Liberal Hawks
June 17th, 2007
By Michael van der Galien
Print
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.
This entry was posted on Sunday, June 17th, 2007 at 6:16 am and is filed under Iran, War, Liberals. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Add New Comment
Thanks. Your comment is awaiting approval by a moderator.
Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.
Add New Comment