Wednesday, December 21, 2005

Immune to Shame

A while back, I linked to a Victor Hanson piece that lamented the idea that some could question the morality of overthrowing Saddam's regime.

Hanson has another piece out on it and he hits my feelings on the subject exactly:

There can be legitimate disagreement about whether America’s effort in Iraq will work, and whether it is worth our sacrifices. But that argument is one of efficacy, not morality. To those critics who babble endlessly about U.S. hegemony and imperialism, we should say simply: Shame! Shame on you for aiding those who blow up schools and murder women with purple fingers, in places that for the first time in modern memory do not have a tyrant’s portrait leering down from their walls.

I go back to the Kosovo War on this when I say that it is possible to disagree on a policy without that policy being immoral. I disagreed with intervening in Kosovo. I believed it was a European problem that Europe could have solved--even if not as well as we could. With all the talk of getting out of Iraq to let the Iraqis fight their battles, you'd think we could have done that with the rich Europeans who know a thing or two about war. But as much as I believed this was a European problem, I never believed that President Clinton waged an immoral war. Not once did I think that. The Serbs deserved to lose. (And I'll say that I think we were lucky that the Serbs cracked under our not terribly effective aerial campaign.)

Much of what the anti-war side calls dissent is simply claiming we are evil for fighting to free Iraqis. I think that is shameful. They don't think it is shameful and probably never will. Under these circumstances, I see little room to debate them.

I'll settle for just winning in Iraq and regrouping to debate the next issue with our loyal opposition.