I posed a question to Todd here, and then he answers. Essentially I asked how Todd could square his approval of Saddam Hussein's demise (as a leader and as a living being) with his opposition to the war in Iraq. If one seeks a certain end, then one should support the means to achieve that end. In my opinion military intervention in Iraq was the only way to achieve the end of removing Saddam Hussein. Todd seems to argue that sometimes you have to live with dictators, a position with which I have much sympathy. I think his examples fall short by means of comparison. One should compare likes to likes, not to unlikes. Of course we didn't go after such dictators as Stalin and Mao, as to do so would likely have meant WW-III. But no such fear existed with Iraq. Likewise, a decade of history made intervention in Iraq more reasonable then intervention in North Korea. Finally, intervention in the other two prongs of the "axis of evil," Iran and North Korea, is significantly complicated if those nations achieve nuclear status. Todd also has a faith in "multilateralism" that is not supported by experience, in my opinion. If multilateral institutions, notably the UN, are blind to brutality and/or genocide, and in some cases are actual apologists for brutality (as was the case with Saddam), it would be foolish to wait for the rest of the world to catch up with justice. Todd, surprisingly, takes a very realist view of international affairs. Again, I have a great deal of respect for the realist perspective. But there is also the notion, supported by Spiderman, that "with great power comes great responsibility." Given the realist premises Todd seems to develop, it is difficult to see how the US intervenes in places like Somalia, Bosnia, and Kosovo, and the realist perspective (although not Todd, so far as I know) apologizes for a lack of intervention in places such as Rwanda and currently in the Sudan (see David Brooks on what happens when you adopt a self-interested agenda coupled with a breathtaking faith in the United Nations: you get a lot of dead Sudanese). The US should intervene when these factors are largely in place: a considerable good can be achieved by intervention, there are viable alternatives to the present situation, the costs of non-intervention are high in terms of human misery, there is a reasonable chance of success that does not produce a greater evil, and some level (perhaps a low level) of legalist justification can be made. I think Iraq meets these standards. Todd clearly diagrees. On that I suppose we will get no resolution. I thank Todd for a thoughtful response.
By the way, there is a new book out that questions the "bright shining lie" theory of Vietnam. the book is Triumph Forsaken by Mark Moyar. You can read about the book here. You'll noticed it is endorsed by incoming Democratic Senator James Webb. I have not read the book so have no idea whether it is any good.
Recent Comments