Krauthammer Arguments are Deceptive IMHO.
Tom, Thank you for the link to Krauthammer's speech.
Frankly, I find fault with his arguments and his resort
to sophistry. When you strip out the complexity of his
language and "ideas", his basic arguments themselves are,
I find, twisted and deceptive...and he conveniently leaves
out facts that would dispute his own conclusions and theorems.
The call for war, the call for a new American doctrine,
for unilateralism, if that is what we are indeed embarking
on, if it is indeed that compelling that we go in that
direction, then it should be made in a straightforward and
simple manner.
..For myself I use three touchstones in determining whether
I agree or disagree with a certain perspective or argument:
1) Does it make sense. Do the pieces fit together better
with this theory, more than any other alternative.
2) Is the argument being presented done so in a straight
forward and compelling manner and does it encompass all the
facts as we know them, or at least more facts than any
other argument.
3) Usually the simplest explanation is the best/truest.
Hopefully without being too long winded:
I find the "pieces" of the various dilemmas which we are
faced with today fit together in a way that makes more
sense to me in the framework provided by RC Longworth's
article than by Krauthammer's speech. I suspect we differ here.
Just one of the areas where the pieces don't fit together
so good under Krauthammer speech:
"There are two schools of committed multilateralists, and
it is important to distinguish between them. There are the
liberal internationalists who act from principle, and
there are the realists who act from pragmatism....The
liberal internationalist position is a principled
position, but it makes no internal sense..."
There are those who point out that it is Bush's own approach
toward the twin dangers of No Korea and Iraq in opposing
weapons of mass destruction that makes no internal sense.
No Korea actually has nuclear weapons, kicked out UN weapons
inspectors, and restarted their nuclear reprocessing
facilties and has defied UN resolutions and treaties it
signed with the US. However, Bush feels we can work thru
the UN on No. Korea. With Iraq, despite intensive scrutiny,
there is still no "smoking gun", UN inspectors roam the
country, and they/Iraq acceded to US demands made via the UN
regarding restarting the inspection process. Now we want
to invade Iraq and lay waste to Baghdad. Tell me what the
internal logic at work is here?
So what are we missing here? Why such a harsh approach on
the one hand, and why an offer to resolve a problem
diplomatically on the other? They both supposedly involve
a concern over weapons of mass destruction. Why? This is
"pragmatism" at work? Sure seems arbitrary to a lot of
people. Is that then to be one of our governing principles
on how we interact with the world? In a arbitrary pragmatic
manner?
Bush says we want to free the Iraqi people from a brutal
dictator who mistreats his own people in the most horrible
way. No one disputes Saddam's cruelty toward his own
people. But there are other dictators just as horrible
and just as guilty of heinous crimes as Saddam? What is
the logic of singling him out and never mentioning the
others or talking about going after them? Where is the
internal logic of that if this is what this is all about?
Saddam treated his people the same way when he was our
ally against Iran back in the 1990s. Why was there no
outcry then? This pragmatism - nope, no arbitrarism
here...sure looks consistent to me.
The missing ingredient that unscrambles the paradox, and
makes sense of the above is the three letter word:
OIL.
Tom, to me this unseemly haste on the part of Bush to
wage war in Iraq only makes sense if it is all about the
oil over there. They have it. We want it.
Once you view it from that perspective, the reaction and
opposition by much of the rest of the world makes sense.
And a lot of other pieces fall into place as well.
That's how I see it, that's what makes sense to me.
Krauthammer is just blowing smoke.
Regards, Peter. |
