Home | Hegemony | Archives | Blogroll | Resume | Links | RSS Feed | subscribe by email    

Flagrancy

to Reason

 

blog roll


    What's going on!?..., 2003-03-27 19:12:41 | Main | Bushes and Benitos..., 2003-03-28 10:57:16

    The Patriot vs. The Chickenhawk:

    On C-SPAN today Daniel Ellsberg faced off with William Kristol over the war in what was probably the most seriously considered discussion I've seen broadcast about the proper and practical exercise of America's position in the world. It's archived on CPSAN's website and would be well worth watching.

    A few comments on Kristol's defense of the administration:

    I find it odd that Kristol could not have been aware, being a student of US foreign policy, of the two CIA coups in Iraq (when Ellsberg noted them Kristol responded - quoting from memory - "Really? [DE affirms] The Kennedy administration organized that? Interesting..."). Considering the relevancy it has to the present debate and that fact that it ain't some kind of big secret you would expect him to be aware of past US policy in the region, particularly given that these kinds of details can so easily be used in arguments justifying further meddling in the affairs of other nations with the "fixing past mistakes" canard.

    Having been in office during the first Bush administration and having seen how deeply flawed decisions in conflict have been made by Washington (neo-cons, including Kristol, were on the right side of the argument if not the particulars about the Shi'ite uprisings in 1991, though they crouch it in terms of "having to march to Baghdad", and Kristol's counterarguments that for the use of force to be applied "we would have had to go all the way" is a pathetic defense in light of the fact that we were already using force to ground all other Iraqi airforce but the gunships), and knowing how such decisions stem greatly from the many unknowable and hidden risks inherent in exercising the military option, I find it disingenous of Kristol to be so ready to discount those risks in favor of an invasion. Ellsberg made clear points to that effect that Kristol didn't address.

    Otherwise the discussion revolved around the liberation argument largely because this is where hawks have the strongest footing and where the two sides of this debate actually have a some common ground. Kristol pretty much evaded or left unaddressed the other deep seated justifications for this war among conservatives that stem from a worldview that American power must not only be preserved, but expanded. He danced away from trying to justify that, but the conviction was clearly present.

    Finally, Kristol defended the idea that a rigorous debate had taken place, which was a debatable position. Shortly after making that statement he disclosed that he was an employee of FOX news, which begged the question of which network putting the Ellsbergs of this debate on the dole.


:: posted by buermann @ 2003-03-28 09:47:57 CST | link





    go ahead, express that vague notion
    Name:
    Email:
    Homepage:
    Comment

    your turing test:

journals, notes,
and
other curmudgeonry

Enforcing
American
Hegemony
- A Timeline -

Oil for Nothing:
US Holds On Humanitarian Supplies
Iraq: 1997-2001


the good book
and other cultural
artifacts


The Autobiography
of
Mother Jones


Contact Info:
buermann[at]
flagrancy[dot]net



"Any man who is not a radical at 20 has no heart. A man who is not a cynic at 50 has no mind."