Most readers of Reason (I've been one for years) would reject being labelled as "left" out of hand. And, oddly, most of those who call themselves "left" call Reason readers -- dominated by libertarians -- "ultra-right" or "ultra-conservative."
And both are equally erroneous descriptions. While the average libertarian may often agree with conservatives on matters of state v. market, they will profoundly disagree on matters of individual morality and freedom; and while they'll agree with the lefties on certain matters of individual rights, they'll vehemently disagree with them on economic and political planning.
The very notion that beliefs can be easily be reduced to a one-dimensional distinction between "left" and "right" is profoundly flawed. One that, were
this guy writing today, he'd likely decry.
I don't think of NSD as a leftie (though I often think of him as "wrong") and I don't think of Cheesey as a rightie (though I often think of him as "wrong", too).
I find here that I'm disagreeing with both of you this time, but not because I am "in the middle".
I disagree with Cheesey because I think NSD is right about what
we really have to fear from Iran. We Americans, individually or as a country, just aren't in that kind of danger.
Sure, there are Iranians who hate us and go on youtube to make us aware of it. But you can't destroy a nation of 300 million souls with a youtube, or even with a couple suitcase nukes. Yeah, the prospect of a couple more 9/11's is chilling, but it isn't enough to make it worth take sides in any tribal war.
And that's what Israel vs. whoever is. Nothing more than a tribal war between barbarian tribes.
Put it this way: immediately after 9/11, one often heard refrains with a "Never Again!" sort of sentiment. In my opinion such thinking is extremely dangerous, and our collective toleration of the tyranny called the Patriot Act proves it.
"Never again" should be reserved to true Holocaust-level actions -- things like ethnic cleansing and the killing fields and, yes, the Holocaust itself. Not to actions that blow up a couple big buildings and kill the equivalent of a small city.
If one's perspective is the 300 million or "the nation", it's just bad policy to try to prevent every wrong.
Which leads me to why I don't stand fully with NSD here, either. I don't think national policy should be made based on our fears of terrorist groups or individuals, be they Al-Qaeda or Tim McVeigh. But I do think the story changes if what we are talking about is state-sponsored terrorism.
Because when states get involved in the terrorist process, the true Holocausts can occur. In fact, ALL of the holocausts have come because states were involved and giving sanction to the terrorist activity. The original Reign of Terror took place under the aegis of the Committee on Public Safety. (Like so many bad ideas, state-sponsored terrorism was a French innovation?) The Holocaust was sanctioned by the German state, and acceded to by others for years. The killing fields -- the Khmer Rouge. The harvest of sorrow -- the USSR. And so on and so on and so one. Yeah, Osama did the nasty to several thousand. State sponsored terrorism has killed tens, perhaps hundreds of millions.
So I can see the possibility that it might be necessary to worry about Iran's ability to sponsor terrorism. (Not whether Irani citizens or fanatics might, but whether the Irani state might.) Though if you want to worry about state-sponsored terrorism, I'd be a lot more worried about Saudi Arabia and *its* resources being brought to bear for the bad guys than I'd ever be about the Iran and its resources.
But if I'm truly worried about a terrorist state, I'm not going to mess around with all the usual approaches of the late twentieth century. I'm not going to worry about political niceties and world antipathy toward imperialism/colonialism etc. I'm going to go in the way the USA eventually went into WWI and its Reconstruction -- for the duration until the bastards are dead or glowing and doing things the way civilized people did.
The Iranians, the Israelis, the whoevers, they're not going to get "control" back until they do like the Japanese and the Germans did and get civilized and *they* say "Never again."
But you see, this is why, even though I might be okay with US "adventurism" in many places that NSD would not, I can't agree with Cheesey either.
Because there simply is no way the USA has to itself worry about Iran committing a Holocaust-level attack against it. Even if we somehow abolished Foster's beloved Corps, the rest of the US military, and the American people, would stomp them like a bug if they tried.
If there's a Holocaust possibility, its only because one tribe in the Middle East is interested in committing it against another.
Now that might be the case. There is that "thousands of years of history" thing, after all.
But if we are to get involved, the only possibly legitimate moral grounds for doing so must be in preventing such a Holocaust. Not in making the world "safe for democracy" or similar claptrap. But in making the world democratic. A very different thing
Unless and until America is willing to make that latter claim -- and deal with the heat that it will bring down on them -- they should stay out. Let the tribes beat the crap out of each other. Recognize that occasional a loose crazy from one of the tribes might cross over the ocean. But don't build this edifice of "political need" for the "nation" in some other vague way.
I keep coming back to Orwell. The essay linked was written in 1946. Like much of Orwell's writing, it wasn't particularly well received, either by those people like to call "left" or those people like to call "right."
But it was even more prescient than his more famous novels. Because, as he pointed out to his British readership, the long run dangers faced were not the language distortions and sins of Hitler and Goebbels. The long run dangers were the ones that when free and good men played loose and imprecise and vague with their words.
As Orwell put it, political speech becomes "largely the defence of the indefensible."
In my opinion the greatest danger we face is not this or that politician, it's not even the "government" that I love to rail about. The greatest danger is our lack of detailed attention to our language. Orwell said that "the worst thing one can do with words is surrender to them"; I fear that we may have already done so.
And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.
Romans 12:2 (NKJV)