Liberal Hawks
Kevin Sullivan (one of the rising stars in the blogosphere) has a great post up, in response to this article at The American Prospect by Ezra Klein. In it, Ezra takes on ‘liberal hawks.’ As is obvious to anyone who reads Ezra on a regular basis, he is not exactly a fan of his hawkish liberal brethren. Kevin, however, explains:
Ironically, Klein seems to confront hawkish vagueness with vagueness. He insinuates that there’s a cottage industry of “liberal hawk” scholars supporting the invasions of Iraq and Iran, however he only cites one example of such. If the “liberal hawk” has become such a common phenomenon, where are their think-tanks and periodicals? If they are in such lockstep over this issue, why only the one example? The truth is that the “liberal hawk” is more a theory than a person, and more accurately a tactic rather than a wing of the Democratic Party (more on that in a bit).
A little later:
I think the progressive isolationist has in fact created a convenient strawman of their own. By bemoaning the “war narrative” of the “liberal hawks” and the “Neo-cons,” they can dismiss any and all arguments made in favor of taking a tough stance with Iran. If it’s a “war narrative,” rather than a diplomatic use of leverage against a very real enemy, well than all talk is suspect. Invading Iraq is hawkish. Staying in Iraq is hawkish. Talking tough to a totalitarian (and he is a totalitarian, Ezra) becomes the same as President Bush mismanaging the war in Iraq. It becomes the same as failing to capture Osama Bin Laden, or aligning ourselves with obviously dubious regimes like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. To the progressive isolationist, any and all talk involving our military is apparently what distinguishes the “liberal hawk” from just a plain old liberal.
After that, Kevin goes on to explain what a liberal hawk exactly is:
A “liberal hawk” is simply a liberal who understands that fighting a war involves brains and brawn. They understand that you must use the former in order to avoid the latter, and that you must always have a balance of both when dealing with an enemy of the United States. The conservative approach, much like the progressive isolationist’s, seems to be feast or famine. Either you engage enemies with a statist mindset, or you ignore them entirely and pretend they don’t threaten you…
“Liberal hawks” are liberals that acknowledge the existence of very real enemies in the world, and maintain any and all options in dealing with those enemies. You thank God when you can avoid confrontation, but act swiftly and decisively when left with no other diplomatic options.
Certain contributors at TMV are “liberal hawks,” and I am wondering what they think about both Ezra’s article and Kevin’s response. As a more conservative blogger (hawk), I have to say that I agree with Kevin’s reasoning. The problem with the doves is that they oppose using military force, because it is military force. For us hawks, military force is a tool – a tool you will only use when all other tools fail on you, but a tool nonetheless.
I find it incredibly strange that there are people who want the US government, or individual candidates, to rule out (supporting) the use of force. If one rules it out completely, one can forget about getting one’s enemy to do what one wants / to compromise. Iran has to know that, if necessary, force will be used to prevent it from developing WMDs. If not, there will be less pressure on the Mullahs to stop ignoring the wishes of the international community.
15 Responses to “Liberal Hawks”
Michael – I don’t not consider myself to be either a hawk or a dove. War is sometimes necessary. I have a problem with both hawks and doves. The hawks in my mind are far, far, far, far, far, too quick to want to employ war. While the doves have never met a war they like.
Iraq was a prime example of hawks driving the US to an unneccesary war. When the UN inspectors could not find any WMD even at sites the CIA said were active, Bush told the Inspectors to leave. The hawks wanted a war and they didn’t give a damn about planning. They simply wanted the killing to start. These same voices are now being raised to start a war with Iran. That war will prove to be just as futile and expensive in men and money as Iraq.
Michael – you should examine your heart to see if you genuinely want to use war as a LAST resort. From everything you write, I see you as having an itchy trigger finger. Wars are necessary in a nation’s existential fight for existence. Vietnam and Iraq did not meet this test and I don’t think Iran does either. Israel’s 2006 war against Lebanon and 1956 war on Egypt did not meet this test either, but 1948,1967 and 1973 did. I could justify war if all Mideast oil were to stop since the West’s economic lifeblood depends on it.
In short, I am skeptical of both hawks and doves because I believe emotions drive their positions. Most doves are too close to pacifism for my taste and most hawks I know in the US and Israel are too much in love with death and destruction.
Kevin might want to pick up some old issues of The New Republic.
jdledell,
Excellent comment!
Michael certainly pays lip-service to “war as a last resort” but at the same time, he buys into all of the pro-war propaganda. He makes bold assertions about Iran’s involvement in Lebanon and Iraq without proof. Assertions that if true, already put us in a de facto state of war with Iran.
As someone who might be described as a liberal hawk, I completely agree with Michael.
I have no idea where Klein gets the impression that liberal hawkishness is a common phenomenom, unfortunately liberal hawks are extremely rare. That is why most liberals disgust me these days.
As one who I am certain meets Ezra’s definition of a “liberal hawk” and one of the “TMV contributors” whom I am certain you challenged, Michael, I will be posting an essay responding to Klein’s and Sullivan’s article later today.
As a preview for commenters reading this thread, I’ll say that in it I will take up Klein’s challenge explicitly, providing what I see as a *detailed* “liberal hawk” approach to the problems posed by Iran.
Sullivan’s remarks about Klein’s article provide a good background for the dove/hawk debate, but he is too focused on Klein’s errors of context (failing to distinguish between the different types of liberal hawks) and too little on the core of the message.
He is right, Klein’s characterization applies only to some liberal hawks, and he should not have generalized so broadly. Klein is accurate, however, about those to whom his remarks do apply. These hawks focus now on the mismanagement of the Iraq war and try their best to dodge the question of whether or not it was a good idea in the first place (Hillary). If only we had done this or that…..
When it comes to discussing Iran, vagueness afflicts every position not on the extremes of “bomb Iran now” or “military action can not work here”. Most vagueness is unavoidable, since judgment entails reliance on an unknown future. A lot of vagueness is intentional, however.
A case in point are those with long lists of the dangers Iran poses (we know! we know!) without a hint of realistic analysis of how those dangers might be removed without causing even bigger dangers in the region and the world. Some of them make the case for war while diligently avoiding saying so outright.
The same is true of many who make the case against war while retaining the ‘last resort; optionn.
They dodge describing what would trigger utilizing this handy last resort.
What is sorely needed is a hard look at what is and is not militarily possible today and hard nosed analyses of the repercussions of each option. We can line up in dove/hawk lines once we know of what our choices realistically consist. I’m glad to note some voices speaking along those lines, but there are far, far too few.
jdledell, statements like this
just make me shake my head.
Someday I hope to be able to put myself in the heads of many of the commenters here, as you do the hawks, so that I to can see the world more clearly.
[...] from Kevin Sullivan which quotes heavily from John Kerry. Michael van der Galien weighs in (here and here) but inadvertently demonstrates the whole problem of speaking of hawks versus doves. [...]
Tonto – I have had direct experience with “hawks”. I have a bunch of relatives in the West Bank settlements. I can assure you their attitude is “the only good Palestinian, is a dead one”. I have attended many a synogogue meeting in the West Bank and heard rabbis spout hatred that would make your hair curl. I have listened to Kadima Knesset members make speeches to West Bank settlers that directly contradicted official Israeli policy and emplored them to expand their settlements and take more hilltops.If the Palestinians get in the way we’ll kill’em or transfer them. I have seen my IDF nephews brutalize Palestinians for no other reason than “to show them whose is boss”. I have watched from 10 feet away an IDF soldier almost cutting an unarmed Palestinian man in two by emtpting his gun on him. His crime was taking a swing at the soldier for pissing on his shoes at a checkpoint.
I attended an AEI conference in Washington DC in the fall of 2002. I heard Frum, Muravchik, Gerecht, and Kagen all give talks on the necessity of hurrying up and getting the Iraq war started. Even timid questions from the audience about the repurcussions of such a war were met with -we cannot waste time we have to get the muslims “straightened out”. Their disdain for muslims was so strong that one would have thought those people were something less than humans.
[...] Liberal Hawks [...]
jdledell, a sincere question: how do you hold
your relatives in the West Bank and their thoughts,
with yours? e.g. How do you order how you think and how they think?
Thank you.
dr.e
Dr. Estes – You are not the first to wonder – i guess I am the black sheep of the family. A little background. My Grandfather was a member of the Irgun from 1944 -1947 and he became disgusted with the excesses of Jewish nationalism and left Israel for the US. A lot of my formative thinking came from him. I adored him and he was already
thinking in terms of post zionism.
On the other hand my sister and two brothers became “zionized” in college. My sister made aliyah in 1966 and my 2 brothers followed in in the early 70′s. The differences in our perspectives of Life and the World can all be traced back to one formative event. I got polio in the epidemic of 1946.
I was completely paralyzed and recovery took many, many years. When one is weak and dependent one learns humility and patience. Since I was “different” from my peers ( After years of treatment and a dozen operations, I learned to walk with a severe limp) I learned “compensation” techniques. I used my brains more than body. I learned to have a sunny disposition, humor and generosity so kids would like me even if I could not play their physical games.
Both my parents worked so my Grandfather became my primary caretaker and while everyone was away at work or school he and I would spend countless hours on his stories and his politics. Politically I am his mirror image – I believe in an Israel as a Jewish homeland BUT it’s viability depends on it moving back to more or less the 67 borders.
In my working career, I became Senior Vice President of a huge financial company and was in charge of International operations. For many years my family moved from one country to another (with two teachers provided by the company) and I became more of a global citizen. My business success depended on my being able to empathize and understand different cultures.
My own family reflects that globalness. I have a son living in Hong Kong having married a buddhist girl from Mongolia where they met while both were getting advanced degrees from Keio University in Tokyo. I have a daughter who lives in Bangalore, India having met and married a Hindu man while both were studying at the London School of Economics and another son living in Amsterdam having married a nice Dutch Jewish girl.
As far as my relatives in Israel are concerned they think I am crazy to dilute my heritage ( I married 39 years ago a nice Lutheran girl from Minnesota). My relatives an I enjoy the Israeli national pastime – having yelling arguments about politics. But family is still very important to all of us and that binds us together. We yell at each other and we weap together. Last November we buried my sister Rachel in Ariel and vowed that our families ties could bend but will never be allowed to break.
In short my Grandfather, polio and international experience made me who I am today and college and Israel made my relatives. Israel is a different culture. I understand it even though I don’t always agree with it. It’s no different from living in Brazil, Argentina, Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, Italy and Spain, I understand those cultures even though I don’t always agree with it.
jdledell: I read your reply and the clarity is valuable.
Thank you, for teaching me/ us. I know the NYT is a hard bank to bust, but I would like to see your entire reply sent to their OpEd page. Many who share your insights, and challenges,
have not spoken. Aside: The black sheep often
enough turns out to be the most prescient of all, especially if they can maintain without warping in anger for others not being able to see as quickly as they themselves see. Those ‘black sheep’ are often the ones who give those ‘on the fence’ a gentle push to a better side.
Polio, as developmental psychology, what an
amazing idea. We lost many of our playmates back
then. I am glad you made it through.
dr.e
Dr E – Thank you for your kind comments. Some day I will write the complete story. I know it’s hard for people to understand how I consider myself fortunate to have been stricken with polio. Without that I would have gone on a different path and I cannot imagine any Life being as rich and rewarding as the one G-d granted me.
[...] hawks,” in response to Ezra Klein’s post, Ron Chusid’s post and, finally, my post on this [...]