Although, to be fair...

I have to say that on the whole, I appreciate Jim Henley's UO and the approach he took to expressing his anti-war sentiments, such as marching with pro-capitalist (yet anti-war) signs during ANSWER rallies (to both repudiate the odious ANSWER and the WWP while maintaining his principled stand against the war). As well as the general sentiment that the US should get itself out of the world as much as possible (in terms of military reach, boots on the ground, etc). Unlike the illiberals, Jim seems legitimately committed to fostering a libertarian (or, if you must, insert "fair, just, free") society and on that note he should be commended. So my previous post contra Jim should be taken with this grain of salt.

My only beef with Jim is the unfortunate difference on the issue of the war. I'm right with him on Bosnia and the other interventions of the 90s, but I have thought all through the 90s and up to now that Iraq was unfinished business; a festering sore that could only be healed by a 2nd war (since simply removing Saddam would be unlikely to solve the problem, although I was open to alternatives that would). It was Bush I's monumental failure to leave Saddam in place.

So because of the history with Iraq, I felt that it was a special case that needed to be dealt with (or, rather, finished finally, once and for all). I knew it was going to be messy, but the status quo was unacceptable and getting worse by the day. At least now there is change, and a window of opportunity to do some measure of good in the region (as there was in the aftermath of GW-I).

I admit that I don't trust Bush to do the right thing in this regard, but regardless I can't say that doing nothing would have been better. It is better to have this new world than to have continued with the old; at least here we have a CHANCE to do good, while in the prior, we had none.

Share this