From Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt to Bill Clinton, the characterization of knee jerk peacenik never seemed to fit the American Left (at least when they weren�t endangered by the draft their selves). After all in the context of the 20th century conservatives have been more in opposition to military action--except of course in their principled and pragmatic opposition to communism. It seems though--in the sight of a coming war with Iraq--liberals wish to hide their heritage. They oppose an attack as vehemently as...well as vehemently as if it meant they would be going to war with a friend. In some cases--if you listen to those who offer a sermon in totalitarian apologetics--it seems as if Saddam Hussein was an old pal. Luckily not all give such an undignified opposition. Others, it seems, just don�t think that military intervention is justified on the grounds of Iraq�s merciless killing, ruthless torture, and systematic rape. Why not--some of you with a humanitarian heart may ask. Well it basically comes down to one of two ideas--either that Hussein�s brand of atrocities just isn�t unique enough to end or that the whole military operation just wouldn�t be humanitarian enough. The latter of these two arguments seems to be spawned from the idea that if there�s a shred of American interest involved in a conflict then the whole humanitarian aspect is canceled out. Thus we have seen liberals, in the 1990s, support military action in Somalia and Kosovo while opposing it in Desert Storm. Luckily this is a relatively new phenomenon. I�d hate to see how World War II would have turned out if people thought the humanitarian aspect of getting rid of Hitler was sacrificed because there was an American interest in National Defense.
There are also others--skeptical of such a military intervention--that ask why America should care about these Humanitarian interests now when we didn�t care about them in the 1980s. To some this may seem to state a compelling point, but it ignores how American Foreign Policy is typically ran. Those familiar with classical Greece may recall the idea of realpolitik. This idea contends that nations do not act based on ideals but on National interests. American Foreign policy works on a similar idea. Henry Kissinger explained it by saying that America has no permanent friends or enemies, just interests. Under such an idea it could be seen that support for Iraq in the past and opposition to it now isn�t contradictory. Two classic principles in Foreign Policy--the principle of the lesser evil and the idea of Situational logic--help clarify this better. Under the principle of the lesser evil a country is justified in allying with a bad guy in order to oppose a regime that is even worse. Thus in the 1980s Iran was a greater threat, so America supported Hussein. Situational logic just contends that situations change and because of this policies must be devised to deal with a particular situation at a given time. Thus as Iran became less of a threat and Iraq become more of one, the United States changed its stance and opposed Iraq.
Though Saddam Hussein�s regime may not be responsible for boy bands, kid rock, or potholes, he is certainly responsible for ruthless human rights violations. Certainly an attack on Iraq would be about American interests, but does that really diminish the humanitarian aspect? That�s just something to think about before heading off to the anti-war rallies.
