Just and unjust withdrawl continued . . .
Making choices
Jake took Michael Walzer and Nicolaus Mills to task for their failure to ground their discussion of our duties toward occupied states upon clear moral foundations. He suggested that the authors offer viable advice, but spend no time explaining the details of our commitments toward the people and institutions we interfere with.
Does David Brooks fare any better in his recent editorial, “The Afghan Imperative”? Two highlights:
We’ve fought this ideology [Islamic extremism] in many ways in many places, and we shouldn’t pretend we understand how this conflict will evolve. But we should understand that the conflict is unavoidable and that when extremism pushes, it’s in our long-term interests to push back – and that eventually, if we do so, extremism will wither.
And:
A Taliban reconquest would also, it should be said, be a moral atrocity from which American self-respect would not soon recover.
Brooks’s argument seems to have four parts: we should stay because (1) the conflict is unavoidable, (2) it’s in our long-term interests, (3) we’re sure to win if we do, and (4) if we don’t, we’d lose our self-respect.
Lastly, he writes that:
Obama was also right a few months ago when he declared, ‘This will not be quick, nor easy. But we must never forget: This is not a war of choice. This is a war of necessity. … This is fundamental to the defense of our people.’
But is it enough to just say so? Like Walzer and Mills, Brooks doesn’t tell us exactly whose interests we’re serving and what kinds of things would indicate the fulfillment of our duties. He also relies on the rhetorical strength of words like “necessary” and “unavoidable” to make any nuanced discussion of our choices impossible. What results is an essentially neoconservative view toward resolving the conflict – paint the struggle in Manichean colors, maintain our powerful global status, and remain confident in the abilities (and indeed necessity) of our military in overcoming our obstacles.
Andrew Sullivan joins us in asking for specifics, writing that the biggest hole in Brooks’s argument is that he fails to square his optimism with the fact that we’re fighting on behalf of a corrupt, mistrusted government. Brooks insists that those on the ground in Afghanistan are much more cheery about its prospects than distant observers, but Sullivan counters that distant observers have the benefit of emotional distance. Imbedded journalists and aid workers don’t want to face wasted efforts.
It seems that providing workable philosophical foundations for our various engagements in the War on Terror, or whatever we’re calling it now, is continuing to prove difficult. After six years in Iraq, we are in need of greater moral clarity around the issues of terrorism, foreign intervention, occupation, and withdrawal if we’d like our time Afghanistan to be better spent. We can start by relying less on vague generalities and admitting that we are faced with complex and often painful ethical dilemmas. Even if this is “not a war of choice,” it is most certainly a war with choices.
-Colin
Related posts:
- Just and unjust withdrawal
- Linker, Sullivan, and torture (continued)
- Exit strategy or “No Exit”?
- No visa for oil
- Gay marriage, continued . . .
ShareComments
Leave a Reply
