Right of Greenwald

I think it's interesting that when I wrote a long post criticizing Gideon Rose that mentioned as an aside that I think "Glenn Greenwald's views are a bit too far to the left" mostly seemed to prompt comments calling into question my motives for making this observation. Well, I made it because I think Glenn's views are a bit too far to the left! It's a little hard to say, because he overwhelmingly does critique, but what I had in mind in particular was this:

But the notion that the U.S. should not attack another country unless that country has attacked or directly threatens our national security is not really extraordinary. Quite the contrary, that is how virtually every country in the world conducts itself, and it is a founding principle of our country. Starting wars against countries that have not attacked you, and especially against those who cannot attack you, is abnormal.

Re-reading, Glenn doesn't explicitly endorse the view that all wars fought for reasons other than strict self-defense are illegitimate, but that's what I took him to be saying, it's something he very well may believe, and it's not something I believe. To me, in addition to fighting wars in self-defense it's also quite appropriate for us to engage in acts of collective self-defense in order to help other countries repel acts of aggression. The Korean War and the first Gulf War would be the key examples here. I also think there are circumstances in which it's a good idea to deploy military forces with UN authorization as peacekeepers or possibly for other humanitarian purposes.

I took Glenn to be making a claim about the desirability of scaling America's global role even further back than I would favor. Perhaps he doesn't think that. Certainly, there are people I know and respect who do think that. My point was that whether or not one agrees with the strict self-defense doctrine, there's ample reason to wonder why, exactly, the foreign policy consensus is so lopsided in terms of the vicious attacks it launches on dissenters from the left while tolerating and sometimes collaborating with the most egregious knee-jerk militarists imaginable.

Comments

Thanks for clearing that up, Matt.

Posted by lemuel pitkin | August 21, 2007 2:07 PM

So, Glenn is too far to the left because you have poor reading comprehension?

Posted by Califlander | August 21, 2007 2:08 PM

thanks for the explanation. but i think you have it wrong - even if that is glenn's view, it's not a leftist one. visit antiwar.com sometime.

Posted by selise | August 21, 2007 2:09 PM

I'm not sure views on these issues line up so neatly along a left-right spectrum.

Posted by blah | August 21, 2007 2:12 PM

Well, no doubt Greenwald will speak for himself, but nothing in the piece quoted by Matt rules out actions in support of collective self defense upon an armed aggression, or the use of forces as peace keepers.

Instead, the plaing reading of the paragraph excerpted is completely consistent with the Caroline doctrine codified by Daniel Webster - that countries are able to resort to anticipatory self defense only when "necessity of that self-defence is instant, overwhelming, and leaving no choice of means, and no moment for deliberation."

The so called Bush Doctrine of pre-emptive war should be rejected not just by the left, but across the political spectrum.

Posted by Andrew | August 21, 2007 2:16 PM

> So, Glenn is too far to the left because
> you have poor reading comprehension?

It is an interesting quirk of Mr. Yglesias' character that when he is caught in a small mistake he will engage in some back-and-forth, but when makes a major whopper and gets called on it in detail he just lets it glide by.

Cranky

Posted by Cranky Observer | August 21, 2007 2:19 PM

The Korean war was a mistake.

Posted by Freddie | August 21, 2007 2:21 PM

That's it? That's your point of reference from a guy whose main weakness is his overly long blog posts? That's not even a point that necessarily divides on the left-right.

I guess Pat Buchanan is too far to MY's left, too.

Posted by Jim E. | August 21, 2007 2:28 PM

So agreeing with George Washington puts you "a bit too far to the left" now? I'd hate to think what Matt would say if Greenwald started quoting Lincoln.

Posted by Gene | August 21, 2007 2:28 PM

If I was Gideon Rose and I wanted to divert criticism of Rose back onto Matthew, I could not think of a better way than to send the baying pack of hounds off onto a false scent -- that Matthew was criticizing Glenn Greenwald not Gideon Rose.

I feel like I'm in Rush Limbaugh brain after he's chewed an Oxycontin.

Posted by Don Williams | August 21, 2007 2:29 PM

1. Your main point was clear.

2. "I took Glenn to be making a claim about the desirability of scaling America's global role even further back than I would favor. Perhaps he doesn't think that."

You should ask before throwing off an ad hominem that splinters the critique of Rose and his ilk.

3. "...U.S. should not attack another country unless that country has attacked or directly threatens our national security..." is not really a pole in a left-right dichotomy, is it? (e.g. Fortress America, Charles Lindberg, etc.)

Posted by Adams | August 21, 2007 2:30 PM

Careerist ass covering by Matt.He pictures himself invited too one of those Russian River deep thinkers camp outs where he can sniff Kissinger's jock

Posted by Jerry | August 21, 2007 2:40 PM

Conclusion:

Glenn's original point: spot on and succinct.

Matt's interpretation of point: not so much.

Posted by ProfD | August 21, 2007 2:41 PM

I'd like to hear of examples of post WW II American interventions that can honestly be called successes. Korea is the only one I can think of, and that turned out alright only after a decades-long junta -- not exactly a model of "Freedom".

Maybe we should take these last 50 years as pretty good evidence that, when it comes to tossing our impressive military around, we're a helluva lot like a three year old with a shotgun? Maybe not even "well-intentioned" technocratic Democrats know what the hell they're doing when they send in the troops? Maybe empirical evidence ought to trump ideology?

Posted by sglover | August 21, 2007 2:45 PM

To make Andrew's point more explicit, Glenn said "Starting wars against countries that have not attacked you, and especially against those who cannot attack you, is abnormal." See? Right there at the beginning of the sentence? "Starting wars" refers to, well, starting a war. Not engaging in collective and defensive military action to protect another nation. Which, under certain circumstances, I suppose Glenn might well support.

I'm not sure I see the point of the post, other than to show how you, too, are a very serious person.

Posted by NCProsecutor | August 21, 2007 2:45 PM

I'd like to hear of examples of post WW II American interventions that can honestly be called successes. Korea is the only one I can think of, and that turned out alright only after a decades-long junta -- not exactly a model of "Freedom".

Maybe we should take these last 50 years as pretty good evidence that, when it comes to tossing our impressive military around, we're a helluva lot like a three year old with a shotgun? Maybe not even "well-intentioned" technocratic Democrats know what the hell they're doing when they send in the troops? Maybe empirical evidence ought to trump ideology?

Posted by sglover | August 21, 2007 2:45 PM

Surely Greenwald doesn't really reject the principle of collective self-defense--that has to be simply an inartful statement on his part.

Imagine an evil dictator--call him "AH"--who has a military stronger than any other single country, and who is smart enough to try for world conquest one country at a time. Is the world really helpless before this strategy? Or is it instead licit for his probable targets to enter into an alliance for collective self-defense?

Greenwald's invocation of the "national interest" is probably broad enough to cover this . . .

Posted by rea | August 21, 2007 2:46 PM

I'd like to hear of examples of post WW II American interventions that can honestly be called successes. Korea is the only one I can think of

The successes didn't involve much shooting--"Germany" is probably the leading example . . .

Posted by rea | August 21, 2007 2:49 PM

I cannot see why Greenwald's "or directly threatens our national security" would not cover "acts of collective self-defense in order to help other countries repel acts of aggression." What's this pissing contest really about?

Posted by Footloose | August 21, 2007 2:54 PM

The Korean War. Whee! Finally, a war that I am too young to know much about. However, isn't the Conventional Wisdom In Hindsight of the nature that the Korean War was a mistake? An error? A useless bit of death and destruction?

That is my understanding, at least from the little I learned of it in school and endless hours watching "M*A*S*H."

Being anti-war is hardly a leftist position, though. It seems to depend upon which party is in the White House.

I think the rightwing was against Clintoni involving us in Bosnia/Kosovo, for example. I would guess many on the right would love to throttle Iran. A number of liberals will make the case that invading Afghanistan after 9/11 was the right thing to do.

Don't liberals defend The Good War against Hitler? Don't many liberals think the U.S. waited too long to step into that fray?

And aren't there quite a few liberals who think the U.S. ought to be doing something about Darfur? And who were hoping the U.S. might intervene in some way in Rwanda years ago?

Glenn Greenwald has opinions on war and military intervention. I don't know that his opinions are left or right.

I do, however think his opinions are more clearly thought out and expressed than are yours. I do not mean that as a diss or burn on you, but as a bit of advice. From one of your elders.

But not so elder as to remember the Korean War.

Posted by lisa | August 21, 2007 2:55 PM

The US intervened in Germany post WW II ?

Posted by novakant | August 21, 2007 2:56 PM

First Gulf War, Bosnia. There are a number of other minor interventions that went well.

Of course the big black stains are Vietnam and the invasion of Iraq.

Posted by Korh | August 21, 2007 2:58 PM

"To me, in addition to fighting wars in self-defense it's also quite appropriate for us to engage in acts of collective self-defense in order to help other countries repel acts of aggression. The Korean War and the first Gulf War would be the key examples here."

So, to you, there is no difference between a United States-led war effort and, given your examples, a United Nations-led war effort.

Glenn Greenwald was talking about the United States, not the United Nations or some other international organization, or "collective". Therein lies the confusion, I suppose.

RIF

Posted by Aaron | August 21, 2007 2:58 PM

"My point was that whether or not one agrees with the strict self-defense doctrine, there's ample reason to wonder why, exactly, the foreign policy consensus is so lopsided in terms of the vicious attacks it launches on dissenters from the left while tolerating and sometimes collaborating with the most egregious knee-jerk militarists imaginable."

Is this a mystery? The foreign policy consesus lopsidedly attacks "the left"--and let's use the term for now--because it is the left that stands outside the consensus. Everyone else--the most egregious knee-jerk militarists imaginable included--stands within it.

And what's the consensus? That the United States has the right to use force to maintain an advantageous international situation. And that's why the question of force is so fraught--it makes sense only when raised in the context of maintaining American hegemony.

If you support the right to hegemony--as Matt Yglesias and "the most egregious knee-jerk militarists" do--then you are within the FP consensus. If you do not, then you are not, and so you'll suffer disproportionately.

Posted by Mark | August 21, 2007 3:00 PM

I think Matt's confusion is more than understandable. However, having discussed the matter with Glenn in e-mail, I think Matt and Glenn hold the same view. Glenn should says so publically of course.

Posted by Armando | August 21, 2007 3:11 PM

Weird. I haven't seen much reason to think that Matt Yglesias normally would use the term "leftist," or even the statement, "further to the left," as a pejorative term, but yet overwhelmingly it has been taken as such by Greenwald's defenders.

In fact, Yglesias was agreeing with Greenwald in his original post--"heartily" agreeing. And, while it is difficult to know exactly what Greenwald's views on foreign policy are, his critique of the establishment is one that has been made most often by leftist critics (i.e. that the actions they advocate are imperialist in motivation).

Maybe all Yglesias meant was that that even though he holds different foreign policy views than Greenwald he agrees with much of Greenwald's critique of the foreign policy establishment. What's wrong with saying that?

Posted by Sabi | August 21, 2007 3:15 PM

Even leaving aside your take (right or wrong) on the Greenwald quote above, your original 'I'm not a lefty' showed no signs of being related to that or, indeed, any specific issue. It was, as stated, just 'I'm not like that lefty', pure and simple. Which is classic triangulating nonsense, no other way to take it.

Just admit it, and go and sin no more. At least on that front.

Posted by drinkof | August 21, 2007 3:15 PM

The US intervened in Germany post WW II ?

Yes, and that intervention is still ongoing. We occupied that country post WWII and intervened to restore it as a peaceful country. There are still around 70,000 US troops in Germany.

It seems to me that Glenn's position is actually not leftist, but is the law of the land, because the US is signatory to the UN Charter. But the FPC is moving more and more toward the John Bolton position that we should get rid of the UN.

Maybe Matt just thinks Glenn is shrill, and reflexively regards that as leftist.

Posted by lukeness | August 21, 2007 3:18 PM

It's been a good long while since US forces in Germany were an intervention. They're very much there at Germany's invitation, presently.

Posted by MB | August 21, 2007 3:22 PM

What I find interesting about this kerfuffle is that technically all that Matt said is that Glenn and his political viewpoints are quite close. The are a "bit" apart.

The only way I can make any sense of the argument is to note that "left" is often an accusation in the US. Right wingers often pretend to believe that anyone a bit to their left is morally equivalent to Stalin. Therefore calling someone a bit to your left is equivalent to an accusation of genocide. Or something.

Posted by Patrick | August 21, 2007 3:24 PM

England & France declared war on Germany in response to its invasion of Poland.

There are just wars that don't start with self-defense.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | August 21, 2007 3:32 PM

I feel the need (why?) do point out that "Jerry" above is not me. (Though I do find "Jerry" somewhat funny and perhaps accurate, he is clearly much more "shrill" about it than I.)

Posted by jerry | August 21, 2007 3:32 PM

By the way, I completely agree with whoever said it in the prior thread that what all of this is about is trying to score with Megan McArdle.

My understanding so far, is that Andrew Sullivan still leads in that race.

Posted by jerry | August 21, 2007 3:35 PM

It's totally about Megan McArdle. MY has been saying things publicly that he probably wishes he didn't, like patting Megan on the fanny for her Ivy League degree when he introduced her to the Atlantic Whatever readers.

Posted by Dhalgren | August 21, 2007 3:40 PM

Re "Andrew Sullivan still leads in that race"
------
Because Megan doesn't have to bend down to speak to him?

Posted by Don Williams | August 21, 2007 3:56 PM

PS I bet that if she dressed up like Matthew's 8th grade schoolteacher, he would crumble like a cookie.

"Are you trying to seduce me, Mrs Robinson?"

Posted by Don Williams | August 21, 2007 3:58 PM

Um, no, Glenn never said "I believe this..."

He said something unarguably true: "Starting wars against countries that have not attacked you, and especially against those who cannot attack you, is abnormal" with respect to the founders' views. He didn't say "immoral" or "wrong", he said "abnormal" meaning "not the norm". Sometimes it's proper to support things not in the norm, and Glenn never said he didn't. You just pretended to read his mind.

Posted by roberto | August 21, 2007 4:10 PM

Matt should have said: "This is why me and Glenn Greenwald can heartily agree on this subject despite his views probably being to the left of mine..."

Describing Greenwald's views as "a bit too far to the left" has a somewhat dismissive tone, which strikes a chord with liberals, in part because the foreign policy establishment chooses to dismiss liberal critiques as "unserious" instead of addressing the critiques on the merits.

That said, the condescention was slight and quite possibly inadvertant. Moreover, Glenn's foreign policy views probably are a bit to the "left" of Matt's, if we define "left" as the opposite of neoconservative.

Posted by owenz | August 21, 2007 4:25 PM

Or, using proper grammar:

"...Glenn Greenwald and I..."

Posted by owenz | August 21, 2007 4:30 PM

Yes, and that intervention is still ongoing. We occupied that country post WWII and intervened to restore it as a peaceful country.

Well, that's bs.

Posted by novakant | August 21, 2007 4:35 PM

> The only way I can make any sense of the argument
> is to note that "left" is often an accusation in
> the US. Right wingers often pretend to believe
> that anyone a bit to their left is morally
> equivalent to Stalin. Therefore calling someone a
> bit to your left is equivalent to an accusation of
> genocide. Or something.

Well, yes. I wouldn't necessarily use your Stalin example, but you have essentially captured the problem that Mr. Yglesias has failed to grasp.

Cranky

Posted by Cranky Observer | August 21, 2007 4:41 PM

Thinking it over, I'd like to revise something I said above (as a duty to fairness, not because anyone cares). I think it's inarguably true that 1) the FP consensus is defined by the agreement that American hyper-power and hegemony is right and 2) "leftists", unlike "the most knee-jerk militarists imaginable", suffer a disproportianate degree of criticism because they would seek to deny that right.

However it's unfair to ascribe hegemonist beliefs to Matt based solely on his post-facto support of the Korean and Persian Gulf wars. Although I don't think such support holds up under scrutiny, it's clearly possible to uphold legal "collective self-defense", in the abstract, without endorsing some kind of larger hegemonic intent (even though, in the cases of Korea and the Gulf, such intent was there). The problem, of course, is determining in real time, in an era of American military dominance, whether or not an invited, legal intervention is also a move towards greater global or area control, and therefore problematic and perhaps unjust.

In some ways it's lucky that American international behavior is so transparently depraved. How much more unsettled my mind would be in the face of international dillemas were it not!

Posted by Mark | August 21, 2007 4:49 PM

On reflection, it's not surprising that Matt Y. feels the need to distance himself from Greenwald because he "may well" hold an absurdly strong version of a basically reasonable belief. After all, Matt was telling us just the other day that he took the Atlantic job for "more pay and better benefits." And as he rightly notes, you don't get paid more if you're not providing the right kind of product. After all, the people who pay for something like The Atlantic "are going to want their funds to flow toward people with congenial ideas."

It would be unreasonable to expect Matt Y. to put some abstract commitment above his self-interest, especially since there are still plenty of more or less true and more or less interesting things you can say without offending your funders, as long as you provide the occasional I'm-not-one-ofthem genuflection. As a student, you can make whatever arguments strike as you most compelling on the merits, but as a professional writer -- especially on a sensitive subject like foreign policy (right up there with economics) -- you can't afford to unless you're prepared to take a big hit to your career. And again, it's not reasonable to expect Matt to make that sacrifice for our benefit.

Personally, I think I'm done with Matt. My attention isn't worth anything to him, but it's worth a lot to me and I'm not willing to contribute it to his self-advancement. Good luck to him though.

Posted by lemuel pitkin | August 21, 2007 5:03 PM

"The only way I can make any sense of the argument is to note that "left" is often an accusation in the US."

Ya think?

Posted by drinkof | August 21, 2007 5:13 PM

Well, lemuel, I think you ought to be more circumspect. Of course Matt is to the right of Greenwald. As you say, he wouldn't be employed by the Atlantic is he weren't. Indeed, if Matt had something radically critical to say, he wouldn't have been hired by the Prospect. And then were would we be? If Matt turns out to be nothing more than the Anthony Lewis of his generation, then well, you know, one Anthony Lewis is better than none.

Posted by Mark | August 21, 2007 5:23 PM

First Gulf War, Bosnia. There are a number of other minor interventions that went well.

Well, if Gulf War I was such a success, why are we mired in Iraq? In particular, if we hadn't let Bush commit his epic blunder in '03, if we'd just gone on with the prevailing status quo, Iraqis would still be getting brutalized by the sanctions, and we'd likely still be plinking away at the odd SAM site or arms depot. I'm just saying that maybe it's time to go over some assumptions again. I was always against the war, but I thought the sanctions were a good idea. Now I'm not so sure.

I don't know what to say about Yugoslavia. I don't have any idea of how much difference intervention really made, and I was never comfortable with the lousy precedents we set there.

What "other minor interventions" can we be happy about? Haiti? Bush the Elder's tantrum in Panama? Grenada?!? Reagan's senile trip to Lebanon? The Dominican intervention? Our adventures in Guatemala, Cuba, Iran, Congo? It's a pretty fucked-up, shameful record. It's cost a helluva lot, too. Faced with such a record, a sane person (but not, apparently, a "serious" one) might try to sort out just how s/he has fucked up so much. For a start, s/he might stop and think that maybe s/he isn't a real good judge of how other people or societies go about their business.

Posted by Samuel Glover | August 21, 2007 5:24 PM

"Yes, and that intervention is still ongoing. We occupied that country post WWII and intervened to restore it as a peaceful country. There are still around 70,000 US troops in Germany."

Lukeness, don't forget the german intervention in the US!
"The Federal Armed Forces maintain stationary training units in the US, in which German troops are trained in close contact with their American counterparts. In addition, German units are sent to the US every year to take part in joint manoeuvres."
http://www.auswaertiges-amt.de/diplo/en/Laender/UnitedStates.html

That's not an "ongoing intervention"? Right, and the fact that there are still US bases in Germany hasn't anything to do with intervention, either, idiot!

Posted by Gray | August 21, 2007 5:36 PM

Like the cliche' sez, Mark nails it. At least as far as foreign policy goes, the real split is between hegemonists and everybody else. The former holds everybody from emissaries of pure evil like Richard Perle, to "well-intentioned" libs like Madeleine "Indispensible Nation" Albright, to "serious professionals" like Cordesman. So far they've been able to pillory anti-hegemonists with the old "isolationism" canard, which is an interesting line of attack in an age everybody shops at big-box stores stuffed with goods from all over the planet. But the tab for policing the world is getting a tad steep, especially when it's pretty plain that we don't have the basic competence for the job.

Posted by sglover | August 21, 2007 5:39 PM

I think it would be obvious why people object to the Greenwald-is-a-little-too-far-left thing. It's one of the most popular Republican memes of the day (in a general sense, not specific to Greenwald, obviously). Pretty much every time I hear a Republican talk these days, they refer to the "far left" damaging the Democrats. As Greenwald himself has pointed out repeatedly, we are regularly told that a position held by roughly 70% of the country, we should get out of Iraq, is far left extremism.

So, when MY says what he did about Greenwald, he's a) blatantly echoing one of the most popular right wing memes of the day and b) wrong. The only sense in which Greenwald is a lefty is that he opposes Bush. People should be rejecting that idea, not reinforcing it.

Posted by gogiggs | August 21, 2007 5:48 PM

Gee, Matt, perhaps Glenn WAS talking about unilateral action rather than a collective action under the auspices of the United Nations.

Didja make any effort to clarify it with him? Didja throw that disclaimer into your original article?

I enjoy reading your blog but you're gonna hafta step up your game if you're gonna go after GG.

Posted by myiq2xu | August 21, 2007 6:06 PM

Ok, so if Greenwald is Jesus decended from the heavens, impartial, fair, objective speaking the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth -then why don't you guys feck off over there instead of nitpicking to death on this clearly mediocre blog.

Posted by novakant | August 21, 2007 6:21 PM

I think you need a Salon subscription to read GG. Matt's blog is free.

Posted by blah | August 21, 2007 6:28 PM

You can get a free day pass by clicking through a flash ad.

Posted by novakant | August 21, 2007 6:35 PM

MY, like other "practical progressives," is laboring under the delusion that "moderation" equals rationality. Jon Stewart, a politically influential comedian, falls prey to this misapprehension far too often, and all the major Democratic presidential contenders aside from Kucinich do as well. Stewart, through the guise of jester, assumes this role to mock the puerile mudslinging of political partisanship. Dem candidates, too, seek to elevate themselves above the fray and look to "build consensus" and "govern from the center" so as to not alienate the nigh unreachable core of ignorant American reactionaries. Why a nearly-niche prog blogger like MY would continue to pander to such reasonable-center fantasist contingent is beyond me. The time for mealy-mouthed bipartisanship and compromise is over. The time has come to talk tough, and left, to speak out against war and imperialistic US oppression and invasion of other countries and disenfranchisement, subjugation, and marginalization of our own poor and downwardly mobile masses. Speak truth, Yglesias, or hum harmoniously from the very engine room of this foundering Titanic we call a media.

Posted by Gregorio | August 21, 2007 6:38 PM

Maybe it's me, but I don't recognize many of the names in this swarm attack on Matthew.
Where did they come from, who's directing them, and why are they injecting so much noise into the discussion by hyper-raving over a minor point while ignoring the main issues?

It will be interesting to see if this kind of activity continues over the next few days.

I wonder if the right wing is getting annoyed over Matthew pointing out that the emperor has no clothes?

Posted by Don Williams | August 21, 2007 7:06 PM

The emperor has no clothes, but is MY a hawk in dove's clothing?

Posted by Gregorio | August 21, 2007 7:11 PM

Holy Jesus. You people are being ridiculous.

It seems obvious to me that Greenwald is to the left of Yglesias on national security issues. Why is everyone acting surprised that Yglesias said so out loud? No, its not an ad-hominem attack, and no, its not a pander. It may actually reflect honest differences of opinion.

For those who accuse Matt of "dividing the left," isn't that the pot calling the kettle black? Matt makes one small comment that is undeniably true based on the evidence and you all pillory him for it.

If you disagree with Matt's somewhat more moderate views on America's role in the world, then do so on the merits. Not by attacking him personally just because its fun and you may be pissed off for some unrelated reason.

Posted by Nathan | August 21, 2007 7:29 PM

The term “far left” is too well-known a dismissive and pejorative ascription (with a long history), to be regarded as anything but deliberate and intentional. To be “too far left” compounds the injurious effect.

As used by Yglesias, I see it as a positional statement, i.e. an attempt to position himself relative to Greenwald for the attention of the relevant audience.

The issue evidently comes up in the specific context of the current critique of the “foreign policy community”, in which Greenwald has been an especially vocal, articulate, and forceful critic, making him a member of the “out-group” to the insiders of that community (vide the response of O’Hanlon to GG’s recent posts).

Hence, Yglesias’ statement can only make sense as an effort to differentiate himself, to make it clear that, unlike Greenwald, he is not “too far out” to be made a member of the “in-group”, and perhaps should be welcomed inside their circle.

Thanks to him for making his position clear. That’s, after all, just being honest.

Posted by Justin X | August 21, 2007 7:35 PM

>Where did they come from
Lurker.

>who's directing them
Nobody that I know of!

>and why are they injecting so much noise into the discussion by hyper-raving over a minor point while ignoring the main issues?

The 'left as positioning' is such a popular, and lame, methodology that it's impossible not to jump out on it. Sorry, but this wound is self-inflicted.

Posted by drinkof | August 21, 2007 7:42 PM

The First Gulf War was a success in the same way Rush Hour III is.

Posted by Gregorio | August 21, 2007 7:45 PM

After all, Matt was telling us just the other day that he took the Atlantic job for "more pay and better benefits."

OMG! That's it, I'm outta here!

Posted by jerry | August 21, 2007 7:47 PM

Re "The term “far left” is too well-known a dismissive and pejorative ascription "
---------
Ok, I kinda understand. I don't agree, personally, for two reasons:

a) I don't see the term "leftist" or "far leftist" as pejorative -- especially after seeing how badly America has been screwed by the right over the past 7 years. It's true that people like Ann Coulter use liberal as an insult -- but Ann Coulter is a psychotic bitch who looks like Seabiscuit if you stick a bridle in her teeth.

b) Plus the terms "right" and "left " are so vague as to be useless. It's far more worthwhile to point out the Specifics of a particular speaker's position and how those specific things hurt or help the country than whether the Speaker fits into a vaguely defined category.

Posted by Don Williams | August 21, 2007 7:54 PM

Where did they come from, who's directing them, and why are they injecting so much noise into the discussion by hyper-raving over a minor point while ignoring the main issues?

They're with the People's Front of Judea .

Posted by novakant | August 21, 2007 7:55 PM

"This is why even someone like me who thinks Glenn Greenwald's views are a bit too far to the left can heartily share his concerns about the nature of the foreign policy establishment."

MY is not taking a shot at GG. He is agreeing with GG's critique of the FPE. If anything, MY is using his sensible moderate street cred. to bolster GG's views.

Posted by a bit too hysterical | August 21, 2007 7:59 PM

Don W @ 7:54 pm:
There is a long-established history and culture of usage of this term out there that cannot be ignored and defines how it is viewed among the general public (regardless of how you or I view it).

I agree that it is “a vaguely defined category.” But that’s all the more reason to question Yglesias’ explicit use of it.

Posted by Justin X | August 21, 2007 8:40 PM

It seems obvious to me that Greenwald is to the left of Yglesias on national security issues. Why is everyone acting surprised that Yglesias said so out loud? No, its not an ad-hominem attack, and no, its not a pander. It may actually reflect honest differences of opinion.

I think the problem is that Matt admits to misrepresenting GG's views before and yet doesn't seem particularly to regret doing so.

Posted by Freddie | August 21, 2007 8:49 PM

To me, in addition to fighting wars in self-defense it's also quite appropriate for us to engage in acts of collective self-defense in order to help other countries repel acts of aggression.

Actually, Glenn neatly accounted for such a circumstance with in the very graf you quoted with "directly threatens our national security".

Posted by Jimm | August 21, 2007 8:54 PM

The left/right attributions really start to lose their meaning outside of a complex set of assumed contexts.

For instance, isolationists have traditionally been associated with the classical "right", while large segments of the classical "left" have been fiercely internationalist.

Then you have pacifists who are also considered "left", but really have little inherent commonality with the classical "left" or welfare-state liberalism.

Further, you have more modern variants of "right" that champion American dominance (mainly dominance of markets/resources and military action where necessary to assure that), and you have the modern variant of "left" which gave us the UN and collective global security.

Really, you never really know what the hell people are talking about with their "left" and their "right" in any particular case unless you sniff it out and there's some obvious clues elsewhere in the argument.

Posted by Jimm | August 21, 2007 9:01 PM

Once again, I'm not sure where the idea that I was trying to "distance" myself from Greenwald comes from. I was associating myself with the main point of his essay.

Posted by Matthew Yglesias | August 21, 2007 9:02 PM

"distance" = "too far to the left"

Posted by Justin X | August 21, 2007 9:04 PM

Similarly, some people here seem to think I was obviously misconstruing Glenn. But I don't think that's obvious at all. Other people on this thread -- like many people I know -- think the first Gulf War was a bad idea. I disagree with those people -- my views are further to the right than theirs. What I'm saying is that notwithstanding disagreement about this subject and notwithstanding my establishmentarian point of view on the Gulf War (and Korea) I still agree with the basic critique of the establishment that Glenn was making.

Posted by Matthew Yglesias | August 21, 2007 9:05 PM

For example, were the Republicans opposing Clinton's intervention in Bosnia and the former Yugoslavia region "left"?

Indeed, this leads to a whole class of crass political opportunists who really have no set ideology but power, but not completely since this opposition to the action in Bosnia could also be partially attributed to my characterization of the modern "right" as aggressively internationalist in capturing and dominating markets and natural resources, and more than willing to use the military to strong arm competitors in the process (and Bosnia/Yugoslavia really wasn't that pressing an action for multinational corporate interests).

Posted by Jimm | August 21, 2007 9:05 PM

I really don't understand why the Greenwald (or Eschaton) fan clubs are getting this worked up about a throwaway remark that had nothing to do with that original post concerning Rose.

Honestly, who cares if you think Glenn is to your left on foreign policy, or whether you're right about that, when it's not even an argument you're really trying to put across (in that first post)?

Posted by Jimm | August 21, 2007 9:08 PM

> Well, yes. I wouldn't necessarily use your
> Stalin example, but you have essentially
> captured the problem that Mr. Yglesias has
> failed to grasp.

I don't think the failure is Matthew's. He appears to be using language in a straightforward and honest way. I have no idea why some people are assuming he’s using words the way a politician would. Poll-tested slander-by-association or whatever it is they do.

It always squicks-me-out a bit when overly politicized/sensitized people interpret honest discussion as political code. I’ve seen the most boring/technocratic discussion of evolution be filtered by activists as pro-racist / pro-euthanasia / anti-Christian / sexist / whatever. And I suppose sometimes it is. It a huge fucking assumption though.

I don’t always agree with Mr.Yglesias, but he’s always come across as honest.

Posted by Patrick | August 21, 2007 9:16 PM

Why aren't these people getting worked up over Matthew claiming that Max Sawicky is more "impeccabl[y]" "left" than Matthew?

Odd.

I think the only conclusion is that there really aren't a lot of people upset about Matthew calling Greenwald "left" of him; instead, just Greenwald is upset, and he's using his sock puppets, again.

Posted by Al | August 21, 2007 9:19 PM

"It seems obvious to me that Greenwald is to the left of Yglesias on national security issues. Why is everyone acting surprised that Yglesias said so out loud? "

Why is Greenwald obviously to the left of Yglesias? GG's position on the Iraq war and the use of American military force in general, is pretty much the same as Pat Buchanan, Ron Paul and Justin Raimando of Antiwar.com, among others.

My objection is to Matt going along with the Republican memes that anyone who opposes Bush on anything is a leftist and that only the far-left-extremist-blogofascist-DFHs oppose the war. My objection is to accepting and repeating a Republican frame that is false and designed to marginilize their critics.

I don't think it was meant as a deliberate slight, but just because a canard is repeated carelessly, rather than maliciously, doesn't mean it shouldn't be corrected.

And FWIW, I read this blog more than I read Greenwald's, if only because the posts are shorter.

Posted by gogiggs | August 21, 2007 9:29 PM

Other people on this thread -- like many people I know -- think the first Gulf War was a bad idea. I disagree with those people -- my views are further to the right than theirs.

That's not so clear cut either though Matt, because people opposed the first Gulf War for various reasons, i.e. there weren't all pacifists or passive about Saddam taking over Kuwait.

Some people were just opposed to war, while most actually believed there were less violent ways to force Saddam back out of Kuwait, or at least that these methods should be attempted first before sending in the troops and seemingly assuring vast civilian casualties.

When the dust settled, it would seem that Bush Sr. made the right moves and limited civilian deaths and was successful in leading the international coalition to force Saddam back out of Kuwait, but that's ignoring the resulting slaughter of Shiites that we knew would happen after we encouraged them to revolt, did nothing to help them as we did the Kurds, even while we now encourage the war crimes trials of those Iraqi leaders who put down this civil war insurrection, and also are seemingly positioning ourselves to screw the Shiites once again.

In the final summation, there's little that can be described as positive about the First Gulf War, and immediate military action wasn't the only course of action, even though it was described as such by Bush Sr., and even if military action was immediately in order, setting up the Shiites to be slaughtered by Saddam and letting him stay in power, followed by an onerous sanctions regime that brought great suffering to the Iraqi people, because we took limited action seems highly questionable, as does the current policy now of compounding the suffering of Iraqis by pretending to act in their interests by attracting terrorists to their neighborhoods so "we don't have to fight them here".

All of this has been done with our economic interests in mind, because of real vulnerabilities we allow to fester by the way we've structured our economic and resource system, so that we're always reacting and forcing suffering on other cultures while we pretend we're helping them, when a smarter, wiser, more enlightened foreign policy would not force us to strong arm the world with our military might (violence) to assure our ongoing wealth and prosperity.

Given how screwed up the system was in 1991, and the threat that Saddam posed by invading Kuwait, obviously some action needed to be taken, but immediate war with all the violence that was ensured in that action, and the epic violence that occurred afterward, was not necessarily the best course of action, though we'll probably never know because fair argument about such course of action never takes place when the arms supplier, military and multinational interests that profit on the war system and own the media set their minds on something.

Posted by Jimm | August 21, 2007 9:36 PM

I really don't understand why the Greenwald (or Eschaton) fan clubs are getting this worked up

I'm not a regular reader of Greenwald or Eschaton (although I really should be reading Greenwald more; his instincts on foreign policy are a lot sharper than Yglesias's). Speaking for myself, it pisses me off to see Yglesias sliding to the right because (1) he's smart enough to know better, (2) he's aware enough of his place in the media environment that a good chunk of these shifts are almost certainly due to deliberate careerism, and I see no reason to cut Yglesias any more slack than I would Richard Cohen or Mickey Kaus, and (3) I've been reading him for years and saw him evolve from a neoliberal hawk into a center-left dove, and it's incredibly frustrating to see that his success - coming as it does from a following of actual liberals like myself - is now enabling him to slowly grope his way back towards neoliberal uselessness, on domestic policy if nothing else. I'm not invested in the career of Matt Yglesias; I am invested in having more actual, unapologetic liberals with prominent media platforms, as opposed to yet another liberal famous for disagreeing with other liberals. If I could give Yglesias's career to Brad Plumer or Chris Hayes or another actual liberal, I'd do it in a heartbeat.

Posted by Christmas | August 21, 2007 9:40 PM

I must have missed Matt's slide to the right...must have occurred last weekend when I was in Mexico perhaps?

:)

Posted by Jimm | August 21, 2007 9:46 PM

There is an anti-imperialist left and an isolationist right, now which one would you rather associate GG with? See, that wasn't so hard.

And please stop associating the fortune of left/liberal politics or whatever goes by that name in the US with every little perceived shift in MY's position - it's ridiculous, you're projecting. If US voters are dumb enough to vote for another GOP president because he's "tough on national security" - tough shit, but it certainly won't be the MY's or the Atlantic's fault.

Posted by novakant | August 21, 2007 10:04 PM

I must have missed Matt's slide to the right...must have occurred last weekend when I was in Mexico perhaps?

Yglesias's slide to the right has mostly been, as I said, on domestic issues, particularly ones he doesn't care about/pay attention to, like labor issues, environmental issues, education, etc. (See, for example, his endorsement of merit pay, his weird sniping at organic farming, his assertion that the next Democratic president shouldn't really do anything on health care because it won't pass anyway, etc.) This has been somewhat exacerbated by the fact that Yglesias's favorite in the primaries holds fairly timid positions on these issues, and Yglesias has found himself actively defending this timidity from time to time (see his response to Obama's health care proposal, where Yglesias clearly didn't actually know enough about the subject to feel comfortable engaging with it, but felt compelled to defend the lack of a mandate in the Obama plan).

There are other factors contributing here - Yglesias's obligation to plug his right-wing Atlantic co-bloggers, his social connections with a variety of economic conservatives, the general shift in a variety of "established" liberal blogs from actively protesting the offenses of the Bush administration to defending the weaknesses and betrayals of Democratic candidates and congressmen - but all of them point towards a gradual rightward shift. Odd signals like the Greenwald crack just tend to drive that home.

Posted by Christmas | August 21, 2007 11:08 PM

Crikey, when the heck did a main principle of isolationism become leftist? It's CONSERVATIVE!
(Ain't the main reason that neo-conservatism has neo in front of it because it's not isolationist?)

So others before me have already mentioned George Washington and Pat Buchanan...hmmm...

how about all those conservatives afraid of:

REAL lefties, while in pursuit of world solidarite singing the Internationale, like stuff like breathlessly reporting the orgasmic excitement of the bloody Russian revolution, or perhaps rushing off to fight the Spanish Civil War for the social bonafides and artistic experience--these are preferred but if those barricades if you can't start a bomb factory at the very least get tear gassed a few times and wear Che on your T-shirt.

Posted by artappraiser | August 21, 2007 11:08 PM

Look, people are getting to be a bit like Kremlinologists with this in-depth interpretation of Yglesias' language choices and tracking of his ideological positions. I'm not saying Christmas' account of MY's positions is inaccurate (I'd like to hear more, ahem, about green issues, but I know you're a city-slicker, Matt, and don't hold it against you too much).

But it shouldn't come out of left field to anyone that MY _is_ to the right of GG on a lot of issues. GG is an outsider and a constitutionalist like some latter day James Otis, Matt is soft-Establishment a la the New Frontier, but Jesus, people, his heart's in the right place and he's more or less a man of the Left. So give him a break and stop being a bunch of splitters like the People's Front of Judea.

Posted by Ben Cronin | August 21, 2007 11:32 PM

"Careerist ass covering by Matt.He pictures himself invited too one of those Russian River deep thinkers camp outs where he can sniff Kissinger's jock"

Now that was funny. I don't know if it's true of Matt or not, but it WAS funny.

BTW, Matt, the 1992 Gulf War was legit? Say it ain't so, Matt, or I'll have to accuse you of forgetting history - not good for a public policy pundit (excuse me, "wannabe public policy pundit" - Natalie is still ahead of you, right?)

In case you've forgotten, Bush I explicitly told Saddam that we didn't give a damn if he invaded Kuwait. Not to mention that Saddam had good reasons for doing so - the Kuwaitis were slant-drilling Iraqi oil fields, thus stealing Iraqi oil. Not to mention that Saddam was of the opinion that Kuwait used to be Iraqi territory and ought to be again (I don't know if that's true, I haven't bother to look it up.)

In any event, there was absolutely ZERO value in the US supporting Kuwait from the standpoint of actual benefits to this country. And all the nonsense about Saddam ginning up to invade Saudi Arabia was not only false, it was done explicitly to get Saudi Arabia to host us in starting the war - which, in case you've also forgotten, is yet one more thing Osama bin laden did not like which led directly to 9/11.

So where the hell do you get the notion that the first Gulf War was a legitimate exercise of US military power?

Korea is basically the same thing. Who cared if that country went Communist or not? How different was that from Vietnam? What did we get out it? South Korea now trades with CHINA more than it does the United States! Not to mention that if at any time in the last FIFTY years of "truce" that 37,000 US soldiers would have died if that "truce" had been broken (at least in recent years given the buildup of North Korean forces.)

I think your "foreign policy punditry" need a little more work, Matt. Greenwald is WAY ahead of you - and Natalie not much farther behind you, having been schooled by the scumbag Dershowitz.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | August 22, 2007 2:34 AM

Megan McArdle? I didn't know who that is, so I Googled - and for an image. I also read her bio here.

Now I see what the fuss is about.

What I don't see is any evidence of knowledge on her part greater than anyone else here.

Sorry, Natalie is cuter. Matt, fergeddaboudit.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | August 22, 2007 2:40 AM

"Once again, I'm not sure where the idea that I was trying to "distance" myself from Greenwald comes from. I was associating myself with the main point of his essay."

Wow! Matt engages - like Josh marshall, one line and then vanish into the mist...

Obviously learned that one at TPM watching Marshall snark and insult his way around me without ever once engaging directly in debate...

C'mon, Matt, while it is clear that you WERE trying to associate yourself with Greenwald's point, you did so by DIS-associating yourself from Greenwald's general political stance itself.

And I think the main point of everybody here was - in the wrong direction.

Would you like to try that again - by admitting that, yes, you were wrong that Greenwald is LEFT of you?

Nobody here will mind - really.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | August 22, 2007 2:47 AM

I read this blog, and not Atrios or Greenwald regularly, and I like MY more. That said, I think it's unfortunate that people seem so quick to dismiss people who disagree with MY on this as being just invaders or sock puppets. There's no velvet rope in front of the comments section. Let's focus on their arguments, please.

Posted by Freddie | August 22, 2007 8:32 AM

It's the regular readers of this very mediocre blog that are the sock puppets.Notice the best progressive blogs rarely if ever highlight anything put out by Yglesias.If you are concerned about the state of our country, this unprovoked and illegal war, spend some time reading blogs written by informed, intelligent, thoughtful liberals and leave this porky hack to collect his higher pay and benefits pleasing his corporate masters.

Posted by Honor | August 23, 2007 8:31 AM

mjnhcyft uejkbmspo ajdlsx alnf wyzts mqxnftac ituzwdhlm

Posted by qhajw gkvmquc | August 26, 2007 10:51 PM