This story, from today's WaPo raises an ongoing issue (discussed by James at OTB recently)--the idea many are proffering not an argument against war, per se, just an argument about who supports us. I concur with OTB--this is a weak position, to say the least.
In separate Capitol Hill appearances a few hours before Bush's prime-time news conference, Senate Minority Leader Thomas A. Daschle (D-S.D.) and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said it would be premature to invade Iraq without trying to win broader international support.
I mean, what's the important issue here: whether the war and its aims are justified or not (i.e., whether there are a moral and national interest arguments to support the action), or is it simply a question of how many people agree with us? I find it questionable that the best test for the worthiness of public policy is how many people agree with you. To quote your Mother: "If everyone was jumping off a bridge, would you do it too?"
I am willing to risk short-term "isolation" (Daschle's whines in the story that "The situation has put us in a more isolated position than I ever anticipated") if the policy is the right thing to do. I suspect that once we are succesful, much of the "isolation" will end. And even if some of our "allies" remain aloof, I still think that pursuing the right policy in terms of US national interests trumps making nice with people who are worried about their interests, not ours. (And yes, shockingly, France, Germany, Russia, China, et al. act out of self-interest as well).
Posted by Steven at March 7, 2024 08:56 AM | TrackBack