![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Yeah, that about sums it up
Apr. 27th, 2007 11:29 amFrom the comments at Sadly, No!:
#
El Cid said,
April 27, 2007 at 11:24
Beinart was most annoying because he was a cheap fantasist and yet he considered himself morally superior to those unwilling to engage in fantasy-based foreign policy. (He shares this with Hitchens, they both play the same game.)
You see, he *fantasized* that life would get much better for Iraqis (and the Middle East) as a result of a US invasion.
On the ‘other’ side of his moral spectrum were liberals and leftists who refused to fantasize that life would get a lot better for Iraqis and others as a result of a US invasion.
Now, you & I might think that you should judge the morality of one’s program based on what *actually* happens.
And here you are wrong, according to Beinart & crew, especially a few years ago: they are only to be held responsible for what they *wished* to happen in Iraq, not for what *actually* happened as a result of the actions for which they led the cheering.
Beinart, Hitchens: Morally superior because they *fantasized* that their policies would bring justice and a better life to Iraqis. They are in no way morally responsible if reality turned out differently.
Real liberals and leftists: Morally inferior because we refused to engage in fantasy as a serious level of foreign policy analysis.
This so beautifully sums up the really fundamental element of frustration I've felt over the past 6 years. It's this whole concept of "Just clap harder!" policy making which is followed by "You didn't clap hard enough!" blame when the fantasies they've constructed tear apart like a tissue in a hurricane. It's as if the entire Republican party has decided that if we all believe the same thing hard enough it'll happen, but they fail to comprehend that actions have consequences and often those consequences can be dire if they aren't prepared for. It's not like this whole Sunni/Shiite split causing a civil war to break out in Iraq came completely out of nowhere. It was all there right, right there, easy to understand even for a non-politician/foreign policy analyst like me.
And now those of us who actually used our brains rather than simply buying into the fairy tale are somehow less morally pure than the idealists who led us into this new crusade. The argument seems to be, "Well at least they wanted to do the right thing, even if it didn't turn out really well." How nice for them, and believe me the idea that everyone might someday live in a free and tolerant society sounds peachy to me too, but that's not the point. If you want these things to happen you have to realize that they never will at the wrong end of a gun, or beneath a hail of smart bombs. What we've done in Iraq is the political equivalent of negligent homicide at best, regardless of our best intentions. The only remaining question is, do we continue to clap our hands raw or do we start looking at the problem in a realistic light? I doubt we'll like what we see, but we've got to face it sometime.
#
El Cid said,
April 27, 2007 at 11:24
Beinart was most annoying because he was a cheap fantasist and yet he considered himself morally superior to those unwilling to engage in fantasy-based foreign policy. (He shares this with Hitchens, they both play the same game.)
You see, he *fantasized* that life would get much better for Iraqis (and the Middle East) as a result of a US invasion.
On the ‘other’ side of his moral spectrum were liberals and leftists who refused to fantasize that life would get a lot better for Iraqis and others as a result of a US invasion.
Now, you & I might think that you should judge the morality of one’s program based on what *actually* happens.
And here you are wrong, according to Beinart & crew, especially a few years ago: they are only to be held responsible for what they *wished* to happen in Iraq, not for what *actually* happened as a result of the actions for which they led the cheering.
Beinart, Hitchens: Morally superior because they *fantasized* that their policies would bring justice and a better life to Iraqis. They are in no way morally responsible if reality turned out differently.
Real liberals and leftists: Morally inferior because we refused to engage in fantasy as a serious level of foreign policy analysis.
This so beautifully sums up the really fundamental element of frustration I've felt over the past 6 years. It's this whole concept of "Just clap harder!" policy making which is followed by "You didn't clap hard enough!" blame when the fantasies they've constructed tear apart like a tissue in a hurricane. It's as if the entire Republican party has decided that if we all believe the same thing hard enough it'll happen, but they fail to comprehend that actions have consequences and often those consequences can be dire if they aren't prepared for. It's not like this whole Sunni/Shiite split causing a civil war to break out in Iraq came completely out of nowhere. It was all there right, right there, easy to understand even for a non-politician/foreign policy analyst like me.
And now those of us who actually used our brains rather than simply buying into the fairy tale are somehow less morally pure than the idealists who led us into this new crusade. The argument seems to be, "Well at least they wanted to do the right thing, even if it didn't turn out really well." How nice for them, and believe me the idea that everyone might someday live in a free and tolerant society sounds peachy to me too, but that's not the point. If you want these things to happen you have to realize that they never will at the wrong end of a gun, or beneath a hail of smart bombs. What we've done in Iraq is the political equivalent of negligent homicide at best, regardless of our best intentions. The only remaining question is, do we continue to clap our hands raw or do we start looking at the problem in a realistic light? I doubt we'll like what we see, but we've got to face it sometime.
