No Replacement For Displacement

Jeff Jarvis doesn't like being a hawk

Jeff Jarvis posted a vlog yesterday. In it, he discusses how he doesn't like being pro-war. He mentions how this is difficult for him, and frankly, I'm not all that sympathetic to his point of view.

First of all, he makes the throwaway statement about how George W. Bush failed to make the case:

In fact, I think that George Bush did a terrible job making the case for this war -- to us and to the world.

This is a ludicrous argument. It assumes that the only way the "case can be made" is if it manages to convince those who are least likely to accept the word of the United States under any circumstances, both as nations and individuals. To put it bluntly, if you expected GWB to be able to be able to channel Clarence Darrow and miracle up a case that convinces the likes of France and the ANSWER crowd, it's ain't gonna happen, not now, not ever. If American soldiers die via chemical weapons, it still won't convince FrANSWER. The only legitimate answer to "Did Bush make the case?" is if he made the case to the person asking the question. Since I believe Bush regarding Saddam, by definition, he made the case to me. Since I think Jeff believes GWB as well, then he made the case to Jeff. If Jeff and I agree on this point(and I think we do), then Bush made the case to both of us. It is ludicrous to judge that case on the basis of Bush's lack of ability to convince the unconvinceable.

Later, Jeff discusses his discomfort at being a hawk:

And I've decided that as with Idi Amin, Pol Pot, Slobodan Milosevic, and Adolf Hitler, we bear a responsibility to defeat tyranny and to free its prisoners.
But do not think that I come to this decision with glee. I am torn apart about resorting to sin to fight sin. I miss the apparent moral clarity of my former anti-war confreres. I dislike the moral smugness of my new pro-war confederates.

First of all, he makes the mistake of thinking of war as a sin. War is not a sin. It is both a symptom of, and a cure for diseased societies. It is a symptom of dictatorial, aggressive, and/or greedy regimes. It is also often the only way to stop dictatorial, aggressive and/or greedy regimes. There is no moral clarity in the anti-war position at all. War is a bad thing, but it isn't the worst thing, not by a long shot. It is as true today as it was in Vietnam. The "peace" movement makes as facile an argument today as it did during Vietnam. The argument is not between peace and war. It is between war and the alternative. In Vietnam, the alternative was hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese fleeing the country, and Pol Pot's killing fields. Today, the alternative is Saddam Hussein giving chemical weapons, training, and cover to Al Qaeda or some other Islamokaze, resulting in an event that costs tens of thousands of American lives.

Secondly, The pro-war side has the right to be smug. They asked the difficult question, and have gotten it right(so far). They weighed the difficult question of war vs. peace, the costs of both, and the resulting aftereffects. The anti-war crowd never even bothered to pose the question. Those members of the anti-war crowd who were hawks in Afghanistan were hawks mainly for purposes of revenge. They did not see the war as one step in a chain to eliminate the threat of terrorism root and branch, but simply as a means to get those who got us. The hawks saw Afghanistan as simply one step on the path to eliminate Islamokaze terrorism completely. They developed a plan to change the face of the middle east, to eliminate the threat of Islamic terrorism once and for all, and to eliminate the threat of WMD on the United States. Any failures would be theirs, and Jeff would not be talking about them being smug if they were failing. Jeff is only complaining about their smugness because they have been right so far, in the face of heated ideological opposition to their position. They earned the right to be smug.

Posted by John Bono at March 31, 2003 02:41 AM | TrackBack