A Very "Defensible" War
Washington Post columnist Sebastian Mallaby discusses the conflicts raging in the Middle East, and then concludes by arguing, "Wars are only defensible if they can be won." The statement is both remarkable and unfortunate -- on two counts.
First, the practical. Is Mr. Mallaby really suggesting that Israel couldn't destroy Hezbollah -- or that America couldn't quash the terrorist insurgents in Iraq -- that is, if they decided to fight full throttle?
As Shelby Steele convincingly argued in The Wall Street Journal, for some time, the US has fought "minimalist wars," based on "white guilt" (internalized stigma occasioned by some historical elements of racism and imperialism). Actually, question really isn't whether the war can be won, it's whether countries like Israel and the United States can look past the lack of cultural self-confidence and the myopia afflicting Europe, and decide the struggle is important enough to take the measures so that the war will be won.
Liberals have long been some of the most determined purveyors of the "white guilt" that has led to minimalist warfare. It's unfortunate that someone whose ideological brethren have done so much to tie America's hands then uses its weakness as an excuse for surrender; the title of the piece -- "The Wisdom of Retreat" -- really says it all.
Second, the principled. Contrary to Mallaby's claim, it's not actually true that wars are only defensible if they can be won. Had the North not won the Civil War, or the United States the struggle for independence, the loss of life would have been even more tragic, but the struggle to free America's slaves or secure its independence would have been no less noble or defensible. Conversely, having won the war wouldn't have made it any more defensible that Hitler chose to fight one.
Ultimately, a war isn't "justified" by its outcome, but by its purpose.
First, the practical. Is Mr. Mallaby really suggesting that Israel couldn't destroy Hezbollah -- or that America couldn't quash the terrorist insurgents in Iraq -- that is, if they decided to fight full throttle?
As Shelby Steele convincingly argued in The Wall Street Journal, for some time, the US has fought "minimalist wars," based on "white guilt" (internalized stigma occasioned by some historical elements of racism and imperialism). Actually, question really isn't whether the war can be won, it's whether countries like Israel and the United States can look past the lack of cultural self-confidence and the myopia afflicting Europe, and decide the struggle is important enough to take the measures so that the war will be won.
Liberals have long been some of the most determined purveyors of the "white guilt" that has led to minimalist warfare. It's unfortunate that someone whose ideological brethren have done so much to tie America's hands then uses its weakness as an excuse for surrender; the title of the piece -- "The Wisdom of Retreat" -- really says it all.
Second, the principled. Contrary to Mallaby's claim, it's not actually true that wars are only defensible if they can be won. Had the North not won the Civil War, or the United States the struggle for independence, the loss of life would have been even more tragic, but the struggle to free America's slaves or secure its independence would have been no less noble or defensible. Conversely, having won the war wouldn't have made it any more defensible that Hitler chose to fight one.
Ultimately, a war isn't "justified" by its outcome, but by its purpose.
posted by LadybugUSA at 2:59 PM
2 Comments:
She is only feeding this site GOP talking points.
It makes one wonder why you keep coming back for more.
wrabkin, Jill, take your meds.
ditto, slap yourself. Where did Carol say "all conflicts are best resolved by war"? You need to read more slowly.
Post a Comment
<< Home