| |
|
sleaze: True nuf. So what do we do? Throw up our hands and flip a coin? Why feel obligated to be on one side or the other? Maybe being undecided is the only intellectually honest choice...
And I'll be the first to admit that, whatever moral case there is to be made in favor of Western intervention in Iraq, that wasn't the case that the US administration was making before the war started—probably because doing so would mean admitting that Chomsky was right all these years: Texans have their pride, you know.
But I don't think it's a coincidence that after GWB started downplaying talk of pre-emptive self-protection, and starting talking about freedom for Iraqis—i.e., after that televised address giving the 48-hour deadline—support for the war started spiking. And now that we're in the thick of it, you're not hearing much about WMDs at all, and a lot about moral obligation. Blair has always seemed far more engaged on a moral level than on a purely self-defensive or political level, which I think accounts for his extraordinary popularity here in the Sates, if not at home.
Some folks don't like morality mixed with their foreign policy, of course: I heard Dominique de Villepin on the BBC 'tother day, scoffing that "This world eez too complex for moral leadership." But the fact remains that it's easier to get folks to back your effort if you give them a cause that they perceive as just, and protecting yourself from WMDs, while it may be just, also seems a trifle chickenshit: but taking up the White Man's Burden and helping our little brown brothers to reap the benefits of prosperity and democracy—or, for that matter, cleaning up our own messes and trying to atone for our past mistakes—that's something people can get behind.
Does my rhetoric seem contradictory to you? Are you confused about my position on this thing?
Brother, you're not half as confused as I am. |
|
|
