The so called "left" objects to the fundamental ideology of pre-emption
I don't presume to speak for the Right. However, I don't accept the premise that it was a "pre-emptive" war in the first place. There was a negotiated ceasefire, the terms of which had been breached, which effectively reinstated the previous conflict. While you can argue the technical aspects of this statement, the simple truth is that the US was the "enforcer" and was having to bear the costs (financial and human) of enforcement. Thus, it is incumbent on us to decide how to deal with the breach. Period.
This is without prejudice against the idea that pre-emptive war is appropriate in certain circumstances. It certainly, indisputably is. The Left is, frankly, naive and illogical in its conclusion that we cannot use a pre-emptive strike when necessary. JFK would have done it in an instant in the Cuban Missle Crisis.
Most importantly, the Left totally misses the basic rationale for our actions; i.e., that it will make the United States a safer place to live. As a citizen of the United States, I demand little of our government -- but the one thing that is non-negotiable is that I want safety for my family. That means if we had to destroy every other nation on Earth to get it, fine. If there is a 1% chance that taking Saddam out will save another 9/11-like event from occurring, then it is well worth it.
I don't think the Left recognizes how significant it is that we are installing a democracy in the heart of the Middle East. Long-term, it absolutely is going to save American lives. The number of people we have to kill in that region to protect some American is, frankly, immaterial to me.
These are just different, more pragamatic views than those offered by the Left. I appreciate the fact that liberals are unable to see these matters clearly. |
