Radley Balko, who is probably aware I want to nationalize his
brilliance,
strikes a chord that, to me, sounds flat. I might be taking
something he said and running with the wrong definition, so allow
me to simply make this an example:
Anti-communists in the Regan administration
regularly referred to the mujaheddin as "freedom fighters,"
apparently for no other reason than that they were fighting the
Soviets. We now know, of course, that they were fighting for
independence, not freedom. There's a big difference. That McCain
continues to use the Reagan-era terminology is telling. Our
support-even if indirect-of bin Laden in his jihad against the
Soviets ought to be a lesson in the perils of meddling in foreign
conflicts. But in the McCain-Bush black-and-white,
you're-with-us-or-you're-against-us foreign policy, the side
America backs is always the side of freedom. It's foolhardy to
think it's always that simple.
Well, not to mince words, but they were fighting for freedom, just
their own freedom to subordinate women and propagate the
Jihadi-based guide to personal success. And there was a perfectly
good reason to calling them freedom fighters. On the "Spectrum of
Grey" Tyranny-meter, the Soviets were jet black with expansionist
impulses and nuclear weapons. The mujaheddin were thorns in their
side, and helping in a greater cause of freedom.
Anyway, I'm weary of this strawman argument. Those of us who dig
on foreign adventurism, or perhaps think that sabre-rattling is
useful, don't see the world in black and white anymore than critics
polarize the world according to those who see shades of gray and
those who see black and white. The use of black and white rhetoric
is not simply a consequence of stupidity, simple-mindedness, or
mere partisanship. It is no more detrimental to the intellect of
the electorate than is a libertarian suggesting that more
government is bad. Everything a politician or ideologue says is, in
some way, propaganda, something intended not only to convey a
political message to the people, but to convince them of it. That
McCain engages in this sort of thing is not morally hazardous, but
actually necessary. It's in his job
description, right behind "Get Really Mad At Coworkers."
Doing so does not ignore the perils of foreign conflict. Any
person with a lick of education knows that other countries are
pretty complex, just like ours is. I'd wager it's tough to be on
the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations and not have a better
idea of that than your average joe. Reagan's language wasn't a mere
sideshow, but an instrument he used to strengthen his hand at the
negotiating table.
Whatmore, the U.S. meddling in foreign conflicts, particularly
Afghanistan, has generally been a force of good in the world.
Obviously, restraint is tantamount to that
good. So we ask for land to bury our dead and move on. Should we
have taken action against Russia when they invaded Georgia? No. But
the history of U.S.-Russian diplomacy teaches us that Russia is
perfectly comfortable with testing our limits to see what they can
get away with, especially during an election season. Language (and
the might to back it up) is the most important tool for confronting
it.
I'm just saying: Sometimes, threatening to make the rubble
bounce prevents you from having to.
topics:
Foreign Policy, Education, Russia, Nuclear Weapons
