Bravo Mr. Junkyard! That is the neatest and clearest expression of Democratic intransigence yet seen.

These are indeed questions that somebody should be persistently asking. If we really had a right-wing or even pro-American TV network, its reporters would be the ones doing the asking.

Unfortunately we don’t; Fox has the false reputation of being right-wing, but Fox is actually a tabloid network. When it interrupts the gravely important 24/7 coverage of the earth-shaking Scott Peterson story to mention a few seconds of trivial world news, those few seconds are less obviously biased than the other networks, but Fox doesn’t ask the many “from-right-field” questions that need to be asked.

Allow me to give the Democratic response:

Well, The neoconservatives running the Bush administration support Bush on Iraq but didn’t support Clinton on Kosovo. How do you explain that?

If you try to explain to them that playground ethics don’t work well in international politics, the response will be:

You’re a big poohead.

Yeah, that’s a very Democratic response all right—evade the question and smear the questioner. And in so few words! Have you been to the James Carville School of Spin, or are you just taking the correspondence course? Either way you seem to be getting your money’s worth.

But back to the questions. I asked first so you have to answer first: Why support action in Kosovo but not Iraq? You answer my question, I’ll answer yours.

Yeti,

Hint: Strategic interest.

(Sorry Bryan, I figure he doesn’t have an answer and didn’t want to leave him hanging.)

That’s far from “playground”, it’s a very valid question. A good explanation would go a long way toward understanding democrat reasoning.

OK, folks. I’ll give it a go. For the record, though, I didn’t support dropping bombs and shooting guns then, and I don’t now; so my comments represent pure speculation on a potential Kosovo-War-Supporter/Iraq-War-Opponent answer.

First, there is what I would call the historical rationale. On Kosovo, the U.S. made a strategic run around the U.N. EXCLUSIVELY because of Russian opposition. But circumventing Russian opposition in the U.N. was something the U.S. public was very used to. Because of the Cold War, and the legacy of superpower rivalry between these two countries, the U.S. has had a long history of doing this against Russian opposition. Also, Russia had historically been a formidable adversary of the U.S., NOT an ally. The fact that no other member of the Security Council placed itself in opposition to the U.S. on the Kosovo situation, at least with the promise to exercise a veto, simply meant that the NATO contingent on the U.N. Security Council was in agreement on Kosovo. And this gave the U.S. moral legitimacy in the international community that Bush did not manage to secure with the Iraq war.

Second is what I would call the moral threshold reason. What was happening in Kosovo was PERCEIVED as ethnic genocide. The brutality and repression of Saddam Hussein, while in some ways even more heinous, was never PERCEIVED as rising to the level of ethnic genocide. Nor did the Bush administration make this argument for going to war with Iraq.

Third, related to each Administration’s arguments for engaging in military action, is what I would call the global just cause rationale. The Kosovo campaign was undertaken by the U.S. not out of any concern with a direct threat to U.S. security, but with the idealistic notion of preventing genocide. And this ideal was clearly embraced by a vast majority of the international community. The Iraq war, on the other hand, was sold by the Bush administration and PERCEIVED by a vast majority of the world’s population as a response to a direct threat to U.S. (and global) security because of the supposed presence of WMDs. We can argue this point, but there was division among the world about this threat, with some thinking that the National/Global security argument was not warranted and was (and is) unproved, and hence didn’t serve as a “just cause” for military intervention.

There are more reasons that I might think of that have to do with Idealism in IR theory, which does not preclude the use of force and which might be used to explain the Kosovo campaign; but the Bush Administration’s Iraq campaign can be explained better through the Realist paradigm. In the interests of keeping this post brief, I’ll just say that the former emphasizes broad multilateral collaboration over unilateral action (without precluding either response) while the latter emphasizes unilateral action over broad multilateral collaboration (without precluding either response). It is a question of emphasis.

I’ll leave it at that, and let you critique these responses. In the meantime, I’d like to see a more complete answer to TheYeti’s question to Bryan than simply “strategic interest” - because that doesn’t mean anything to me without some explanation. I could just as well argue that the U.S.’s “strategic interest” (depending on what you see at this interest) was better served by the Kosovo campaign than it has been to the Iraq war - but that is a different debate.

When the Yeti answers me, I will answer him.

Mr. Huck,

“The brutality and repression of Saddam Hussein, while in some ways even more heinous, was never PERCEIVED as rising to the level of ethnic genocide.”

That’s because the people who really count - like the Democratic party, the NYT and the major TV networks and the professors in their ivory towers - have very limited abilities to perceive.

Mr. Sensitive - I beg to differ. I assiduously read the conservative press, and never did I hear or read the term ethnic genocide as a case for war. The war was never first about protecting Iraqis, but rather about protecting us and the rest of the world from Iraq. Bush himself, not to mention everyone in his administration that formulated the reasons for the Iraq war, didn’t seem too concerned about making the case for war on the basis that Saddam was engaging in ethnic genocide. Whether you choose to admit it or not, and you can Monday morning quarterback all you like, but you cannot change the fact that ethnic genocide was never given as one of the reasons for toppling Saddam with shock and awe.

Mr. Huck,

The case for war was clearly and sufficiently stated - a savage was in charge, with toys too potent to leave him undisturbed with (possibly you can recall all those unenforced UN resolutions). The suppression of ethnic genocide was what the capitalists would call a lovely dividend, and the surviving Iraqis might even call a blessing.

I could be wrong, but I don’t think all democrats were opposed to action in Iraq.

A majority, perhaps.

We can’t really use the “uninforced UN resolutions” can we? How many countries, such as US and Israel. have broken UN resolutions, none of which were enforced. Not to mention most conservatives feel the UN is irrelevant, so the resolutions should be irrelevant as well. Personally, Saddam is gone, and that’s great. Not captured yet, nor bin Laden, and no weapons yet found, so we are asked for patience after being rold there was no time for patience beofre the invasion.

Is the $150+ billion price tag to the U.S. taxpayer and the 250+ lives of U.S. troops part of that “lovely dividend?” Not to mention the fact that we still haven’t found any toys in Saddam’s toybox. But all that is beside the point. You still haven’t refuted the fact that the Kosovo campaign was justified primarily as a response to halt ethnic cleansing, while the Iraq war was not.

National defense is this country’s first priority, and if Iraq is flipped from a supporter of all things antiAmerican to a supporter of individual opportunity and evenhanded law for its own citizens - imagine, prosperity even! - as a result of the war, the $150+ billion price tag is a bargain. That flip could not be accomplished by abject appeasement, nor UN resolutions, nor the unctuous ministrations of self-appointed NGOs.

Regrets for the US dead (and let’s include the ones who fell in Afghanistan, part of the same campaign), and our gratitude to them, are appropriate. But if they’re a reason for promoting withdrawal from Iraq, it’s a myopic one. There’s no safety in retreating to a closet, it only promotes enemy preparation for the next attack. If you hadn’t noticed, there’s a war on.

And the Kosovo action, clumsy as it was, aimed higher than a simple response to ethnic cleansing. There were too many opportunities for that fracas to be joined by third parties with not humanitarian motives, but real conquest in mind, and good chances for a spreading free-for-all. Europe being too fat and cynical, it was in long-range US interest (as the Iraq war is) to head off further nastiness developing unhampered there.

Clinton & Co. being devoted to symbolic gestures, targeted Milosevic’s army from three miles up, hardly damaged any tanks, but were very effective at bridge-busting and economy-wrecking. Exactly the opposite of the Iraqi campaign. And the ethnic cleansing continues in Kosovo, in the reverse direction - a good example of the uneffectiveness of the Clinton approach. Advantage Bush.

Kosovo ethnic genocide. I’ll acknowledge that.

Iraq a sadistic dictator who would inflict pain on the U.S. if he could.

I might rephrase the original question… Why wouldn’t we support both actions as Americans?

I truly disliked Clinton. I saw him in 1991 at the University of Florida. And then decided not to vote for him. Before that meeting I was still searching who to vote for in 1992. I voted Perot trying to make a point.

I remember thinking Clinton was really going to Kosovo as a distraction, but…

Bad person does good thing… I supported that.

Whether you hate or love Bush he has done a good thing. Certain behaviour should be unacceptable, even if it hurts us to stop it.

I don’t see why the Dems can’t be more supportive.

It is convenient for you to look back at Kosovo in hindsight after 8+ years. We’ve only had, what, 6 months in Iraq (this time), with more cost in U.S. money and U.S. lives in these 6 months than the entire Kosovo campaign from its beginning to the current day. Come talk to me about the long-term success and strategic value to U.S. security interests of the current Iraq action in 8 years. If you want to talk in hindsight about a good example of an ineffective approach to “war and peace” let’s go back to Gulf War I, when Saddam was at the mercy of Bush I & Co., whose decision to leave the tyrant in power based on, I guess, long-term U.S. strategic interests, had the “lovely dividend” of this current war which didn’t have to happen if Bush I had finished the job he started. I guess you might have also said then after such a “successful” war: Advantage Bush. How lucky for us.

And another thing: You are naive if you don’t think that in Iraq and Afghanistan, like Kosovo, there are “too many opportunities for that fracas to be joined by third parties with not humanitarian motives, but real conquest in mind, and good chances for a spreading free-for-all.”

My previous post was intended as a reply to Insufficiently Sensitive, but Mark Cates beat me on the uptake.

To answer Mark Cates’s question, some people think war is an appropriate response to a threat, others don’t. It is not an indictment on a person’s patriotism to advocate a course of action that does not involve killing people.

I happen to be a Christian, and my example, as I’ve said before, is Christ’s admonition to Peter to put away his sword. I do not judge anyone who supports war as being unChristian, because I can understand where that position comes from and that someone can really be morally comfortable with that position. But I have to be true to my conscience on this point. And that is why at least this Dem is not supportive of war as a solution.

Turning the other cheek might by your solution, but don’t go thinking it’s appropriate for the rest of us.

I was intrigued by your “when Saddam was at the mercy of Bush I & Co., whose decision to leave the tyrant in power…”. Bush I at that point demonstrated the efficacy of the multinational solution to repelling Saddam’s invasion of Kuweit - he LISTENED when the UN implored him not to finish the job. It was a multilateral decision, with an efficacy coefficient of negative billions - the ones we are now required to spend.

I never cared much for JFK - he would have been great conversation at a cocktail party maybe - but he got one idea right. That was, BE SURE THAT WHAT YOU’RE GOING TO DO IS RIGHT, THEN GO AHEAD AND DO IT. The Democrats should be on their feet cheering for Bush, who has effectively applied that doctrine at the right time and place.

I wish I could claim turning the other cheek as my solution; but, alas, I can’t. I’m borrowing that solution from someone whose example I care much more about than yours or anyone else’s. But don’t worry, I would never presume to think this solution to be appropriate for you. You’ve got to live with your conscience, not I.

No argument from me on Gulf War I. I capitulate. I’m just glad to see that you recognize Bush I’s failure as a leader by selling out the U.S. to the U.N. (Ann Coulter would use a different word here.) Keep your fingers crossed that the rising sticker price of “keeping the peace” in Iraq doesn’t lead Bush II down the same path.

Huck: Don’t think for a minute that conservatives claim GHWB. He walked away from us with that weasely tax/budget deal with the Dems. We were criticizing him (in real time) about stopping short in GW-I, while you were applauding his humanity for stopping the killing. Well, excuse me, but some people NEED to be killed, just to protect the rest of us.

We were criticizing him (in real time) about stopping short in GW-I

Thank you, Drew. I have noticed many times since the latest action against Saddam first became a possibility that this fact was being overlooked by those opposed. One opponent asked me how I would feel if Dubya suddenly decided not to go in.

My reply was something on the order of, “I’d figure we’ll still have to go in eventually to finish the job left undone back in 1991.”

Said reminder of actual, like, history ended that whole line of discussion.

I think to bring up pacifism is really to miss the point of this exercise, Jimmy. And given that you’re a pacifist, I’m not sure you’re the best person to take this on from a Dem point of view. But you’re a honest type and I’m glad you took up the challenge. I do wonder where the Yeti ran off to, though. Maybe he’s not real.

Anyway, the point is, however you choose to justify it in terms in international law, genocide, whatever, Kosovo was for the US a war of choice operated outside the aegis of the UN. We didn’t have to go in there; the bad guys posed no immediate or even long-term threat to us. The only strategic rationale for that war was essentially a kind of domino theory that if chaos were allowed to take root there it would spread to the local region and perhaps eventually to the bigger states around Europe, leading to a full-scale war. Ironically, the only time that became a possibility was when the Russians invaded the Pristina airfield and Gen. Clark wanted to forcibly expel them. Had NATO troops not been involved in Kosovo, Russian troops would never have seized that airfield—the allied involvement actually increased the threat of full-scale war for a few hours, shades of World War I if you know your history. Of course, if the allies hadn’t gotten involved the war could have spread to other countries a la some of the African wars—we’ll never know. On balance, it was probably prudent to stop the killing, and it was certainly justifiable from a purely moral point of view. Arguable, but justifiable.

Iraq, however, is different because the rationale for that war was very different. The rationale was that all intel indicated that Saddam was building WMDs, that he was at least loosely connected to a present threat, and that he had motivation to use those weapons and that threat to hit us. Retrospectively the WMD threat may not have been as big, but equally retrospectively the terrorist connection seems to have been proven—two notorious terrorists guilty of killing Americans turned up in Iraq, numerous meetings between al Qaeda gangsters and Saddam, etc. And, prior to the war everyone from the CIA to the UN to even the weasely French believed that Saddam was in fact working on WMDs on the sly. Everyone believed it, even Hans Blix. So the rationale was self-defense, with ancillary benefits to human rights and democracy in Iraq and the region. Strategically, the rationale was that Iraq had the best chance of being transformed into a democracy for a variety of reasons, and could therefore begin a wave of change throughout the whole region toward openness and away from the kinds of tyranny that foster terrorism. That rationale seems to be proving true if you get past the stream of negativity that is our media these days.

So the rationale for Kosovo, a clear war of choice, is less solidly on the side of self-defense than was the rationale for Iraq, a war of both choice and self-defense (we could have chosen to ignore the threat for a while, and accepted the risks of taking that path). Self-defense is why we have a military—we’re not imperialists, contrary to what some believe, and it doesn’t exist to foster idealistic notions of humanity or whatever. It exists to eliminate threats to the United States. Yet most Dems supported Kosovo, where we’ve been for four years now without any talk of quagmire and where the self-defense angle is weak, and have turned their backs against Iraq, where we’ve been for a few months and is already being compared to Vietnam—a war utterly different and led, for the most part, by Democrats anyway. And where the self-defense angle is debatable but stronger than Kosovo.

What’s the driving principle behind this difference of opinion? Is there one? That is my question, and it’s not some kind of trick or game. I’m geniunely curious. You’ve noted on another post that I’ve become pretty good at playing Dem games, which is true. I spend waaaay too much time around liberal Dems and pretty much know what kind of things they like to spin and distort. I understand them more than I’d like to. But Kosovo vs Iraq is a genuine point of uncertainty for me. To this point I conclude that the difference is simply on the matter of who’s leading the effort. If that’s the case, and I hope it isn’t, the Democrats are more shallow and conniving than I ever thought possible.