal ideology that mandates opposition to war. Liberals see the horrors of war and are rightly and understandably appalled. But it is not a matter of ideological principle.

At least one liberal seems to be beginning to get it. John V. Walsh wrote about the “Restoring the Republic: Foreign Policy and Civil Liberties” Future of Freedom Foundation conference recently:

And when I explained that I was a Green there were a few double takes but everyone was welcoming.

This contrasts mightily with the UFPJ (United For Peace and Justice) demonstrations and assemblages in D.C. Ask for Ron Paul or Justin Raimondo as a speaker; and UFPJ Co-chairs Leslie Cagan and Judith LeBlanc, of the “C”PUSA, turn thumbs down. Dem political hacks are always welcome at the UFPJ confabs, but no Libertarians… Greens are encouraged by UFPJ to work on these things but not to speak up with the Green message.

The battle for their own ideas is paramount, and they are not in a mood to compromise on them.”

—The Bikemessenger