Tweet
Coming to you from Rutgers University, on the banks of the Raritan river, this is Andrew Hoekzema. I'm sure that many of you will not remember me, but some will. I now only post once in a blue moon, and fortunately for you folks, it's blue-moon time.
I have noticed some disturbing trends on the left. I consider myself a leftist, but have found myself using that term sparingly to distinguish myself from the loud and incomprehensible segments of my political affiliation. I now describe myself as a "Truman Democrat"...a liberal who does not shriek at the thought of force. I am an internationalist who supports war against Iraq, and I am called a republican for it.
The best example I can give of my paradoxical politics is being both pro-black and pro-law enforcement. To some, this may be an untennable position to take, but to me, it is perfectly understandable. In the John Locke sense of liberty, the police and other law enforcers are true defenders of liberty. This is not to say that blacks do not have a right to be upset at police officers for discriminating against them. Laws change but people take more time. If you support civil rights, then it makes perfect sense to support enforcement of civil rights. To demand that the laws be enforced fairly is pro-law-enforcement in my book.
If the effectiveness of our laws depends on our mechanisms of enforcement, then why shouldn't international law's effectiveness depend on enforcement mechanisms? I am pro-international law and pro-war. If one method of enforcement fails to be effective, another one must be developed. Resolution 1441 was a clear political message. In declaring it Saddam's last chance to disarm peacefully, it was stating previous failures of enforcement. It implies that neither sanctions nor the previous inspections regime had suceeded in forcing Iraq to comply with the international community's will. And it set out 2 new tests for Iraq that would put them in "further material breach." By doing one or the other or both of the following, Iraq would qualify for such a label: 1) submitting a false or incomplete weapons declaration 2) not giving up the proscribed weapons. It is abundantly clear to everyone, including France that Iraq is indeed in further material breach. The language of 1441 states that, in the event of further material breach, serious consequences follow. All 15 nations of the Security Council signed on to that language.
So we have now reached a point at which a number of countries are getting cold feet. There are now worldwide protests against a looming war, but where were all these protesters in November? What has changed between then, when the language was approved, and now, when it's time to enforce the law? To me, this is akin to passing a law against drunk driving, for instance, and then refusing to appropriate funds to enforce the law. If the saving grace of American democracy and liberty is the rule of law, then law enforcement should be paramount. Likewise, if international law is to be an effective method of ensuring international security, it must be enforced. Like it or not, force is the only language Saddam speaks.
This is why I, as a liberal, support war. I want the world to listen when the UN speaks. I want the halls of government in Pyongyang and Tehran to tremble when the Security Council passes a resolution. The anti-war movement has to come up with a new argument because right now they are incoherent and unpersuasive. They need to ask themselves who they are trying to convince and find the right strategy for that. I will tell you right now that the only argument that holds any water with me for not attacking Iraq is that we will be far more prone to terrorist attack with troops in Baghdad. The far left also needs to acknowledge the logical consequences of their objections. By objecting to a war in Iraq, they are saying that weapons of mass destruction are okay, they are saying that the UN need not be listened to, and they are saying that Saddam may do as he pleases. And people on my side of the fence need to realize that supporting a war will mean civilians will die and people will hate us more, and we need to understand that attacking Iraq means a whole new era of geopolitics in which pre-emptive strikes are the norm. I am willing to live with the consequences of my position, but I'm not sure the anti-war folk have come to terms with the consequences of theirs.
I have noticed some disturbing trends on the left. I consider myself a leftist, but have found myself using that term sparingly to distinguish myself from the loud and incomprehensible segments of my political affiliation. I now describe myself as a "Truman Democrat"...a liberal who does not shriek at the thought of force. I am an internationalist who supports war against Iraq, and I am called a republican for it.
The best example I can give of my paradoxical politics is being both pro-black and pro-law enforcement. To some, this may be an untennable position to take, but to me, it is perfectly understandable. In the John Locke sense of liberty, the police and other law enforcers are true defenders of liberty. This is not to say that blacks do not have a right to be upset at police officers for discriminating against them. Laws change but people take more time. If you support civil rights, then it makes perfect sense to support enforcement of civil rights. To demand that the laws be enforced fairly is pro-law-enforcement in my book.
If the effectiveness of our laws depends on our mechanisms of enforcement, then why shouldn't international law's effectiveness depend on enforcement mechanisms? I am pro-international law and pro-war. If one method of enforcement fails to be effective, another one must be developed. Resolution 1441 was a clear political message. In declaring it Saddam's last chance to disarm peacefully, it was stating previous failures of enforcement. It implies that neither sanctions nor the previous inspections regime had suceeded in forcing Iraq to comply with the international community's will. And it set out 2 new tests for Iraq that would put them in "further material breach." By doing one or the other or both of the following, Iraq would qualify for such a label: 1) submitting a false or incomplete weapons declaration 2) not giving up the proscribed weapons. It is abundantly clear to everyone, including France that Iraq is indeed in further material breach. The language of 1441 states that, in the event of further material breach, serious consequences follow. All 15 nations of the Security Council signed on to that language.
So we have now reached a point at which a number of countries are getting cold feet. There are now worldwide protests against a looming war, but where were all these protesters in November? What has changed between then, when the language was approved, and now, when it's time to enforce the law? To me, this is akin to passing a law against drunk driving, for instance, and then refusing to appropriate funds to enforce the law. If the saving grace of American democracy and liberty is the rule of law, then law enforcement should be paramount. Likewise, if international law is to be an effective method of ensuring international security, it must be enforced. Like it or not, force is the only language Saddam speaks.
This is why I, as a liberal, support war. I want the world to listen when the UN speaks. I want the halls of government in Pyongyang and Tehran to tremble when the Security Council passes a resolution. The anti-war movement has to come up with a new argument because right now they are incoherent and unpersuasive. They need to ask themselves who they are trying to convince and find the right strategy for that. I will tell you right now that the only argument that holds any water with me for not attacking Iraq is that we will be far more prone to terrorist attack with troops in Baghdad. The far left also needs to acknowledge the logical consequences of their objections. By objecting to a war in Iraq, they are saying that weapons of mass destruction are okay, they are saying that the UN need not be listened to, and they are saying that Saddam may do as he pleases. And people on my side of the fence need to realize that supporting a war will mean civilians will die and people will hate us more, and we need to understand that attacking Iraq means a whole new era of geopolitics in which pre-emptive strikes are the norm. I am willing to live with the consequences of my position, but I'm not sure the anti-war folk have come to terms with the consequences of theirs.
I believe your assessment of my commits is in error. I have attempted to sum up the situation here in California to the best of my abilities and I have portrayed the parties involved as I have observed them. This is not trying to paint my opponents black it is simply examining people's motivations and the root causes of their actions.
Comment