February 25, 2003
YEAH, NOT MUCH POSTING TODAY: I’ve been busy with meetings and classes. But go read more about the burgeoning pro-war — or, I guess I should say, “pro-liberation” — movement, over at GlennReynolds.com where there’s a brand-new post up.
UPDATE: Dick Aubrey emails:
If the pro-war folks are going to be called “pro-liberation”, then I guess the anti-war folks should be called, “anti-liberation.”
Well, if the shoe fits. . . .
ANOTHER UPDATE: Randy Paul emails that the above is unfair to antiwar people. But as Jose Ramos-Horta writes in the New York Times op-ed I quote here, “History has shown that the use of force is often the necessary price of liberation.” And as he notes, the anti-war movement (which he characterizes as noble) needs to accept that keeping Saddam in power means preventing the liberation of Iraqis.
One of my problems with the “peace” movement as it’s currently constructed is that it’s not willing to admit that its positions can have dreadful consequences, and that being for “peace” is potentially as risky, and as deadly, as being for “war.”
ANOTHER UPDATE: Randy responds.