SOME OF MY BEST FRIENDS ARE PACIFISTS
James Lileks bleats about all sorts of things today, including something he calls the “Axis of Elvis.” Buried among all this is an interesting commentary on the anti-war movement:
No, no, no, NO; IÃ¢€™m not saying all antiwar voices are vile or imbecilic. As I keep saying over and over and over again there are sensible arguments against the war, and while I donÃ¢€™t agree with them I understand how smart, reasonable people believe that war is not the proper course. To be honest, though: lately I say this more out of habit than conviction. ItÃ¢€™s become something I feel obligated to say, because I do want to make a distinction between the sensible dissenters and the moral cripples who superimpose BushÃ¢€™s face on bin LadenÃ¢€™s head and proclaim the president the real terrorist. But the dissentersÃ¢€™ arguments grow thinner every day. No amount of Iraqi intransigence will dissuade the antiwar crowd from their belief that inspections will find everything eventually. They seem to think the US will apply the requisite military pressure for however many years it takes to disarm Iraq. Even if we find all the bugs, all the poison juice and nuke fuel, their best-case scenario still leaves Saddam and his sons in power. Yes, IÃ¢€™ve heard the argument that lifting the sanctions will lead to a prosperous society that will rise up and overthrow Saddam. Someday.
Indeed. Actually, since I still hang around with academics from time to time, I know all sorts of intelligent people who oppose war with Iraq–including Wayne the Green Beret and others. I’m still not enthusiastic about it and it took me a long time to get off the fence. But it does strike me that most of the arguments against this particular war are arguments against war, period. Short of an Iraqi strike on our soil, at which point it’s damned near too late, I’m not sure what would be causus belli if we don’t have it yet.