Lieberman's Latest

Courtesy of Sam Boyd, I see the Financial Times reporting on Joe Lieberman's views. Apparently, the Wise One "argued that George W. Bush and the Republican presidential candidates remained truer than the Democratic party to its tradition of a 'moral, internationalist, liberal and hawkish' foreign policy that was established by Presidents Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman and John Kennedy."

This reduction of, say, FDR's understanding of foreign policy to the idea that he was "hawkish" is really insipid. It's true, of course, that FDR responded to the policy environment he faced in a "hawkish" manner but the situation, clearly, was entirely different. Similarly, I entirely agree that Democrats should continue to emulate the Truman-in-Korea (or Bush-in-Kuwait) model of being willing and able to deploy military forces in order to protect foreign countries from conquest. You'd have to be an idiot to draw from the FDR-Truman school of internationalism the simple lesson that a disposition to start wars is a good idea. After all, JFK was "hawkish," too, but Lieberman seems to forget that his act of hawkery in Vietnam turned out to be a huge fiasco, and his foreign policy triumph came during the Cuban Missile Crisis when he wisely rejected the counsels of the preventive war crowd and instead struck a pragmatic deal.

Obviously all-war all-the-time has long been Lieberman's signature contribution to Democratic Party thinking (like Bill Kristol on the other side) but the willingness of others to swallow the idea that the "internationalism" of the liberal tradition amounts simply to a disposition to kill foreigners is really insane. Bush and Lieberman are bloodthirsty they're not internationalists. They've founded no institutions, they've made America despised, they actively seek to undermine international law, and they've brought our relationships with allies -- the ones the real internationalists built -- to unprecedented new lows.

Comments

How long before old Joementum has his Zell Miller moment?

Posted by 2cynicalbyhalf | November 9, 2007 11:22 AM

Who loves war more, pundits or politicians? No matter how often they are wrong, it doesn't matter, it's the thought that counts.

Questions:

Truman-in-Korea was a good idea? Really?

Bush-in-Kuwait is worth emulating? That was all about moral internationalism? Funny how more moral we are with nations sitting on top of OUR oil. .

Matt feels one of US military's purposes is to protect foreign powers. Where the hell is that in the consitution? I wouldn't risk my life for the monarchy of Kuwait, Matt would you?

Where's Calvin Coolidge when you need him?

Posted by Hankest | November 9, 2007 11:29 AM

Lieberman just drives me nuts; that he's wasting a seat in Connecticut that should be in the camp of rationality gives an extra edge to it.

Posted by Nick Kaufman | November 9, 2007 11:31 AM

"Truman-in-Korea was a good idea? Really?"

From the perspective of today, it seems like it was a good idea, considering that South Korea is now a prosperous democracy, and tens of millions of people are better off because of that. It's hard to imagine though if Matt were alive during the Korean War that he wouldn't have been questioning what our "strategic purpose" was there. Certainly the cost in American lives was horrific compared to the cost in Iraq, and our troops (at least at the beginning of the war) were woefully ill-trained and ill-equipped.

Posted by Steve O. | November 9, 2007 11:39 AM

"Bush and Lieberman are bloodthirsty they're not internationalists."

The level of discourse just dropped to a new low on this blog.

Posted by Dave | November 9, 2007 11:40 AM

"Bush and Lieberman are bloodthirsty they're not internationalists."

The level of discourse just dropped to a new low on this blog.

I agree: shouldn't there by a semicolon after bloodthirsty?

Posted by Jim W | November 9, 2007 11:45 AM

Liberman's big intellectual flaw is that he does not understand that for every action there is a reaction. He only gets the action part, as though what we do takes place in a vacuum. A very dumb little man.

Posted by bob h | November 9, 2007 11:49 AM

Surely FDR didn't *start* any wars ? He helped
the British, who were already in a war. Then Japan
started a war with Pearl Harbor; and Germany
also declared war on the USA. Once there was a
war, FDR fought with everything he'd got, and
won quickly. But he didn't start the war.

Posted by Richard Cownie | November 9, 2007 11:53 AM

Both Steve O. and Hankest severely miss the point on the Korean War (but from different directions).

To respond to Hankest, sure, the strategic prosecution of the war was pretty poor. But to the degree that it was misguided, that was how the war was similar to Iraq. Attempted to fully conquer North Korea turned out to be a mistake. And that's even assuming, as I think you could argue, that overthrowing the regime in NoKorea and leaving behind chaos would have been better for everyone else involved. Insofar as the Korean war involved protecting the sovereignty of South Korea, it turned out to be really successful, though expensive.

Steve O., if you can't grasp the difference between defending a sovereign government and overthrowing one, it's pretty much hopeless. The whole argument of the "get out of Iraq now" crowd is that our ability to positively influence the future of Iraq is pretty much nil. Maybe you don't see how the situation in Korea was different. But I guess that just highlights another good point: not being able to tell the difference between Iraq and Korea pretty much establishes that your views shouldn't have any influence on foreign policy. This is the curse of the neo-cons.

Posted by mpowell | November 9, 2007 11:58 AM

" 'Truman-in-Korea was a good idea? Really?'

From the perspective of today, it seems like it was a good idea..."

Woopsie, you forgot about North Korea, one of history's most bizarre and cruel regimes that happens to have nukes. Would that regime be in power if we hadn't gone in and remained to this day in Korea?

One could make the argument our total defeat in Vietnam had better results.

Posted by hankest | November 9, 2007 11:59 AM

Korea was initially a lot like Kuwait but then Truman didn't stop at the border as H.W. Bush did, and then Korea became more like Iraq. That's comic book level of analysis, but generally true as far as it goes.

Posted by Led | November 9, 2007 12:00 PM

Steve O,

I may be a little rusty about my history of South Korea, but I don't remember anything about American troops having to intervene in a sectarian civil war while occupying South Korea. In addition, when Ike ran for President in 1952, didn't he run explicitly on the promise that he would end the war, since the costs of a open-ended shooting war in the Korean Peninsula far exceeded the benefits of attaining a ceasefire with the godless North Korean Commies?

Shouldn't Matt be commended by you for showing pragmatism in questioning the wisdom of continuing the current President's strategy in Iraq, just as Eisenhower did with Truman's strategy in South Korea?

Posted by eltoro | November 9, 2007 12:07 PM

To continue the Korea-Iraq analogy...I wonder: suppose Truman had stopped at the border. Would a whacked-out conservative ended up invading North Korea 10 years later, anyway?

Posted by Jim W | November 9, 2007 12:10 PM

Mpowell - Protecting the sovereignty of South Korea has been successful? hmm well so has getting the hell out of Vietnam as i noted above.

There's so much wrong with Truman and Korea it's hard to know where to start.

Not declaring war as per the consitution and rather installing US troops into the middle of a civil war under UN authorization was a key factor. (Would Vietnam have ocurred or would Bush have so easily waltzed into Iraq without the Truman/Korea precedent?)

Or how about sacrificing 50 thousand Americans and boat loads of $ to ensure the safety of a long line of corrupt regimes and elected gov'ts thrown out by one coup or another.

Or the fact we STILL have a military presence (we used to call it an occupation) in that nation 55 years later - even though most of them want us out.

Frankly, i wouldn't risk my life for any of that "success." Would you?

Posted by hankest | November 9, 2007 12:17 PM

Would that regime be in power if we hadn't gone in and remained to this day in Korea?
One could make the argument our total defeat in Vietnam had better results.
Posted by hankest | November 9, 2007 11:59

Yes that regime would be in power, except it would rule the whole pinninsula.
Not every historical event proves your thesis, that's the same mistake the neocons make, you just draw the opposite conclusion.

In many ways the vietnamese were very lucky with the quality of their post 1975 political leadership. Many other peoples in similar circumstances have not been so it's a crap shoot.

The true legitimacy of the Korean intervention lies not in its relative sucess or failure but in its explicit UN security council authorization.

Posted by Northern Observer | November 9, 2007 12:21 PM

Incidently it is Liebermans American exceptionalism in warmaking that places him outside the tradition of great Democratic Presidents like FDR and Truman. And though Kennedy strayed in vietnam and cuba, after the bay of pigs he was moving the USA to a non unilateralist stance.

Everything Lieberman says is a perversion, a living sign of America's decline in political leadership.

Posted by Northern Observer | November 9, 2007 12:27 PM

Hankest, I can't even begin to understand why you think Korea would be better off if we had allowed the same crazy regime ruling North Korea today to conquer the entire peninsula. I suppose you can never really know what would have happened, but there's a big difference between the character and nature of the communist regime in Vietnam and North Korea. Also, clearly the government of what became South Korea did not face nearly as much internal dissent as in South Vietnam.

Also, the South Korean government has been corrupt, but financially, the country has done quite well. And that financial success has not just accrued to the elite in the country. In a practical sense, the people also enjoy a lot of freedom.

I'll acknowledge that there is a worldview that the continued cost of Korean occupation outweigh the benefits, but there is a lot of room between that view and the worldview of most people who oppose the Iraq War. And the difference is substantive and highly defensible.

Posted by mpowell | November 9, 2007 12:35 PM

"The true legitimacy of the Korean intervention lies not in its relative sucess or failure but in its explicit UN security council authorization."

This is quite a legalistic interpretation of legitimacy: the only reason the UN Security Council authorized the war was because communist China wasn't a permanent member (Taiwan had its seat), and Russia happened to be boycotting the UN at the time.

Posted by Steve O. | November 9, 2007 12:36 PM

I'm always confused when people like Lieberman or Sean Hannity point to FDR and Truman, the people who created the very international structures that Bush is systematically trying to destroy.

Posted by mad6798j | November 9, 2007 12:39 PM

It's also worth noting here that had we defended South Vietnam against the North's invasion in '74-'75 with air power (as we successfully did against the North's similar '72 invasion), it's likely that South Vietnam would have been a prosperous democracy like South Korea today. It certainly wasn't democratic during the Vietnam War, but then again, neither was South Korea. Nevertheless, history has shown a trend of right wing authoritarian countries becoming democratic -- e.g., Chile, Taiwan, South Korea, Brazil.

Posted by Steve O. | November 9, 2007 12:47 PM

It's also worth noting here that had we defended South Vietnam against the North's invasion in '74-'75 with air power (as we successfully did against the North's similar '72 invasion), it's likely that South Vietnam would have been a prosperous democracy like South Korea today. It certainly wasn't democratic during the Vietnam War, but then again, neither was South Korea. Nevertheless, history has shown a trend of right wing authoritarian countries becoming democratic -- e.g., Chile, Taiwan, South Korea, Brazil.

I think the best approach here is to simply say, if your assumptions were correct, this argument would be valid. But then, the overwhelming sentiment is that South Vietnam was different than South Korea. I'm not going to get into this argument, just note that to the extent that most people have the view that I'm defending, this is taken as a given, and taken in that context, Steve O.'s argument is invalid.

Posted by mpowell | November 9, 2007 12:53 PM

Steve O,

Your scenario of an independent South Vietnam suriving the Vietnam War, and turning into a South Korea requires more than your presription of staving the North Vietnamese invasion of 1974-75 via air power.

The North Vietnamese would not have stopped invading South Vietnam had they simply been repelled in '74-75. They would have likely continued to invade in the years following, which means that periodic American military intervention would have been required to maintain South Vietnam at least through the end of the Cold War.

In addition, the South Vietnamese government needed to build legitimacy in the eyes of its populace, and turn the struggle against North Vietnam into a patriotic war in the defense of South Vietnam. After all, what caused the South Vietnam government to fall was that its populace preferred the Hanoi regime over the Saigon regime, and preferred reunification of the Vietnamese people over maintaining an anti-Communist regime. Had the South Vietnamese government rallied its people to support Saigon over Hanoi, the North Vietnamese invasions would have failed even without American intervention.

Posted by eltoro | November 9, 2007 1:09 PM

Didn't this thread start out about Joe Lieberman? Now we're talking East Asia. (Most of you are too young to remember Korea, anyway, and probably Vietnam as well.) MY's point is that Joe and his kind are hawks for the sake of being hawks, rather than for any rational purpose. Moreover, I'd add that he doesn't stop at nuanced approval of military activity in Iraq, but seems to swallow the Bush program whole--permanent war, permanent detention, rendition, torture, etc.--and appears to believe that Democrats who don't buy into that program are committing political suicide. Those who see him as another Zell Miller are not far off the mark.

Posted by Henderstock | November 9, 2007 1:24 PM

"The North Vietnamese would not have stopped invading South Vietnam had they simply been repelled in '74-75."

How many times do you think they would have sacrificed their Russian-built tanks to our laser-guided bombs? How many times would the Russians have resupplied them? 1972 proved that any mechanized invasion of South Vietnam was doomed in the face of American close air support; the realization that we wouldn't provide this air support to South Vietnam is what prompted the North to escalate their December '74 incursion into the final all-out invasion.

"In addition, the South Vietnamese government needed to build legitimacy in the eyes of its populace"

What it needed to do was survive, just like South Korea needed to do when it was under threat of conquest from its northern neighbor. Popular legitimacy came later (about 30 years later, actually) as the country democratized.

"Had the South Vietnamese government rallied its people to support Saigon over Hanoi, the North Vietnamese invasions would have failed even without American intervention."

Rallying the people isn't sufficient to defeat a stronger military force. If all that mattered was popular will, Hungary would have forced out the Soviets in 1956.

Posted by Steve O. | November 9, 2007 1:46 PM

Steve O,

The North Vietnamese sacrificed their PEOPLE fighting against the Americans for over a decade. What makes you think that the loss of Russian-built tanks would have deterred them, especially when they knew that the South Vietnamese populace supported them over the Saigon regime, and they know that their Russian tanks could always be replaced?

Moreover, the South Korean government had popular legitimacy long before it had democratic elections. Did the South Koreans rise up against the Seoul regime in those 30 years the way the South Vietnamese did continually against the Saigon regime? No, they did not. That's why the division between North and South Korean remained militarily stable.

Finally, the military power of North and South Vietnam was basically equal. There was no vast military imbalance of the sort that existed between Hungary and the Soviet Union, or even North Vietnam and the US. In fact, South Vietnam had a larger military, economy, and population than the North; therefore, it cleary had the capacity to defeat its Northern counterpart without American military intervention. All that it lacked was a populace committed to maintaining the Saigon regime.

Had the South Vietnamese been as committed to Saigon as the North Vietnamese were to Hanoi, a Korean-style stalemate could have developed in Vietnam, and your dream of a South Vietnam modeled after South Korea would have come to fruition. Moreover, you are forgetting that even with the fall of Saigon, the South Vietnamese could have continued to fight the North Vietnamese through guerilla warfare, just as many had fought against the US for over a decade. The fact that the South Vietnamese accepted the North Vietnamese presence in a way that they hadn't accepted the presence of the French and the Americans speaks volumes about the level of support that Hanoi had over Saigon among the South Vietnamese.

Ironically, the downfall of Saigon to the Communists laid the groundwork for the ultimate defeat of the Communists in Vietnam as a whole. Today's reunified Vietnam is positioning itself as the next Asian economic tiger, and has embraced capitalism with the fervor of a Saigon black marketeer during the Vietnam war era. The Marxist economic presriptions favored by the Hanoi regime have been utterly rejected by the Vietnamese, particularly by the generation born after the downfall of Saigon in 1975. In the long run then, the South Vietnamese did defeat the North Vietnamese; they just didn't do in the way that the conservative revisionists wished it to happen.

Posted by eltoro | November 9, 2007 2:21 PM

"Ironically, the downfall of Saigon to the Communists laid the groundwork for the ultimate defeat of the Communists in Vietnam as a whole."

Communism there hasn't been fully defeated, anymore than it has been fully defeated in Mainland China. The political repression remains; only the economic policies have changed.

"Today's reunified Vietnam is positioning itself as the next Asian economic tiger"

And it's only a couple decades behind the real Asian tigers. South Vietnam would have probably been one ten years ago, at the latest, had it stayed independent.

"The Marxist economic presriptions favored by the Hanoi regime have been utterly rejected by the Vietnamese"

When did they ever get a vote on it? When do they get a vote on anything?

Posted by Steve O. | November 9, 2007 2:33 PM

It requires a special talent to claim that South Vietnam was as outclassed militarily relative to North Vietnam as Hungary was to the Soviet Union.
We gave the South Vietnamese tons of gear. They just couldn't stand on their own.

Posted by Marc | November 9, 2007 2:35 PM

Steve O,

Your Hungary example further undermines your own point in this way. The 1956 uprising was not against the Soviets, but rather against the puppet Communist regime in Budapest. Had the Soviets not intervened, that puppet regime would have fallen immediately, becuase it lacked the SUPPORT OF THE POPULACE.

Moreover, that lack of legitimacy in the eyes of the Hungarian populace ultimately doomed the Hungarian Communist regime. Did you not notice that Hungary no longer has a Communist government, even though it survived the 1956 uprising? The mere survival of a regime in the short run is not enough to give it legitimacy in the eyes of its people, and without legitimacy, a regime is doomed in the long run. Therefore, as the hold of the Warsaw Pact's Communist regimes began to weaken in the 1980s, the Hungarians began transitioning to liberal democracy and capitalism before the rest of Eastern Europe. In the long run then, the forces of libeal democracy and capitalism defeated Communist tyranny, despite the military intervention of the Soviets in 1956. (Notice that this occurred without the US sending troops to Hungary to fight the Communist Hungarians.)

Posted by eltoro | November 9, 2007 2:43 PM

Matt,

This post is about as coherent and sound as freepers who equate the opposition to the current war with treason. Lieberman and Bush are just bloodthirsty. Congratulations you are the left's Ann Coulter.

Eli

Posted by Eli Lake | November 9, 2007 2:43 PM

Eli Lake,

Can you post your recollection about John Edwards's argument in favor of invading Iraq here? Mickey Kaus mentioned it on his site, but his link to yours wasn't working.

Thanks. This way we can compare Lieberman's ideas today with Edwards's.

Posted by Steve O. | November 9, 2007 2:52 PM

Eric Alterman had a good article on The New York Sun, the Potemkin Paper that employs Eli Lake.

Posted by ndm | November 9, 2007 2:56 PM

"Your Hungary example further undermines your own point in this way. The 1956 uprising was not against the Soviets, but rather against the puppet Communist regime in Budapest."

My initial point that rallying the people isn't sufficient to defeat a stronger military force remains true. Hungary isn't the only example. Do you think the Chinese wanted to see their young democracy advocates crushed by tanks in 1989? Do you think the average Burmese supports the ruling junta? Is Chinese occupation popular with the average Tibetan?

"(Notice that this occurred without the US sending troops to Hungary to fight the Communist Hungarians.)"

Directly supporting the Hungarians (or any other occupied Europeans) with military force in '56 would have started World War III. So we fought proxy wars with the Soviets instead, in East Asia, Central America, Central Asia, etc.; we defended free Europe to prevent further Soviet expansion there; and we engaged the Soviets in an arms race they couldn't afford. Surely you don't think the U.S. military had nothing to do with the Soviets' defeat in the Cold War, which enabled Hungary and other Soviet satellites to become independent?

Posted by Steve O. | November 9, 2007 3:12 PM

Congratulations you are the left's Ann Coulter.

Really? Really? So much hyperbole. No wonder conservatives are so scared of everything, they have no sense of proportion.

Posted by Rambuncle | November 9, 2007 3:19 PM

"Communism there hasn't been fully defeated, anymore than it has been fully defeated in Mainland China. The political repression remains; only the economic policies have changed."

A Communist government that doesn't practice Marxist economics is a Communist government only in name. Thw whole point of Communism was to save the proleteriat from the "tyranny" of the bourgousie. A Communist government that embraces capitalism is against the very core of what Karl Marx preached. Instead of overthrowing the bourgousie, it is facilitating the creation of one. That constitutes a defeat of Communism, even if it allows the tyrannical regime created by the Communists to stay in power.

"And it's only a couple decades behind the real Asian tigers. South Vietnam would have probably been one ten years ago, at the latest, had it stayed independent."

Heck, Vietnam would have been further along had the South Vietnamese defeated the North Vietnamese back in the 1960s, and reunited Vietnam under the SAIGON regime. Why settle for the comparitively small change of an independent, non-Communist South Vietnam?

Unfortunately, the conditions for that scenario did not exist in real life, and neither did the conditions for a South Vietnam in the mold of South Korea.

What did exist in real life was a reunited Vietnam that experienced Communism and found it wanting, particularly in the economic arena. The people voted then through their economic behavior, which embraced capitalism. Remember the behavior of markets are determined through the votes you cast through your economic behavior, not through votes at the ballot box.

What the Vietnamese haven't got a vote on, then, is political freedom. It's a shame that they haven't attained it, but that by itself is not a good enough argument for the US to have continued in an open-ended military intervention in Vietnam. It is especially not good enough when one realizes that an open-ended military intervention would have bled us militarily and economically, just as the Soviet's open-ended military intervention in Afghanistan bled them. In case you haven't noticed during these last few years in the Middle East, there are limits to what raw military power can achieve, and you have to make trade-offs. The defeat of world Communism as a whole versus the remnants of a tyrannical CINO (Commie in name only) regime in Vietnam is a reasonable tradeoff, to say the least.

Posted by eltoro | November 9, 2007 3:21 PM

"My initial point that rallying the people isn't sufficient to defeat a stronger military force remains true. Hungary isn't the only example. Do you think the Chinese wanted to see their young democracy advocates crushed by tanks in 1989? Do you think the average Burmese supports the ruling junta? Is Chinese occupation popular with the average Tibetan?"

First of all, you haven't demonstrated how this point applies to North Vietnam vs South Vietnam, whose military power were about equal. Moreoer, South Vietnam's overall military capacity was actually greater than North Vietnam's, had the South Vietnamese rallied behing Saigon against Hanoi. So your initial point is actually irrelevant. In addition, you haven't explained why the South Vietnamese didn't continue with guerilla warfare against the North Vietnamese after the fall of Saigon, considering how a substantial portion of the South Vietnamese populace engaged in guerilla warfare against the US, whose military was at least a little bit stronger than the mighty forces of North Vietnam.

Moreover, what are the long term prospects for the survival of the current regimes in Beijing and in Rangoon? The hatred and dissatisfaction that these regimes have sown is growing and growing. There will come a time when these regimes grow too weak to put their people down, and once that happens, they are doomed, just as the Warsaw Pact Communist regimes were.

Posted by eltoro | November 9, 2007 3:40 PM

Henderstock:

"Moreover, I'd add that he doesn't stop at nuanced approval of military activity in Iraq, but seems to swallow the Bush program whole--permanent war, permanent detention, rendition, torture, etc.--and appears to believe that Democrats who don't buy into that program are committing political suicide."

"seems" "appears" Is this true, though? Do you have any links to back this up?

Anyway, the Democrats surrendered on waterboarding (Looking at you Feinstein & Schumer!) and warrantless wiretapping.

Posted by Peter K. | November 9, 2007 3:48 PM

"You can kill ten of our men for every one we kill of yours. But even at those odds, you will lose and we will win." -- Ho Chi Minh

we defended free Europe to prevent further Soviet expansion there

Other than Afghanistan, where did the Soviet Union expand after the end of World War II? (They'd already conquered Eastern Europe and installed puppet governments.)

Posted by croatoan | November 9, 2007 3:56 PM

"Surely you don't think the U.S. military had nothing to do with the Soviets' defeat in the Cold War, which enabled Hungary and other Soviet satellites to become independent?"

I didn't say that the US military had nothing to do with the defeat of the Soviets. I said that we achieved this without engaging in an open-ended military intervention in Vietnam after 1973. That is, we no longer inserted our military forces into combat in this arena after 1973. In fact, I would argue that had we continued to militarily intervene in Vietnam, we would have been bled dry militarily and economically, the way the Soviets were in Afghanistan. Haven't you noticed that in Vietnam, where we sent in our own troops while the Soviets supplied their proxies, our military efforts were unsuccessful, while in Afghanistan, where the Soviets sent in their troops and we supplied our proxies, our military efforts were successful?

In addition, the Soviet involvement in Afghanistan was one of the factors that made them too weak to compete with the US in the arms race buildup of the 80s. In other words, the renewed arms race played directly to our strengths, and directly to their weaknesses, without the loss of our blood and treasure, while there were losing blood and treasure in Afghanistan. Staying in an open-ended military intervention in Vietnam, however, would played directly to our weaknesses and to the Soviets' strengths, without them losing blood and treasure in Vietnam.

Yet again, your points do nothing to support your case for trying to prop up the Saigon regime in perpetuity through military action. If anything, they support an opposite case. We should have allowed Hanoi to overthrow the Saigon regime sooner, and then supplied an indigenous anti-Communist guerilla movement against the former Hanoi regime. If this resulted in Red Army troops being sent to Vietnam to be shot by our proxies, it would have been even more of a win-win for the US.

Therefore, your case for trying to establish a South Korea in South Vietnam falls flat.

Posted by eltoro | November 9, 2007 4:04 PM

Analogies are always imperfect, but the Korea/Iraq one holds up pretty well.

Attempting to differentiate because we invaded Iraq while North Korea invaded the South doesn't really work. The genesis of the war was the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait--every single one of the Security Council sessions, right up to the passage of 1441 in 2002, were convened with "On the matter of Iraq and Kuwait". This can only be accurately seen as one extended conflict--the intervening twelve years were chock full of attempts to bring the conflict to a reasonable resolution, including the no-fly zones and marine intercept operations supporting the sanctions that killed perhaps a million of the most vulnerable (and innocent) Iraqis while tightening Saddam's grip on power and enriching his collaborators. And Lieberman's bloodthirsty? All you de facto Saddam supporters are even worse--killing Iraqis to no useful purpose was not a problem as long as we did it by remote control. I fail to see how this was morally superior to putting our own lives on the line to protect rank and file Iraqis from Saddam's terrorist successors.

Posted by Robert Powell | November 9, 2007 4:44 PM

Lieberman is a Likudnik Zionist- he doesn't give a damn about America, our soldiers, anything like that. The idea that he gets a free pass on this- that he gets to pretend he's some sort of Patriot says more about the current state of our political culture than anything. And, the thing about JFK is that he had a great capacity for growth, for reassessing the fundamentals of Cold War hysteria. Otherwise, why fire Allen Dulles, why forestall another invasion of Cuba?

Posted by Trevor | November 9, 2007 5:09 PM

"I fail to see how this was morally superior to putting our own lives on the line to protect rank and file Iraqis from Saddam's terrorist successors."

Robert Powell,

Are our military efforts in Iraq actually doing this? Part of what drives the dynamic of war in Iraq is that the US military occupation encourages both Sunni and Shiite militias to engage in violence against our military, which causes the death of many rank and file Iraqi civilians in the process. In addition, our military responses to such attacks, particularly when they rely on clumsy tactics like aerial bombing, succeed in killing even more rank and file Iraqis in the process, in the name of defending rank and file Iraqis from being killed.

In addition, when the Sunni insurgency began (under the direction of Saddam's terrorist successors), we armed and aided the Shiite militias who support the Bagdhad government. Many of these Shiite militias took this opportunity to engage in ethnic cleansing of rank and file Sunni Iraqis. Moreover, when the surge began earlier this year, we began adopting the tactic of getting many of the Sunni insurgents to side with us against the foreign Jihadist Al Qaeda operatives in Iraq. The price we had to pay to these former Baathishts and terrorist successors of Saddam was to give them money and arms, which they can use in the future against rank and file SHIITE Iraqis. Meanwhile, the Shiite militias will use the weapons and training we gave them against the rank and file SUNNI Iraqis.
Our ill-conceived occupation of Iraq unleashed a vicious sectarian civil war that is destroying the lives and society of rank and file Iraqis. No useful purpose is served by this, and yet you want to tout about how moral our continued occupation of Iraq is compared to our containment efforts before the 2003 invasion.

Posted by eltoro | November 9, 2007 5:19 PM

"Lieberman's big intellectual flaw is that he does not understand that for every action there is a reaction..."

Yeah, but what are the consequences for HIM?

None.

Same for Bush and Cheney and the rest of the war profiteers.

So why shouldn't they preach war all the time?

When the US public starts making politicians PAY for their corruption, maybe then things will get better.

Email me when this happens.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | November 10, 2007 1:42 AM

eltoro--first, it's painfully evident that administration errors have made a reasonable conclusion in Iraq more difficult and expensive to achieve than it had to be. Not all of your statements above are strictly accurate, but no reasonable person would deny that we've been ham-fisted, to say the least.

That said, the Ba'athist regime killed about a million people with its invasion of Iran; about 250,000 Kurds and a probably greater number of Shi'ites in campaigns of repression; 300,000 Kuwaitis; virtually all of the Marsh Arabs, along with the ecosystem that had supported them for millenia; and an indeterminate, but surely quite large, number of generic Iraqis in routine police state operations. The current power struggle, which was inevitable in some form given the magnitude of the prize, requires a role for the US for its satisfactory resolution. The casualties are tragic and regrettable, especially to the extent that many may have been unnecessary given better leadership, but we have no responsible option but to persevere. It's a vital interest of the Iraqi people, the US, and the entire world community.

Posted by Robert Powell | November 10, 2007 3:28 AM

"The current power struggle, which was inevitable in some form given the magnitude of the prize, requires a role for the US for its satisfactory resolution. The casualties are tragic and regrettable, especially to the extent that many may have been unnecessary given better leadership, but we have no responsible option but to persevere."

What role should our troops perform? In the short-term, our troops are doing a great job in restoring some order to Iraq (although we need to remember that there is a long way to go before Iraq is restored to the level of order it needs to be functional). Moreover, the military has been very effective at getting the Sunnis to root out and destroy Al Qaeda. However, the troops have not been able to quell the sectarian civil war dyanmic that is going on. In fact, our current alliances with the Sunni agaoinst Al Qaeda has the consequence of making the Sunnis even more capable of waging war against the Shiites. So when Al Qaeda is destroyed in Iraq, what will our troops do next. Does our military have the capacity to keep the various side in the civil war from killing each other, and serve as a neutral peacekeeper until our a political reconciliation takes place in 2,3, 4, 5, 10, 20, 50 years? Should our military actually take sides in the sectarian civil war, and became a participant against either the Sunnis or the Shiites, even it results in our troops helping to carry out ethnic cleansing? Maybe the more responsible thing would to withdraw the bulk of our troops, since the presence of our troops provides the Bagdhad government with no incentive to work vigorously toward a political reconciliation?

What can our troops actually do that will make a difference in ending the sectarian civil war, or is this a role that our troops are ill-suited to performing?

Posted by eltoro | November 10, 2007 11:38 AM

waverable heteroecismal misprizer sponging telegenic quadrinomical saccharous hemoproctia
http://groups.msn.com/theAwiccaning >The Awiccaning
http://cnn.com/ASIANOW/east/9909/26/taiwan.quake.01/index.html

Posted by Gabrielle Salazar | November 21, 2007 11:06 PM