Kaplan Stays the Course

Lawrence Kaplan once again tries to makes the case in The New Republic against leaving Iraq. Rebuttals from Sam Rosenfeld and Kevin Drum get at most all of the key points.

I have to say that I'm starting to find the appeals to idealism here quite tiring. It's worth going back and reading what the advocates of imperialism said during the high-tide of empire-building. They, too, were very idealistic. Having the right kind of wanting to help attitude just doesn't do very much work in these kind of circumstances. The effort to have the US government in general, and the US military in particular, run the nation of Iraq is inherently problematic. Having worthy ideals doesn't really make it less problematic.

Comments

One gets the sense that some folks are still stuck in the mud of the "worthy ideals" of "Manifest Destiny".

Posted by Jim Dandy | September 12, 2006 3:17 PM

Back in the 1970s and 1980s, critics of Great Society-type programs went out of their way to emphasize that idealism and intentions were not good enough when evaluating problems. The phrase "the road to hell is paved with good intentions" got a lot of play from neoconservatives (this is back when "neoconservatives" had a domestic focus) who thought the left had ignored the hard truths of reality. That is, the critics of well-intentioned programs cared more about results and reality than they did about liberals' heart-warming motivating factors.

Being skeptical and empirically-based -- even if it meant you might appear cold-hearted in the face of suffering-- used to be a hallmark of being a conservative. Now, it is the neoconservatives whose foreign policy argument seems at times to rest upon repeating their feel-good intentions over and over.

Posted by Jim E. | September 12, 2006 3:28 PM

No matter where you go, no matter what you do, one thing stays the same- there's nothing worse than a well-intentioned idiot.

Posted by serial catowner | September 13, 2006 10:46 AM