Home / General / Gilliard, once more.

Gilliard, once more.

/
/
/
470 Views

We should probably let this drop, but I think one more thing observation ought to be made in addition to Rob’s fine posts below.

In 1992, as everyone knows, a US helicopter on a peacekeeping mission was shot down in Mogadishu, Somalia, and the 18 US soldiers on board were killed. The negative reaction to this event in the realm of US public opinion is widely perceived to be part of the Clinton administration’s calculus in the immoral and indefensible decision to not intervene (and worse yet, to actively oppose any intervention under the auspices of the United Nations) in the Rwandan genocide months later. I don’t know what all the factors were that made Clinton decide to go down that path, but to the extent that he was correct in believing that public opinion would judge him harshly for that decision, the American public deserves a some share of the scorn heaped upon the Clinton administration for that horrible choice.

An serious look at the situation on the ground in Rwanda in the spring of 1994 that leads to the conclusion that intervention isn’t worth it (in this case, although humanitarian intervention per se isn’t always wrong) must necessarily contain the following premise: Our lives are worth more–much more–than the lives of Rwandans.

This logic ought to be deeply troubling to the left (amongst others). Steve Gilliard, however, has chosen to embrace it once again. Erik, Steve, and I all agree, I think, on the likely consequences of “staying the course” in Iraq in the short and middle term–more of the same. I don’t see any particularly good reasons to think casualty rates and the situation in general are likely to improve (or, for that matter, get much worse) in the coming months and years. Of course, if we withdraw, US casualty rates will drop to 0. So I think we can predict the US casualty rates with a modicum of accuracy. The much more difficult to predict factor, or course, is what will happen to Iraqis. They’re dying now, at a alarming rate. They’ll die at a much greater rate should Iraq descend into all-out civil war. Now, if Steve is correct that this civil was is equally likely to be equally bad whenever we end up withdrawing, than his substantive position on immediate withdrawal makes sense. I think there’s a decent case to be made for this position, and I often find myself agreeing with that argument.

But it’s hardly obvious, and repeating it over and over again doesn’t make it any more obvious. What Steve is saying, basically, is that we shouldn’t have a serious discussion to try to figure out what is most likely to happen to Iraqis should we withdraw. And if someone tries to start one, they should be shamed and ridiculed into silence. Gilliard’s demand that those who want to think hard about this question enlist now is the left-wing version of “America–love it or leave it.” The enforcement of proper political positions is apparently more important than serious inquiry into a life-and-death matter.

I’ve enjoyed some humorous, righteous blasts of rage from Steve Gilliard in the past. I’m sure he’ll direct them at deserving targets again in the future, but the knowledge that they’re being fired willy-nilly into the crowd of those that disagree with Steve, rather than those that actually deserve it, will make them quite difficult to appreciate.

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Linkedin
This div height required for enabling the sticky sidebar
Ad Clicks : Ad Views : Ad Clicks : Ad Views : Ad Clicks : Ad Views : Ad Clicks : Ad Views : Ad Clicks : Ad Views : Ad Clicks : Ad Views : Ad Clicks : Ad Views : Ad Clicks : Ad Views : Ad Clicks : Ad Views : Ad Clicks : Ad Views : Ad Clicks : Ad Views : Ad Clicks : Ad Views : Ad Clicks : Ad Views : Ad Clicks : Ad Views : Ad Clicks : Ad Views : Ad Clicks : Ad Views :