« Home | A uniquely British security fudge. » | The Libyan third way. » | David Cameron thinks you're a cretin. » | The secret to arms sales is timing. » | Hands in the air. » | And the prize for worst excuse for phone hacking g... » | The politics of apologising. » | An appalling slur. » | A return to the wonderful world of Nadine Dorries.... » | Many ifs and Butts. » 

Friday, February 25, 2011 

Glib liberal interventionists.

I don't always find myself in agreement with the excellent Abu Muqawama blog, so this more than deserves repeating:

We are now paying the price for having waged two very difficult wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that far too few Americans have participated in or been made to sacrifice for. I sometimes get accused of being a hawk because I have argued that resource-intensive counterinsurgency campaigns have represented our best chance to salvage bad situations in Iraq and Afghanistan, but my experiences in both countries also taught me that a) force has its limits and b) we should all be very cautious about committing U.S. troops to combat operations in the first place. I'm horrified to read liberal interventionists continue to suggest the ease with which humanitarian crises and regional conflicts can be solved by the application of military power. To speak so glibly of such things reflects a very immature understanding of the limits of force and the difficulties and complexities of contemporary military operations. And then there is this:

I do not see a Middle East rising up in anger at the prospect of American intervention.

Hoo boy. Have I read that before?

Labels: , , ,

Share |

Links to this post

Create a Link

About

  • This is septicisle
profile

Links

Powered by Blogger
and Blogger Templates