Ever since the Vietnam War, the Democratic Party and the Left in general have been ambivalent about military conflict. For good reason: in Vietnam, millions of innocent people and nearly 60,000 American soldiers were killed in a conflict that scarred a generation. Ever since, Republicans and the Right have eagerly embraced the mantle of being the “tough” party, ready and willing to use military force to protect U.S. interests.
In some ways, with his engagement in the Balkans which many on the Right decried, Bill Clinton challenged this portrayal of the Left as pacifists. But 9/11 and Bush’s invasion of Iraq once again divided the Left and united the Right, solidifying its pro-military stance.
Obama declared during the 2008 campaign that he did not oppose all wars, only “dumb” wars; he used Afghanistan as an example of a just conflict and Iraq as a misguided one. Anyone surprised by his decision to send 30,000 additional troops to Afghanistan wasn’t paying attention, since he was clear that he considered that war a cause worth sacrificing for.
In his Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech (which I highly recommend watching in its entirety), Obama thoroughly and clearly laid out his vision of foreign policy and the use of force. It was one of his best speeches, and it presents the Democrats and the Left with a sober and honest assessment of the necessity of violence to prevent even worse violence, and the limitations of reason in a world in which madmen seek to sow chaos and destruction.
Obama mentions that just wars can sometimes be fought on humanitarian grounds (for instance, to prevent genocide) even if they violate state sovereignty and the doctrine of self-defense. At the same time, his worldview is closer to the realist school than some of his supporters might realize. Nowhere in his Afghanistan speech did Obama mention women’s rights, or the human rights atrocities that occur daily under the Taliban; his rationale for escalation was framed solely in terms of U.S. interests. Ironically, George Bush stressed the promotion of human rights in Iraq and Afghanistan more than Obama.
This brings me to a talk by Christopher Hitchens at the Commonwealth Club this past fall (which I also recommend viewing in its entirely). Hitchens describes the depravity and evil of the Iraqi regime under Saddam Hussein, and similar episodes in North Korea and Iran. It’s truly chilling to listen to his accounts of life in these oppressive states.
One can oppose the Iraq War (as I did), and still wonder whether no more justification was needed to invade Iraq than the evil of the man who ruled it. If the Left is going to be serious about peace, it needs to be serious about those who stand in the way of peace. And while we should never be cavalier about conflict in which civilians are sure to be killed, the Left must define the parameters under which it believes the use of force is justified.
As Obama mentioned in Oslo, non-violence and diplomacy would not have stopped Hitler and they won’t stop Al Qaeda. The extreme belligerence of the Bush-Cheney Administration, with its disdain for diplomacy and embracing of torture, should be avoided, but what should take its place? Obama has offered the Left a new vision of just war, but it may not go far enough. If the Left’s new foreign policy is nothing more than the realist school in new clothing, then how to justify more forceful intervention in Sudan, the Congo, or Burma?
There are no easy answers, but at least Obama has gotten the conversation started. Those who oppose his escalation in Afghanistan (and his ramped-up drone attacks in Pakistan) need to articulate their own vision.
The post-Vietnam era has shown us what happens when the Left only puts forth a pacifist vision; it is rejected by the American people, and gives an opening to the worst elements on the Right.
Jason Scorse