Tuesday, December 06, 2005

Liberalism = -(Conservatism)

In my continuing struggle against fickleness, I am sorely bothered by the reversal of the liberal agenda in the course of the decade. In David O. Russell's 1999 film "Three Kings" he lays out the inadequacy of the American response to the first gulf War. A band of three rogue US soldiers led by Maj. Archie Gates (George Clooney) set out to abscond with Iraqi gold in the fog surrounding the American invasion. The soldiers set out to steal the gold, ignore the insurgent's (told to rise against Saddam by Bush I) and return without incident. After witnessing the wasteful slaughter of innocent Iraqis the soldiers are impelled to aid their cause and move this village of insurgent's across the boarder to Iran.

The message of the movie is clear, America let Saddam's opponents down in the wake of the first invasion. The US promised to topple Saddam, but instead left these poor people to be butchered by the state.

It seems to me that, irrespective of the false pretenses for war, the US had a moral obligation not only to topple Saddam's evil regime, but to aid in the reconstruction effort in Iraq. How the US could morally justify leaving these people in the midst of violent political turmoil is beyond me. The analogy to Vietnam is not fair. We are not trying to protect one nation from another in Iraq, rather here we are attempting to revitalize a failed state*. I don't understand why my fellow liberals don't agree, besides for a loathing to be the the same side of any issue with Bush II.

* Whether Iraq should be split into two or three separate nations is a good question, which I do not boast to have an answer to.

3 comments:

NoFreeLunch said...

Dittos!

Mr. HaLevi said...

Couldn't agree more. I think the notion that the Republicans are not liberals is a mistake as well, though one that the Republicans themselves have adopted.

The word liberal has come to be a dirty word because it has come to be associated with a very faulty moral agenda that has become more concerned with identity politics than with issues of right and wrong.

I think it would be pretty ironic if the Republicans end up being the first to run an African American and a women (Rice) for President of the U.S. Of course, we know that liberals would then call Rice an oreo and somehow defend this racial slur as something other than that. The "liberal" Democrats are not only willing to allow most Iraqis to live under tyranny, but they also defend other such dictators, including people like Arafat and Abbas and their most recent embrace of Shehan, who if you read her site, is a scary anti-Semite. The "left wing" liberalism I think has become morally bankrupt. I am plenty scared by elements of the right in America, but if there is a authentic moral voice, i think it is much more likely to come from the right than the left right now.

Sam said...

Mr. Halevi, who is Shehan? Did you mean Cindy Sheehan? Perhaps you can point us to some of this mystery writer's scary screeds. Or is "anti-Semite" a code word for someone who doesn't agree with you?