Rip Rowan has a question that might just be worth some serious debate….
I am watching O’Reilly’s mock interview of John Kerry tonight, and one of his guests just pointed out that John Kerry’s position on war is that “war must be the last option”. I believe this is an accurate statement of Kerry’s views. And it’s is a message with lovely resonance. It just sounds so… reasonable.
But isn’t there always another option? More diplomacy? Sanctions? Blockades? Embargoes? Nonviolent resistance? Do you ever have to go to war?
The open question, especially targeted to Kerry supporters and war opposers, is “when is war really the last option?”
Underlying this question, I sense a hint of sarcasm and the implied belief that Democrats are at heart unprincipled appeasers. I’m going to bypass that, however and take Rip’s question at face value.
I believe that there must be a metaphorical line in the sand. In order for any peaceful resolution to be effected, the threat of war must be in play. Having said that, however, war is NEVER a good first option. In the case of the war in Iraq:
IF we had exhausted all options vis-a-vis the UN inspectors,
IF we had exhausted all viable nonviolent options available to us,
IF we had been able to forge a strong, viable international coalition willing to share the burden (and while I respect Poland and Costa Rica…no, that does not meet the test),
IF our President had been able to articulate the case for war honestly and openly, without relying on faked intelligence, half-truths, and outright lies,
Then perhaps war would have been an appropriate option. The problem, of course, is that none of these conditions existed. War becomes the last option when all available and viable options have been exhausted. It falls on the shoulders of the President to advise the American public when he feels that this is the case. It is, after all, our sons and daughters, husbands and wives, who will be doing the fighting and dying.
Basing your case on lies, half-truths, and false, willfully misinterpreted intelligence is not the way to make a case for sending our sons and daughters to war. Not so very long ago, when Bill Clinton was in office, he would have been brought up before the Senate and faced impeachment. Honestly, if Clinton had engaged in this sort of dishonesty, he would have deserved it. Why, then, does George W. Bush get a free pass?
For example, Kerry and Edwards are making a big deal out of 380 tons of explosives, claiming that it all "disappeared" as a direct result of Bush's incompetence. Trouble is, it was gone before coalition forces ever got there (minor point if your Kerry and your losing...) In fact 243,000 tons of munitions from 10,033 different sites have been destroyed and 162,898 tons of munitions are at secure locations and awaiting destruction.
But that is really beside the point, and is normal democrat politics under the circumstances. If one applies logic to your (and Kerry's) bullets, the reasonable conclusion is that it would be best if the US had not taken action and Saddam had remained in power in Iraq.
Is this an illogical conclusion?
Jack, I was truly hoping people would stay on topic when I read "I’m going to bypass that, however and take Rip’s question at face value." But I think you ducked it, stating that war is never a good first option, then going on to spin against Bush and Iraq. That's a shame. Can't we leave Iraq out of it? I really want to keep this on the philosophical, political level.
However, you did actually get to the exact point I was trying to honestly make. You stated: "War becomes the last option when all available and viable options have been exhausted." Great point - the options have to be not only "available" - that's an infinite list of options - but also "viable".
So then, if we want to have meaningful discussion on these topics as they relate to Iraq and other possible wars, ought not we be spending more time talking about "viability"?
I'll add this comment on bullet No. 4. Is that the same faked intelligence, half-truths and outright lies that John Kerry, John Edwards, Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Tony Blair, Vlad Putin, etc. all believed. Just look at the public statements. If Bush lied then so did all the above.