« Myths | Main | Wednesday Rasmussenblogging »
Tuesday, January 16, 2007
Kevin Drum Smokes Crack With Satan
Really, this sentence stands out:
The fact that Iraq is a clusterfuck doesn't demonstrate that preemptive war is wrong any more than WWII demonstrated that wars using Sherman tanks are right.
(via EschaWanker)
Let's take this slowly:
- It wasn't 'preemptive', it was 'preventive' war, which is really aggressive war.
- WWII showed that aggressive war is dangerous, bad, evil, and not at all nice.
- He mistakes tactics and equipment with strategy and morality.
Jesus fucking christ, he can be a stupid centrist git sometimes.
ntodd
[Update: Drum apparently visited his corner dealer for more shit:
However, I also made a specific comment about preventive war: namely that the failure in Iraq doesn't especially vindicate the argument that preventive war is almost always wrong. It is almost always wrong, and the fact that Iraq was a preventive war was a good reason to oppose it. But the specific quagmire that we find ourselves in now has very little to do with the fact that the Iraq war was preventive.
Nope. Still wrong. But at least he finally figured out that the correct word is 'preventive'.
Here's the deal: the Iraq quagmire is a quagmire in large part because it was a preventive/aggressive action. If we'd had even a smidge of moral high ground, we'd have truly been greeted as liberators, there really would've been WMD, Saddam really would've been a threat and neutralized, the region would be better off, and our troops would be home.
The danger with all preventive war is that they can be launched with the flimsiest of pretenses. They are, in essence, aggressive wars with a veneer of legitimacy only slightly less pretty than that of pre-emptive wars. Hell, you don't even need 'imminence' for preventive war--just some trumped up potential threat in the future. It's bullshit and should be rejected, with Iraq Exhibit A.]
January 16, 2007 in Why We Fight | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c525c53ef00d834da319b53ef
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Kevin Drum Smokes Crack With Satan:
Comments
I normally like Kevin's writing, but it seems like every six months he has to write a dumbass post to try to maintain some odd DLC-"moderate" cred. Like time it was whining about how those ungrateful striking NYC transit workers were making $50000 a year. This post is the most incoherent thing he's ever written. Maybe he's still grieving over his dead cat.
Posted by: thefax | Jan 16, 2007 10:58:52 PM
He does this consistently trying to prove that he is a reasonable "centrist."
Preemptive/preventative wars are wrong and a violation of international law. You have to show the international community that you are about to be attacked before you can use force. You don't have to wait for an attack, but you have to have extremely strong evidence that convinces people that the attack is imminent.
There was nothing imminent about Iraq's ability to attack the US, and there were UN inspectors in Iraq who were unable to verify any of the claims made by the US. There was no real evidence of any move on the part of Iraq the could be recognized as a threat to the United States. The attack was an act of raw aggression on the part of the US.
The excuses cooked up for the Mexican-American War and the Spanish-American War were much better managed. Even the Gulf of Tonkin fairy tale was a vast improvement over these clowns. They couldn't even be bothered to create a fake incident to provide cover for their attack.
BTW, World War II showed that Sherman tanks weren't up to the job and they were replaced with the Patton.
Posted by: Bryan | Jan 16, 2007 11:31:08 PM
They couldn't even be bothered to create a fake incident to provide cover for their attack.
just wait, there is still Iran.
Posted by: charley | Jan 16, 2007 11:38:33 PM
fax - yeah, I've noticed Kevin's pattern.
Bryan - we were chatting about Shermans over at Eschaton. I noted that the Soviets were the ones with the great tanks. Kevin's WWII ignorance aside, I think his metaphor would've been more apt if he'd made mention of using the A-bomb to end WWII.
charley - we'll always have Tehran.
Posted by: NTodd | Jan 16, 2007 11:50:26 PM
Read his recent post that clarifies the one you link to. You may still not like. I think that in some things he had a point.
Posted by: Kav | Jan 17, 2007 5:53:06 AM
Drum knows Broder cannot live forever, and there will soon be a need for a drooling, centrist meliorator to fill the void. He can't aspire to Friedman Status--there are only so many billionaire heiresses out there. So he's aiming for a high-status Post (as t'were).
Posted by: konopelli/wgg | Jan 17, 2007 10:21:43 AM
If we'd had even a smidge of moral high ground, we'd have truly been greeted as liberators, there really would've been WMD, Saddam really would've been a threat and neutralized, the region would be better off, and our troops would be home.
Only one disagreement. Even with the moral high ground, this was an imperialist action. Iraq was no threat to anyone, and all we could do, once we invaded, was occupy the country. Occupation wasn't easy in the 19th century; and, as the Soviets taught us in the '80's, it's damned near impossible now.
There was never any justification for this invasion.
Posted by: Rmj, Street Credentialed | Jan 17, 2007 10:22:01 AM
charley - we'll always have Tehran.
And unfortunately, Tehran will have us.
For breakfast.
Posted by: watertiger | Jan 17, 2007 10:22:32 AM
I like how he separates out what a "preventive war" is from the reasons we "failed in Iraq." These are not discrete phenomena -- the same people who were gung-ho about preventive war were the ones who "failed in Iraq." People who recklessly call for war are precisely the people who wage reckless wars.
Posted by: Thers | Jan 17, 2007 2:44:03 PM
I'm a bit thick, I suppose, but could someone clue me in as to the difference between prevention and pre-emption?
Thanks in advance.
Posted by: subadei | Jan 18, 2007 10:19:01 PM
They couldn't even be bothered to create a fake incident to provide cover for their attack.
They didn't? Oh, sorry, just a passing thought.
Posted by: whig | Jan 19, 2007 4:43:30 PM
God showed me in visions, president clinton and iran and syria usa attacks coming,
Posted by: robert | Jan 23, 2007 8:05:26 PM
Buy me stuff off my 
