Hawkish Liberalism’s Prospects
As a cautionary point after the post about Thomas Friedman’s op-ed, I found this article from The New Republic: The Liberal Power, on “hawkish liberalisms” prospects in the event of a second Gulf War.
Hawkish liberalism — the willingness to use military power in pursuit of altruistic aims, such as democracy and liberation — was betrayed after the first Gulf War, when the previous Bush administration struck a back room deal with the Saudis to keep Iraq more or less intact and let the Shiites and Kurds get slaughtered. This betrayal was eased by the realization that America has the preeminent military power in the world, and that, under Clinton, it could still be used for liberal purposes, as it was in Bosnia and Kosovo.
The danger now is that this Bush Administration may similarly betray the hopes of liberal hawks after this new Gulf War by installing someone more to the liking of the oil companies and the Saudis, instead of a leader more interested in democracy. The Administration hasn’t budgeted funds for the reconstruction of Iraq — necessary for a liberated Iraq to be a democratic beacon in the region — which leads one to hope that not spelling out the dollars and cents was out of fear of diminishing support for the war by forecasting the immense cost of reconstruction, and not out of criminal neglect in taking care that Iraq won’t simply slide into chaos and further misery.
If liberal hopes are betrayed, the author speculates that the hawks may give up on the idea of the judicious use of military power, even though there are evils in the world that can only be confronted by the threat or use of force. The realist left may join the McGovernite left in isolationism, and the Kosovos of the world may be left to bleed.
The author should perhaps note a two things: Rwanda and Somalia. The hesitation to use military force allowed genocide to happen in Rwanda. This strengthens the argument that disasters can happen if some liberals aren’t willing to use force. Somalia is the other one-word signifier, and is related to Rwanda because it explains why there was a hesitancy to use force in the face of genocide. Is the story of Somalia the tale of the limits of military power in a democratic society, or is it about the failure to apply it properly?