Modest Proposal
Gene Healy has a suggestion for the hawks:
I understand people who argue for war with Iraq because they want to (1) liberate Iraqis; and/or (2) help Israel; and/or (3) spread democracy. I think those are illegitimate reasons in a constitutional republic whose governing document speaks of the “common defence” of the United States, and not the general good of the world at large. More important, I think they’re damned frivolous reasons for killing American soldiers, innocent Iraqi civilians, and, for that matter, Iraqi conscripts. But I understand the arguments: if these Wilsonian goals are worthwhile to you, invading Iraq is something you might want to do.
But I’m having an increasingly hard time understanding why any rational person would argue that invading Iraq is something we need to do in order to protect the lives, liberty, and property of Americans (you know, the legitimate goals of American foreign policy). Invading Iraq will, in all likelihood, increase our vulnerability to attack . . .
So here’s a suggestion for the folks on the other side of this debate. Drop the national security rationale–it won’t wash . . . Instead, make your case for war based on goals 1 through 3, above. And argue that the increased risk to Americans–soldiers and civilians–is worth it.
There’s more, including a link to an interview with war skeptic Norman Schwarzkopf.
