Replies

I agree with you that this column did not engender the kind of amusement so frequent in Steyn's work. Sure, the clever turn of phrase evoked a few grins, but predominant in my reaction was sadness and anger.

But I disagree with the notion of "humanitarian moral imperative," even if moderated by "common-sense," as a guide for national involvement in international affairs. I guess I'm a little more "realpolitic," a little less "neocon." Human injustice cries out from around the globe. We should intervene only where our national interest dictates. True enough, the war on terror has certainly expanded the neighborhood, when rag heads in Kabul plan the destruction of the lower end of Manhattan. This we have to crush. And we have to try to leave behind a middle east that will be, at best, a place unlikely to generate the psychopaths of al Qaeda because of a decent social order in their countries, or, at worst, a place that understands that the costs of messing with us are socially unbearable. I believe we should police our nearby region--beginning with the abomination that is Cuba. But the Balkans should be a Europeon responsibility. And Africa must develop regional powers which can play a guardian role. (In theory, Egypt and South Africa could be such, unlikely as that seems now.) I believe it is in our national character to avoid "foreign entanglements" and we should adhere as much as is reasonable to this. Besides, we do the most good, in the moral, as well as physical, sense when we encourage trade and capitalism--our greatest genius.

Sorry for the late reply - I don't disagree with the notion that we should intervene when our national interests are at stake, but I suggest to you that there comes a point at which one of those national interests is to make the statement that there are abuses that will not be ignored however cleverly the abuser hides behind the constraints of sovereignty. In short, a little unpredictability is a healthy tonic, and to keep a tyrant guessing when the hammer might fall is more of a restraint on his abuses then a clear, ineluctable set of rules within which he finds it safe to maneuver. There's been all too much of the latter, IMHO, and if a Kim Jong Il can guess how far he can push a Clinton he is perfectly free to exploit the knowledge, and so he did. He does not have that luxury with Bush.

The notion that because we intervene in a certain set of circumstances we MUST intervene wherever and whenever a similar set of circumstances arises is a fallacious one. We may, in fact, feel justified in doing so, but we are not compelled to do so. Our intervention in Iraq, for example, does not make an intervention in North Korea compulsory, but it does make it justifiable, and just that much more possible, and Kim knows it perfectly well. So did Gadafi, and Assad, and a host of others who look at the rhetoric of the left and the reality of the 3d ID on the ground and know that the old games aren't going to work anymore.

Your analysis is spot-on. I would only disagree that conservative, or neo-con, or any sort of label applies to this kind of foreign policy-- in my view, it's just clear-headed good sense. I expect that the Bush administration would agree completely, except that fixing Cuba just isn't politically possible now, and likely won't be anytime soon.

Our choice to intervene in Iraq toppled Libya, a terrorist nation that had literally tons of chemical weapons that were found after the fact.

Sometimes intervention is much cheaper in blood than waiting for the little Hitlers to get their troops inside our borders. As the current "illegal immigration" is currently estimated to be about a division a day we can choose to fight them on their soil or consent to live in a prison camp with the barbed wire on the outside of the walls, waiting for the day they come to eat our lunch having already finished our neighbors.

I prefer Americas tendency to fight its wars in their backyards instead of our own. We tried appeasement and gifts for years, until they flew the planes we built into the buildings we built to kill us for our tolerance and kindness.

Tolerate evil and evil will take the freedom to grow and dominate you.