The Sins of Liberal Interventionism? Posted by Shadi Hamid

Ezra Klein's usually on-target, but he has me really, really confused here. In responding to an article by Timothy Garton-Ash, Ezra asserts that "liberal interventionism's great sin was to give us Iraq." Huh? Last time I checked, not one of the architects of the Iraq war was a "liberal interventionist" (i.e. Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Feith). If you happen to think that liberal interventionists and neo-cons are the same thing - and I'm pretty sure Ezra doesn't - then I would refer you this post, where I explain the differences.

I will say this, however, and maybe this is what Ezra is getting at: although I was against the war since day one, I can't say that I necessarily opposed the idea of the war, or, more accurately, the idea of a war. If I try hard enough, I can envision a set of circumstances where I would have reluctantly supported an Iraq intervention of some sort, although it would've had to have been done very differently. To be sure, as a student of the Middle East, I'm keenly aware of America and Britain's unfortunate history of meddling in the region (1953 stands out as particularly egregious), so I understand why liberals are often suspicious of anything tasting of moral adventure abroad. But one can hope, as so many of us did. As I've written previously, early 2005 was something of a turning point for me. January 30, 2005 encompassed everything I had hoped for in a region that knew little but the pain of dissapointment. So, when I saw the pictures of Iraqis braving terrorist threats to vote for the first time in their lives, I saw the promise of what could have been and, what I believed then, was still possible - the building of a model democracy in Iraq that could inspire the rest of the region, and break the seemingly permanent grip of Arab autocracy. Yes, I was wrong to think that the Bush administration could have done it right. Yet, it is certainly conceivable that another administration (i.e. a Democratic one) could have. And if history had taken that very different course, then maybe the Middle East would've been the better for it.

With that said, let me pose a question to Ezra and others: under what principle or set of principles do you think the Iraq war was necessarily, and for all times, wrong? And if you're going to answer that question, you have to be able to separate between Bush's war and the abstract war, let's call it, that could have been fought if we knew how to fight it. I don't believe that sovereignty is sacrosanct, particularly if we're talking about governments which are unelected and illegitimate. Should America reserve the "right to intervene," even in the case of non-imminent threats? Yes, i.e. Bosnia, Kosovo, Darfur. I can't imagine Ezra thinks that we shouldn't have stopped Slobodan Milosevic from his campaign of ethnic cleansing. The issue then, I suppose, is what meets the threshold that necessitates intervention.

Comments

[Bob Narus]

Modern war, even when justifiable, is still the ultimate human rights abuse. Best estimates are that the Iraq war has resulted in more civilian deaths than the genocide in Darfur. And that's why war is almost never justifiable. Other than to repel attack (or preempt an imminent one), the only conceivably moral justification for war would be to prevent mass slaughter on a genocidal scale.

That's also why, contra Shadi, there is no moral difference between liberal interventionists and neocons. Both believe that their political ends justify the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of innocents. You may believe that your ends are better, but it is your means that make you monsters.

[Greg Sanders]

For a military humanitarian intervention to be legitimate, I'd think a necessary but not sufficient condition would be multilateral or local support.

Multi-lateral could come in two forms (both would be preferable):
1) U.N. Security Council endorsement.
*or*
2) Relevant regional organization (OAS, OSCE, OAU) endorsement.

Local support would require a formal request by those fighting for their lives/freedom. Ex-pats don't count. Democratically elected leaders (elected by internationally observed processes) do count but won't always be available).
*and*
A) Mass slaughter on the scale of genocide/politicide. [Ex: Bosnia, Rwanda, Kosovo, Darfur]. Totalitarianism is a relevant factor, but doesn't meet this test on its own.
*or*
B) Rebel/legitimate government groups against a dictorial country that have proven respect for democratic principles, have won battles without U.S. aid, and that don't engage in terrorism/war crimes (terrorist 'freedom fighters' need not apply). [U.S. Latin American interventions tend not to meet this test. I'd say the transition government in Somalia failed this test. They lost and were kicked out.]

Both would be highly desirable. If we're actually planning an occupation, both are necessary.

I think our intervention in Kurdistan did meet these tests and went fairly well. The Shia in Iraq in 1992 might have met this test (although probably only to the extent that we intervened for the Kurds.) By 2003, I think the Kurdistan intervention still held up but the opportunity to intervene on behalf of the Shia was no longer applicable.

[Eric Martin]

Huh? Last time I checked, not one of the architects of the Iraq war was a "liberal interventionist" (i.e. Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Feith).

Yeah, but many of the people that gave it intellectual cover, and a sense of bi-partisan approval (not to mention a healthy dose of demonizing and marginalizing the opposition), were, in fact, liberal interventionists. The so-called, liberal hawks, etc.

On a larger scale than punditry, there was also Tony Blair who fit into this category.

Without that contingent, it might have been harder to sell the American people. Maybe it would have happened regardless, but the liberal interventionists played their own part in this tragic - and unthinkably costly - debacle.

[cheap rf gold]

RF online is a very good game. Through buying rf gold, I find fun in it. I am so glad that I can earn a lot of rf online gold. RF online cater to the taste of young people. With rf money, you can get everything you want in this game. So I like to buy rf cp.

[Rolex GMT replica watches]

we don't think it is reasonable to spend hundreds thousands dollars to buy a decorating watch. you can use those money to invest in other industry which will return you good profit.
here you just need to spend 100-200 dollars to buy a replica rolex watches.
Rolex GMT replica watches are made by the rating 1:1 according to the original watches, and you can't distinguish the original and the fake watches when you look at the surface of the watches.

[Arua ROSE zuly]

most of the time he will win the rose online zulie back.

[cheap mabinogi]

I hope i can get mabinogi online gold in low price.
i buy mabinogi gold for you.

[sro gold]

Once I played silkroad, I did not know how to get strong, someone told me that you must have silkroad gold. He gave me some sro gold.

[cabal gold]

In the game, I found the cabal gold is very important. I have 2 years playing earthshaking has a lot of cabal money.

[cheap requiem lant]

you must borrow requiem money from friends, or you can not go on this game without cheap requiem lant.

[cheap coach handbags]

Thank you for your sharing! I like i very much!

[uggsofaufanfan]

welcome to china