Matt Welch explores the subtle moral distinctions that led prominent leftists to support the liberation of Kosovo and oppose similar action in Iraq in this piece for Reason:
Since Clark was one of the top four Democratic candidates for president, and Soros has redirected his considerable energy and at least $15 million to effect “regime change” in the United States, their distinction between Kosovo and Iraq arguably looms as the defining foreign policy difference between Democrats and Republicans in 2004. And for those of us who supported Clinton’s Wilsonianism but not Bush’s, these books should help answer two questions we really ought to be asking ourselves: Is our support for America’s activist role dependent on high moral principle, or is it tethered to partisan politics? And did we lower the bar for military intervention?
Seems to me that it’s a matter of trust. Bob Dylan said: “if you’re gonna live outside the law, you better be honest.” Partisan Democrats trust Democratic presidents to engage in technically illegal foreign wars in the service of high moral principles, but not Republican presidents; and vice versa.
Which shows us that the system of international law that made the interventions in Kosovo and Iraq (and the non-intervention in Rwanda) technically illegal needs to change, but how? Certainly, we can’t trust the UN to sanction the removal of despots from power; but who can we trust to authorize and direct the use of American and British military power?
Only the elected representatives in each country, unfortunately.
Partisan Democrats trust Democratic presidents to engage in technically illegal foreign wars in the service of high moral principles, but not Republican presidents; and vice versa.
Almost, but not quite. I’d argue that since Republican partisans are more likely to trust the military and rally around the flag in general, that a greater percentage (though not all) of Republicans support what Dole once called “Democrat wars” than Democrats support Republican wars.
So, paradoxically, Democrat Presidents can fight more wars.
John has a point. Republicans are more likely to attack a Democrat for not being tough enough in a fight than for engaging in one.
That said, your overall thesis seems correct to me, Richard. This, to me, is why it comes down to fundamental patriotism, a value that needs restoring. It may be that petty carping is acceptable over small military operations. But once a war of major scale is in place, I tend to be of the old fashion World War II and earlier era mentality: debate all you want until the war starts, but once the vote is held and our elected represenatives make their choice, then stop the partisan screeching and get behind the effort in the hopes that we win as quickly and definitively as possible.
And if you want to argue that we should surrender or withdraw, do so with tact and decency.
I cannot describe the loathing I feel for people who pettifog, carp, kvetch, prematurely declare defeat, and continue to argue against a war we’re in the middle of, and who in doing all this offer no clear alternatives, but merely bitch. I won’t call such behavior treasonous, but it is certainly deeply offensive and unpatriotic.
(Yes, I just questioned their patriotism.)
Democratic presidents certainly have a history of being more inclined to war-mongering than Republicans, and, if Vietnam is indicative, to escalating wars to absurd heights.
But there’s a distinction that has to be drawn between traditional wars against an overt aggressor – like WWII – and wars of preemption and/or humanitarian relief. Our system of international law falls apart in the latter case, which is increasingly the more relevant case now that the consequences of waiting for the enemy to make the first strike are unacceptable.
Certainly true, Richard, that international law doesn’t handle these sorts of modern wars. Yet, troops were in Bosnia before the 1996 election, and while many Republicans grumbled about it, I don’t get the impression that it hurt Clinton among Republicans to the degree that Democrats hate Bush for Iraq.