fbpx
Politics Foreign Affairs Culture Fellows Program

Going Over To “The Dark Side” By Supporting A Just War I Have Always Supported

Larison, whose claim to fame is the many links Andrew Sullivan bestows on him, is supposed to be a “paleoconservative” expert on foreign affairs, and yet if his latest postings are any indication, he’s gone over to the Dark Side. (I guess this explains that interview with The Economist, which has never before shown such […]

Larison, whose claim to fame is the many links Andrew Sullivan bestows on him, is supposed to be a “paleoconservative” expert on foreign affairs, and yet if his latest postings are any indication, he’s gone over to the Dark Side. (I guess this explains that interview with The Economist, which has never before shown such interest in the foreign policy views of a small and nearly invisible sector of the American Right). ~Justin Raimondo

Yes, we wouldn’t want non-interventionist arguments to be found anywhere except in our own echo chambers. It must be the powerful lure of dark forces that has caused me to articulate the exact same view I have always held on the war in Afghanistan. As I have stated explicitly several times, the proposed Afghanistan plan seems to me to be the best and most realistic way of creating conditions that will allow us to depart Afghanistan sooner. I am open to arguments to the contrary, which Raimondo naturally never provides, but what does not interest me is the lazy, reflexive opposition to the plan displayed by the likes of Rep. Chaffetz, Arlen Specter and their newfound admirers.

Chaffetz and Specter do not oppose the plan because they object to empire or U.S. power projection abroad. Their records and recent statements make that clear. At least these might be principled objections I could respect and understand. Chaffetz opposes it because it is Obama’s plan and because he does not like fighting a limited counterinsurgency in which we do not inflict mass death on a foreign population. Chaffetz believes that the rules of engagement that are beginning to prevent the disastrous bombings of civilian centers are tying the hands of the military, and in any other case Raimondo would want to keep those rules in place, but for whatever reason Chaffetz’s dangerous ideas on this score get a pass because he winds up favoring withdrawal. Specter opposes the plan in a desperate bid to keep his job by trying to satisfy progressive voters unhappy with the administration. They may be imitating some of the arguments that I and others have used against the Iraq war, but this does not derive from any understanding of Afghanistan that they have. The situations in Iraq and Afghanistan are not the same, and the reasons why the “surge” was unlikely to achieve its stated goals do not necessarily apply to the Afghanistan plan. Not only do the wars differ in legitimacy, but the strategic importance of each is very different.

One of the most damning things opponents of the Iraq invasion argued against its supporters was that they were pursuing ideological fantasies and were ignoring the realities of the places they were trying to transform. For those ideologues, war always seems necessary and escalation is always the right answer. It is no wonder that Kristol, Kagan and the rest have endorsed sending additional forces to Afghanistan, because they always call for sending additional forces under any and all circumstances. The nature of the conflict does not interest them–just like Chaffetz, they always favor using more force than anyone else favors.

If non-interventionists believe that force can sometimes be used justly within limits for limited, specific ends, it is a mistake to adopt the same habit of always opposing every single increase in forces when the war is a legitimate one that most of us have theoretically been supporting all along. By all means, let’s hear a strong argument why the plan is wrong, or better yet let’s hear why the Afghan war is no longer justified or legitimate. My view on Afghanistan could be wrong, and I might be persuaded that this is the case, but I’m not going to be persuaded by shoddy arguments from the Chaffetzes and Specters of the world when they have no credibility on such matters. For the sake of argument, let’s say that I have gone over to “the Dark Side.” If that’s true, what doesn’t make any sense is cheering on long-time Iraq war supporters such as Specter or advocates for bombing Iran such as Chaffetz. If I have gone over to “the Dark Side,” they have never left.

For the record, Sestak ran and won in 2006 in no small part on his opposition to the war in Iraq. He contrasted his support for the war in Afghanistan, in which he had served, with his opposition to that unjustified war. In his case, this was not just rhetorical posturing, but a view derived from making a reasonable distinction between a retaliatory war against the hosts of a group that attacked the United States and an unnecessary and unjust war of aggression. (Sestak did not necessarily describe Iraq in exactly those terms, but he did see invading Iraq as a terrible mistake.) His current primary opponent, Arlen Specter, voted for and supported the Iraq war steadfastly for as long as he was a member of the GOP. It is the Iraq war that Raimondo has repeatedly claimed was among the greatest foreign policy blunders in U.S. history, and strangely it is supporters of that war (and in Chaffetz’s case a possible war against Iran) that he now seems to be championing against those of us who correctly opposed invading Iraq while understanding that the war in Afghanistan was a legitimate and unfortunate necessity. It is absurd to say that the victory of the insurgent progressive, anti-Iraq war Sestak against the Washington-backed “centrist,” opportunistic hawk Specter would represent a “rather large feather in the War Party’s cap.” That is how far out Raimondo has had to go to keep his argument from unraveling completely: he has to make established antiwar voices out to be agents of dark forces and he also has to credit reliable hawks with antiwar views they don’t actually hold.

If Raimondo would like to defend career hawks who have been wrong on every major foreign policy question of the last decade and who are now very, very latecomers to opposing the one recent war that is legitimate, he is free to do so, but it won’t change the reality that these hawks do not oppose any military interventions in principle or in practice. Chaffetz’s sudden discovery that it is politically useful to oppose “Obama’s war” by complaining that the rules of engagement in Afghanistan are too stringent and limiting is the opposite of any coherent ideas on how to reduce civilian casualties and weaken the hold of Taliban militias. Chaffetz has called for withdrawal from Afghanistan because he apparently cannot grasp that there is anything between withdrawal and total war, and he knows that he will not get the total war and “victory” he insists on seeking. If Chaffetz had his way exactly as he wanted it, the escalation in Afghanistan would be larger, the Afghan civilian death toll would be far higher, and the mission would be even closer to failure. Specter’s realization that some Pennsylvania progressives might punish Sestak for taking a controversial position in his party on Afghanistan is just more of Specter’s utterly unprincipled maneuvering.

For his part, Sestak still supports the war in Afghanistan as he has always done, and I am trying to do the same. If that puts me on “the Dark Side” in Raimondo’s book, I must have always been there, because my arguments on this have not changed over the years. I’d rather be there than siding with a shabby old pol who would do and say anything to win another term and a foolish House member urging us to “take out” Iran’s nuclear facilities.

Advertisement

Comments

The American Conservative Memberships
Become a Member today for a growing stake in the conservative movement.
Join here!
Join here